Wealth distribution in the US

[Sheilbh]

Is there a just way of making them the same?

I should have clarified I don't mean equal in wealth necessarily, but in worth, status and dignity. Wealth's a part of that, but only a part.

I don't quite see how a belief that ability and effort should necessarily be rewarded necessarily leads to a Randian indifference to those less fortunate and productive.

We've centuries of history grinding poverty and utter indifference based on the erroneous belief that 'God made them high and lowly and ordered their estate'. Similarly Randian indifference doesn't even begin to cover the views and policies towards blacks in the deep South, which was again based on a mistaken belief.

I can't think of many examples that would make me trust mankind's compassion if, actually, social position did reflect your productivity and genuine worth to society.

What about the idea did the writer find so objectionable?

I've explained that.

[DGuller]

I'm sure the rich would still prefer to live in a country with a rule of law, rather than in 1990ies Russia, and that they would be willing to pay quite a bit more money for that choice (obviously in absolute amounts, but even in relative amounts) than an average peon.

Make your case.

It's fairly self-evident to me.  In 1990ies Russia, you could relatively easily become rich from out of nothing.  Unfortunately, you could just as easily lose your fortune or your life once you did make it rich.  Easy come, easy go.  That's why a lot of Russian billionaires choose to move themselves and their assets to Britain before the second part happens (they're unlikely to be killed outright nowadays, but they can still lose their political protection, and without political protection your wealth has a very limited lifespan).

If you're relatively poor and relatively risk-seeking, you may actually not mind moving from US to 1990ies Russia.  On the other hand, if you're Bill Gates, you would probably pay tens of billions to avoid that fate.

[frunk]

Can they privatize patent defense?

Theoretically.  They could hire goons to break the knees of everyone who infringes on a patent.  I doubt that would be good use of resources however.

Which is my point.  Yes they can afford private security better than the middle class, but it's still way more expensive (and less versatile) than even a progressive tax and effective rule of law.

[Sheilbh]

Which is my point.  Yes they can afford private security better than the middle class, but it's still way more expensive (and less versatile) than even a progressive tax and effective rule of law.

And to be honest the sort of wealthy people we have in the US and the UK thrive from a stable market economy, which is in very large part sustained by those higher taxes and the rule of law. The sort of person who becomes and stays rich and the way they do it is rather different in, say, 90s Russia.

[Admiral Yi]

It's fairly self-evident to me.  In 1990ies Russia, you could relatively easily become rich from out of nothing.  Unfortunately, you could just as easily lose your fortune or your life once you did make it rich.  Easy come, easy go.  That's why a lot of Russian billionaires choose to move themselves and their assets to Britain before the second part happens (they're unlikely to be killed outright nowadays, but they can still lose their political protection, and without political protection your wealth has a very limited lifespan).

If you're relatively poor and relatively risk-seeking, you may actually not mind moving from US to 1990ies Russia.  On the other hand, if you're Bill Gates, you would probably pay tens of billions to avoid that fate.

Disagree for a number of reasons.  First of all, your description of the path to riches in Wild West Russia doesn't sound right.  Yes, a nobody could become rich overnight, but generally they were well-connected nobodies that managed to acquire control over recently privatized state industries and then fucked over minority shareholders.

Secondly, Russia by no stretch of the imagination qualifies as anarchy.  The state is very powerful.  Bill Gates could easily lose all his money in Russia, but not to the mob breaking into his mansion, rather to whims of the state.

Bill Gates would do much, much better in Somalia than you or I would.

[DGuller]

Which is my point.  Yes they can afford private security better than the middle class, but it's still way more expensive (and less versatile) than even a progressive tax and effective rule of law.

And to be honest the sort of wealthy people we have in the US and the UK thrive from a stable market economy, which is in very large part sustained by those higher taxes and the rule of law. The sort of person who becomes and stays rich and the way they do it is rather different in, say, 90s Russia.

Yes, that's another good point.

[Admiral Yi]

Which is my point.  Yes they can afford private security better than the middle class, but it's still way more expensive (and less versatile) than even a progressive tax and effective rule of law.

But that's not the argument you're making.  You said (I rephrased it) the rich would *disproptionately* seek to avoid anarchy.  I.e. Bill Gates would happily give 9/10 of his wealth to avoid anarchy whereas you and I would only give half.  I'm arguing the opposite, that you and I would be willing to give 99% whereas Bill would give maybe half, because you and I would be fooked and Bill would make do.

[Sheilbh]

Bill Gates would be dead if he'd been competing in 90s Russia, even with all his money.

[frunk]

Which is my point.  Yes they can afford private security better than the middle class, but it's still way more expensive (and less versatile) than even a progressive tax and effective rule of law.

But that's not the argument you're making.  You said (I rephrased it) the rich would *disproptionately* seek to avoid anarchy.  I.e. Bill Gates would happily give 9/10 of his wealth to avoid anarchy whereas you and I would only give half.  I'm arguing the opposite, that you and I would be willing to give 99% whereas Bill would give maybe half, because you and I would be fooked and Bill would make do.

I would not be willing to give 99%, because if I gave 99% I'd be destitute anyway.  I'll have no reason to support the current system because the system is taking everything I am making.  My threshold for percentage of my income that I can lose to taxes and still survive comfortably is way lower than Bill Gates.

[DGuller]

Disagree for a number of reasons.  First of all, your description of the path to riches in Wild West Russia doesn't sound right.  Yes, a nobody could become rich overnight, but generally they were well-connected nobodies that managed to acquire control over recently privatized state industries and then fucked over minority shareholders.

Your connections could be a random acquaintance, or just being in the right place at the right time.  Yes, an absolute nobody would not get an oil field from Boris Yeltsin, but they could still get pretty rich.

Secondly, Russia by no stretch of the imagination qualifies as anarchy.  The state is very powerful.  Bill Gates could easily lose all his money in Russia, but not to the mob breaking into his mansion, rather to whims of the state.

There is no sustainable state of anarchy.  Sooner or later someone fills that power void.  In the case of Russia, it went from being an anarchy in 1990ies with many competing crime and protection syndicates to being a mafia state.  That gave the country some stability, but it didn't give it the rule of law.  If Putin orders one of his capos to take your wealth, you will soon find yourself without your wealth.

Bill Gates would do much, much better in Somalia than you or I would.

Maybe, but I'm sure that he would also pay more than you or I to stay put in US.

[Admiral Yi]

If Putin orders one of his capos to take your wealth, you will soon find yourself without your wealth.

That's what I said.

Maybe, but I'm sure that he would also pay more than you or I to stay put in US.

Of course he would.  The question is whether he would pay disproportionately more.

[Razgovory]

What is to keep the Somali guards from killing Bill Gates?  My understanding is that in Somalia people fight for tribe or ideology rather then just cash.

[Admiral Yi]

I would not be willing to give 99%, because if I gave 99% I'd be destitute anyway.  I'll have no reason to support the current system because the system is taking everything I am making.  My threshold for percentage of my income that I can lose to taxes and still survive comfortably is way lower than Bill Gates.

You would be destitute and alive.

[DGuller]

If Putin orders one of his capos to take your wealth, you will soon find yourself without your wealth.

That's what I said.

You did say that, but you failed to see that as a consequence of anarchy, and I didn't.  Any country without rule of law is for all intents and purposes an anarchy if you're the rich guy.  Unless you're the dominant warlord/oligarch/mafia don, your fortunes depends a lot on the good graces of your protection, in whatever form it comes.

[frunk]

I would not be willing to give 99%, because if I gave 99% I'd be destitute anyway.  I'll have no reason to support the current system because the system is taking everything I am making.  My threshold for percentage of my income that I can lose to taxes and still survive comfortably is way lower than Bill Gates.

You would be destitute and alive.

And more than willing to overthrow the government and take my chances with anarchy.