Tag Archives: MC1973

2017-Apr-04

[JR: A response from Kuhn, Rob (MC1973)]

Hi John …

My replies interspersed with yours:

JR: In a truly free market, cooperation yields “certificates of appreciation”.
RK: I don’t understand that. Frankly, it sounds like obfuscation.

[JR: No most people don’t see that the ONLY way to get money in truly free market is to serve the needs of our fellow human. Greed forces us to cooperate. Only the Crony Capitalists use Gooferment to get rich without serving anyone but themselves.]  

JR: If all those “certificates” end up in a few hands, then won’t it induce more cooperation? For example, Bill Gates doesn’t sit on a pile of “certificates” but uses them as he sees fit to express his appreciation to others. Laugh!
RK: Gates, together with his wife, is very magnanimous with his wealth. Still, because you’re right that he distributes it as he sees fit, not a lot “trickles down” to folks in the American middle class who could benefit.

[JR: Eventually, Gates “rewards” people who he appreciates with “his” certificates. Eventually “certificates” make the world go round.]  

JR: I believe it’s only when the Gooferment get involved does the “wealth distribution” suddenly become a big issue. That and many of “We, The Sheeple” are induced to be jealous and envious of those “lucky few”.
RK: I think a lot of Trump supporters would dispute that with you. They were out of work, out of money and felt “forgotten,” not unlucky. Government just tends to focus people’s views – not create them.

[JR: I don’t care WHAT the Trump supporters think. Looking to the President — any President — to solve YOUR problems merely perpetuates the myth that folks can only get ahead if the Gooferment helps. Gooferment does more than “focus”; it causes the problem and them “solves” them and creates more problems. That people look to the Gooferment to “fix”. Argh! It’s the closest thing I’ve ever seen to a perpetual motion machine. And, politicians and bureaucrats get rich off this illusion.]  

<<< interrupting for a quote >>>

This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. — Morpheus in the Matrix (1999)

<<< now back to the dialogue >>>

JR: We have “raised” generations of “welfare farmers” and “Crony Capitalists” who live off the Gooferment dole. That’s our current problem, imho.
RK: Are you counting the corporations that receive enormous subsidies, tax breaks, and other benefits they often get to write into legislation themselves through the auspices of lobbyists?

[JR: Of course, they are a big part of our current problem.]  

JR: The Pope’s message is socialism which emasculates the human desire to improve.
RK: Because if you count the corporations, this charge against the Pope must be softened. And the “emasculation” (maybe “diminishment” would have been a better gender-neutral word) of desire to improve can just as easily be reached simply by being deprived of the opportunity to work (or to earn a living income). In fact, more than a diminished desire to improve might result — the complete loss of will to live can take hold.

[JR: Us fat old white guy injineers don’t parse words. NO, no, no. By saying “deprived of the opportunity to work” you’re letting the victims off the hook of their own making. The “opportunity to work” is always all around them. They just don’t see it or let the Gooferment seduce them into thinking it’s not there. Look at the immigrants, who come here dirt poor and not knowing the language, and the next thing you know they are doing well. If not wealthy! Argh!]  

JR: Like “don’t feed the bears” in the national parks, “don’t feed the hungry”. Not to starve them, but to incentivize them. Give them opportunity. Don’t kill them with the “kindness” of the Gooferment dole. IMHO!
RK: I agree people need opportunity, as I just said. It seems to me, though, that concentration of wealth acts to remove opportunity. The free market does as well — for instance taking advantage of every available opportunity to increase bottom-line profit for investors, even at the expense of the workforce. Before long, automation will increasingly deny people who are perfectly willing to work the opportunity to do so. But, I don’t think the Pope has approached that topic, specifically, yet.

[JR: I misspoke. Don’t “give” them opportunity. Show them where it is and let them “take” it. Argh! (I’m frustrated.) The free market LETS every worker earn as much wealth as the value he provides to the marketplace. I’ve yet to see an employer cut at the expense of the workforce where that workforce was earning that employer more than it cost. It’d be stupid. And, the free market, allows workers to take their labor elsewhere if they feel abused. I’ve seen Burger King and McD’s “bid” for workers against each other. But the soiled rotten kids in my neighborhood don’t have to to work because Mommy and Daddy paradigms and memesper them. Yet I see minorities walking a mile from the bus stop to get to those jobs in all sorts of weather. I often give them a lift. And, they can’t speak English. The opportunities are there if people want them.]  

# – # – # – # – # 

[JR: Hope this was entertaining. I’m just a fat old white guy injineer who sees the world differently. Argh! You should really listen to Tom Woods or Jason Stapleton or read Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell who are more skillful at explaining it.]  

# – # – # – # – #  2017-Apr-04 @ 21:25  

2017-Mar-28

Hi John … I’m not sure I was expressing a theory about how “wealth is distributed.” I think you are interpreting that as being an activity, whereas I was stating that it is a necessary result. Whatever wealth exists at any given time exists somewhere; it has somehow been “distributed” into those places. I think you are more concerned with how it gets there — and you object to the term “distributed” as a descriptor of that action. But even if we start from your preferred premise of two-way satisfaction of a commercial transaction, the predominant method of exchange involves currency. And when “too much” (my subjective choice of words) currency resides in too few places, it seems to me that viable opportunities for mutually satisfactory commerce become fewer. And since it is a numbers game, if you imagine “wealth” moving toward mathematical limits of ownership concentration, then it seems to me that stagnation of commerce — and possibly the death of economies and the people who survive in them — goes hand in hand with that. So, is the Pope’s message not pro-life then? Rob 

# – # – #

Kuhn, Rob (MC1973)

[JR: In a truly free market, cooperation yields “certificates of appreciation”. If all those “certificates” end up in a few hands, then won’t it induce more cooperation? For example, Bill Gates doesn’t sit on a pile of “certificates” but uses them as he sees fit to express his appreciation to others. Laugh! I believe it’s only when the Gooferment get involved does the “wealth distribution” suddenly become a big issue. That and many of “We, The Sheeple” are induced to be jealous and envious of those “lucky few”. We have “raised” generations of “welfare farmers” and “Crony Capitalists” who live off the Gooferment dole. That’s our current problem, imho. The Pope’s message is socialism which emasculates the human desire to improve. Like “don’t feed the bears” in the national parks, “don’t feed the hungry”. Not to starve them, but to incentivize them. Give them opportunity. Don’t kill them with the “kindness” of the Gooferment dole. IMHO!]  

# – # – # – # – #  2017-Mar-28 @ 13:29  

2017-Mar-19

John …

The Pope isn’t discussing (big-E) economics, he’s discussing morality … and (small-c) catholic morality at that. My gut tells me that Economics is chiefly misunderstood by economists. It may only be the “dismal” science (if, indeed, a science at all) due to the quality of its scientists.

Tell me this: Do the so-called “laws” of supply and demand function precisely the same when wealth is distributed more or less equally across the population and when it is largely controlled by a small percentage of people?

It seems logical that “demand” is influenced by ability to pay, which is not equal in both the scenarios I mention.

Of course, I AM factually ignorant of basic economic principles, but I have got a moral foundation, built long ago out of (large-C) Catholicism. I guess the church finds itself in a position analogous to that of the English language, with descriptivism (based on how it’s used = popular morality in religion) and prescriptivism (analysis of how it should be used = dogma in religion ).

Oddly, I tend to be prescriptivist with language, but — apparently — descriptivist with whatever vestiges of Catholicism I am still making use of.

Cheers,
Rob

Kuhn, Rob (MC1973)

# – # – # – # – # 

Well, Rob, first let me cite my credentials.

Remember the sources of my education! I’m just a fat old white guy retired injineer who’d now a poor old senior citizen on a fixed income with:
* Law “degree” from watching Judge Judy;
* Medical “degree” from watching Doctor Phil;
* Building “degree” from watching “Holmes on Homes”;
* Investing “degree” from reading about Bernie Made-off;
* Finance “degree”from listening to Ric Edelman;
* Learned to sensitively manage Human Resources from watching Chef Ramsey; and
* Learned about creating loving / caring human relationships from studying the movie roles of Gunny Ronald Lee Ermey

Notice there is no “credential” about economics, if there was it’d be:

“Economics “degree” from reading Murry Rothfarb, Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, and Lew Rockwell. Also following the Ludwig von Mises Institute. I’m probably the only fat old white guy injineer who’s read “Man, Economy, and State”. That thanks to the USAf confining me in San Angelo Texas for a few months.

I’ll take a swing at your question if it’s not rhetorical. (Hence the length.)

I don’t believe “wealth is distributed”. I do believe that we observe the “distribution of wealth” as we would snowfall. That distribution is directly attributable to the human effort to satisfy our fellow humans (i.e., I satisfy you and you give me “certificates of appreciation”. The sum of those you’re calling “wealth”.)

You’re positing that the “Law of Supply and Demand” varies based on the “distribution”. I don’t think that it does, because I don’t believe in your “distribution” theory. 

Now you’ve exceeded my meager abilities. And, I’ll pass this along to some heavier hitters than me.

I do think the Pope is talking “economics” and not “morality”. But again that’s an opinion.

# – # – # – # – #  2017-Mar-19 @ 17:23  

2017-Jan-11

Just wanted to say:  Wonderful beginning and ending to this week’s Jottings!