1% Gained 82% of 2017 Wealth Created

[Martin Hash]

Question for MH: How do you reallocate wealth that few created into the hands of everyone without killing the incentive to create wealth?

??? What world do you live in? After the first few $million, everything else is keeping score. Think before Reagan, he started this whole spiral.

What? Why not JFK?

Reaganomics. (Weren't you there? I distinctly remember you being there.)

[Martin Hash]

I live in a world where people don’t tend to invest time, effort, or labor in risky ventures that promise little to no reward if successful and ruin if not.

Earth, I believe, is what they call this planet.

I just say it like it is. Maybe your deductive powers are greater than mine, maybe you have better insight, I don't know? I'm only going to suffer if this thing comes down.

[DBTrek]

To the victor goes the spoils, or to society goes the spoils?

That’s where you lost me. If the victor gets the spoils then I understand people/companies taking risks, making investments, gambling on innovations, etc.

If society is splitting up the spoils, then I don’t see what motivates people to take the risks. I mean, who is out there right now busting their hump so that 300 million strangers might have it better next year?

/shrug

[Martin Hash]

To the victor goes the spoils, or to society goes the spoils?

That’s where you lost me. If the victor gets the spoils then I understand people/companies taking risks, making investments, gambling on innovations, etc.

If society is splitting up the spoils, then I don’t see what motivates people to take the risks. I mean, who is out there right now busting their hump so that 300 million strangers might have it better next year?

/shrug

Okay, so you say it goes on forever, and I say The 99% switches us to collectivism. I'm rich, I'll be okay either way but you need to get on the stick.

[clubgop]

To the victor goes the spoils, or to society goes the spoils?

That’s where you lost me. If the victor gets the spoils then I understand people/companies taking risks, making investments, gambling on innovations, etc.

If society is splitting up the spoils, then I don’t see what motivates people to take the risks. I mean, who is out there right now busting their hump so that 300 million strangers might have it better next year?

/shrug

Okay, so you say it goes on forever, and I say The 99% switches us to collectivism. I'm rich, I'll be okay either way but you need to get on the stick.

How can you say either way you'll be ok when your whole argument says rich people have to give away thier shit lest they adorn lamppost?

[DBTrek]

I’m just enjoying a Thomas Sowell book and trying to figure out where his analysis of economics is wrong.

You can redistribute if you want. A little redistribution will probably only lead to a little disencentive for risk taking. A lot of redistribution should pretty much kill it.

So how far do you want to turn that dial? Half way? A third? A fifth? What?

I’m just the guy with the lowly BS degree here, you’re the rich guy with the PhDs. What’s the answer? I think Sowell makes a strong argument for allocating resources with maximum efficiency which means a minimum of meddling from bureaucrats. But he could be wrong. If so, why?

[heydaralon]

How were Biker Gangs able to get 82% of the total wealth of the largest economy on Earth? I knew those 1%ers were tough based on their patches, but running meth and guns must be a huge moneymaker. In order to get that patch, new pledges to the MC have to set up a hesge fund that gets a fed bailout.

[The Conservative]

Is the argument that the cash register jockeys at Walmart didn’t get a fair portion of the wealth *they* created returned to them?

Did you use the word "fair"?

Fairness has nothing to do with it. You either sign up for an aristocracy or wealth needs to be redistributed, there's no other option.

You do realize that the Walmart cashiers are part of the worlds 1% right?

[Martin Hash]

I’m just enjoying a Thomas Sowell book and trying to figure out where his analysis of economics is wrong.

You can redistribute if you want. A little redistribution will probably only lead to a little disencentive for risk taking. A lot of redistribution should pretty much kill it.

So how far do you want to turn that dial? Half way? A third? A fifth? What?

I’m just the guy with the lowly BS degree here, you’re the rich guy with the PhDs. What’s the answer? I think Sowell makes a strong argument for allocating resources with maximum efficiency which means a minimum of meddling from bureaucrats. But he could be wrong. If so, why?

People don’t stop giving it their all because they only get $250K instead of a $million, and they certainly won’t slow down because they’re only getting $10 million instead of $100. After the first few mil the rest is scorekeeping. Change the prize to how many businesses you run, or how inspirational your business is (think Musk & Jobs) and ambitous people will aim for that.

10,000 people are available for every $250K job; it’s just luck of the person who got one.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Prof GCF told me wealth creation is a myth

No, you're right. 99% of the wealth just appeared, thanks to hard work and bootstrap-pulling. Doesn't affect anyone, really.