Yes, I fail to see how this is a matter of left and right politics at all. If we strip away all the theology and just look at the mathematics, there is no possible way in a system that grows exponentially that the top won't grow exponentially faster than everyone else. And furthermore, at the expense of everyone else, given that once enough wealth is accumulated, the rules of the game change, as is pointed out in this quote, "when pay setters set their own pay, there’s no limit..." I think that comment about orthodoxy was just to try to hedge against people calling him a lefty for pointing out the obvious. The rest of the review is intriguing, IMO.
Yes. How does that necessarily follow?If we strip away all the theology and just look at the mathematics, there is no possible way in a system that grows exponentially that the top won't grow exponentially faster than everyone else.
And furthermore, at the expense of everyone else,
When you improved your home with drywall and flooring, you added to your personal wealth, even after subtracting costs, right? Did someone necessarily lose in order for you to gain?
Sorry, are you responding to the first question or the second? [edit] If the first, why does it matter what his intentions were, or whether he hired professional labor? I would measure the increase in his wealth as the increase in the value of his home minus the total cost of the improvements. If that is a positive number then his wealth increased by that amount. If the second, then who lost wealth?
I wouldn't want to distract you from Hazlitt. b_b said he bought a foreclosed condo. If we assume that it originally had floors and walls which were destroyed or ruined, someone could make a flawed broken-window argument that b_b's repairs compensate "the economy" for the destruction. But I was taking his condo purchased "as is" as a given. Maybe the developer simply never finished construction. My point is that b_b can create his own wealth simply by investing his time and effort, without necessarily harming or taking from anyone else. I am not sure if anyone disagrees with this, but he seems to imply that people at "the bottom" are necessarily harmed somehow when the wealthy increase their wealth.
No no I was agreeing with you. He's only costing someone wealth when he does home repair on his own if he would otherwise have bought the repairs -- more likely that if he couldn't afford repairs he would've simply lived without them, I think.
Ah, I see, the alternative to the "Only if" was not doing the repairs at all. That costs the carpenter, but he can still spend the money on candy or whiskey. Perhaps best of all is if he does the work himself, since it brought him satisfaction, and then he can spend the money he saved on other things, bringing more satisfaction.
Like I said before, the economy isn't a zero sum game. There's money to be made by everyone in some circumstances. However, in the last several years, corporate profits have increased to record levels, while revenues have stayed flat. The difference has been made up by cutting costs, mainly worker pay. That is taking from the bottom. The net share of wealth held by the very top has increased much faster than the total net wealth in the world. Upward transfer of wealth has undeniably occurred.My point is that b_b can create his own wealth simply by investing his time and effort, without necessarily harming or taking from anyone else. I am not sure if anyone disagrees with this, but he seems to imply that people at "the bottom" are necessarily harmed somehow when the wealthy increase their wealth.
If it is possible for you to create wealth, by investing time and effort, rather than taking it from other people, then it is possible for other people to do so as well. Therefore, it is not correct to say that "there's no place it [new wealth held by wealthier people] can come from other than" poorer people.
I said: And: There's no logical inconsistency there. You're projecting.Money isn't necessarily a zero sum game...
If the amount of wealth held by the top is growing faster than the money supply (it is), then there's no place it can come from other than the bottom.
I don't think I understand the first sentence of your original comment. I am confused by the language of "wealth" and "money." Can we speak of wealth only without diminishing your point? A casual reading suggests that the fast rate of wealth accumulation among the wealthy implies that the new wealth of the wealthy was taken from poorer people. If that isn't accurate, can you clarify? The second sentence is also hard to parse. If it (the money supply? the total quantity of wealth?) is finite, how is it not a zero-sum game?