81–90 of 186 posts
I wonder what he would think with all the liberal politically-correct crap going on today when we're forcing our little flowers to go into STEM programs against their will, or borrowing gobs of cash for a piece of paper saying they're degreed in art history. WTF have we become?
And the waste of time called the internet.
Our credit card driven culture could certainly use his advice on avoiding debt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is the correct answer. When you spend money, it doesn't disappear. It's just moved.
Yes, but the goods it can buy on the next round of division still don't come from the spendthrift vagabond, and if his way of life is incentivized while the producers' is disincentivized by this redistribution, then that circulation won't continue so innocuously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't disagree with you, but I think you're reading something into the quote which isn't there. The moral is that redistribution won't bring prosperity - not that it's good in some cases and bad in others. At the risk of adding more complexity to the parable than its pithiness merits for the sake of explanation (as I understand it): the spendthrift wholly consumes whatever he produces, and wants more. The produc…
> The moral is that redistribution won't bring prosperity Except that it does - up to a certain point. That's one of the few repeatable, tested, and validated economical principle from the XX century. Counter intuitive as it is, there's just no point denying it.
I love this part: The poor spendthrift vagabond says to a rich man: "I have discovered there is enough money in the world for all of us, if it was equally divided; this must be done, and we shall all be happy together." "But," was the response, "if everybody was like you, it would be spent in two months, and what would you do then?" "Oh! divide again; keep dividing, of course!"
I know a lot of people from my circles, especially older people in the late 50's and 60's who have spent their lives in the socialist era endlessly expect elder brothers/relatives to provide for them. Any refusal to do so is taken to amount to some extremely bad kind of selfishness and greed. Keep alone the fact that they've barely done any work all their lives, or are any way serious even now with their spending habits. The basic idea is that they are entitled to be provided no questions asked and someone is supposed to make up for them. Refusing to comply is evil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if the money was to be spent. Half our problem is the extra cash moving towards the 1% is held, not spent, not circulated.
What is the other half?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An obtuse mischaracterization of the poor Why do you think it's a characterization of the poor at all? Circulation goes both ways and it isn't the ability of producers to secure profits that seems to be most endangered at the moment. The working poor are themselves producers.
> Why do you think it's a characterization of the poor at all? Because they're the ones who the type of policy we are discussing would actually be intended to benefit. Voicing that side of the argument through a "spendthrift vagabond" is disingenuous at best. > The working poor are themselves producers. I was using the term with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, I thought it would be clear enough from context tha…
No. To be a spendthrift is a symptom of many problems. One of which means lack of respect for money or the effort required to earn it. Other wise one wouldn't be throwing it away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't show that to the Universal Basic Income diehards...
UBI just lifts the wealth distribution curve up a bit so the long tail approaches something above zero. You could also call it a "tax prebate" as in the FairTax proposal if that's more palatable. The poorest poor are going to get their basic necessities somehow, whether it's by participating in the economy or by digging through your garbage or your garage.
I live in a society that has in effect a basic income (not very efficiently run, but that is another topic) and it allows the ultra rich and famous to walk around without fear. I have on more than one occasion met billionaires on the street who were wandering around without bodyguards or security. Once you have everything money can buy this is priceless.
Our credit card driven culture could certainly use his advice on avoiding debt.
If you don't understand it, then yes, you should avoid it. But if you do understand it, you can use it to help yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't disagree with you, but I think you're reading something into the quote which isn't there. The moral is that redistribution won't bring prosperity - not that it's good in some cases and bad in others. At the risk of adding more complexity to the parable than its pithiness merits for the sake of explanation (as I understand it): the spendthrift wholly consumes whatever he produces, and wants more. The produc…
> The moral is that redistribution won't bring prosperity Except that it does - up to a certain point. That's one of the few repeatable, tested, and validated economical principle from the XX century. Counter intuitive as it is, there's just no point denying it.