Occupy George

You seem to be claiming that these people actually create jobs. That they have some magical power, or even non-magical power. Some economic something. Some accumen. Whatever. You are saying jobs were created and these people are responsible. Great. If that is the case, may I ask "Why have the stopped now?"

It turns out that jobs are actually created most by small businesses.

http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html

If you're not mad you're not paying attention.

This lies near the crux of the widespread belief that wealth merely lets you buy more stuff.

Currency is the formalization of power, which is intrinsically relative: you have more power when the people near you have less.

Imagine a village of 10 people, where 9 have $20k in wealth and one has $80k. This relative difference in capital allows the wealthy person to earn more than 4x more income. This means he can easily outbid everyone else for, say, the choicest cuts of meat at the deli; the best investment opportunities; the dinner with a visiting performer; the nicest house on the block; the flattering stares of the village's prettiest dame.

Let's pretend a car costs $90k, so that it's not affordable to any one person in the village. One day, a car manufacturer contacts Mr. 80k to ask him whether he thinks his village would be a good place for a marketing stunt in which everyone was given a $90k car, which they could choose to sell if they really wanted to. Since this is a small village in a big economy, it's not as though all this extra wealth will cause serious inflation. The question is, how should Mr. 80k respond?

If Mr. 80k is a homebody only interested in absolute wealth -- having more things for him to play with on his own -- then he should go for it! He'll finally have a car!

But it might be in his interest to say "no": sure, at $170k he'll still be the richest, but now the ratio of his wealth to the wealth of his friends will have gone from 4x to 1.5x. Could this have a materially negative effect on his current standard of living and his economic security?

Well for one, while he'll be able to afford better investments, there will be more people to compete with for them. If everyone has a car then Mr. 170k will no longer be able to loan out his horse and buggy in exchange for favors and status. The previously receptive dame might start to notice Mr. 170k's bald spot, and spend more time staring at a younger prospect. When the local celebrity comes to village, Mr. 170k will have to bid higher to taken them to dinner. Mr. 170k will no longer be a crucial lynchpin of local politics, so the village alderman might no longer call on him as often. And Mr $170k will no longer be treated with the same reverence while on his evening walks as he had previously received.

So while Mr. 170k could nearly double his wealth, if the marketing promotion were to happen, Mr. 80k might perceive the decline in relative status as costing him far more.

So, no: depending on the kind of rich person you are, you might prefer for other people to stay poor. Unethical and immoral? Maybe. Rational? Certainly.

You responded with a statement that the bankers did not do so, and that in fact the politicians had caused the damage, and then blamed the bankers. A direct contradiction of my assertion.

You are now claiming that "of course the analogy is flawed". No sir. The analogy was effective. It was the logical conclusion that you made using the analogy that was wrong, and you now admit so.

I stand by my analogy. Our economic system has been rooted.

How to fix it? How can we do that, when the people writing the laws are the ones who would be jailed by them?