This conversation is closed.

It's now about how much money you own, it's about what you do with it that matters! (alternative view on 99% vs 1% debate)

People always complain about unfair distribution of money. It's unfair that one percent of the population controls 99% of the wealth. I can understand that people feel this way and I myself(one of the poorer 99%) strive for a more fair world. However I really don't think that equal wealth distribution will lead to this. Or rather should not focus on this aspect.

A rich guy who owns more cars than he could use is just as wastefull as someone who receives social subsidies while sitting on the couch with no intentions to make usefull contributions. On the otherhand I think that someone who's stinking rich, but uses his wealth wisely to create new jobopportunities, invest there where most needed etc. deserves just as much respect as those who work hard for minimum wage. One person can only consume so much regardless of how rich he is. However a person is able to create infinite waste. It is this waste that we should get rid of, not the rich and it is usefull investment that we should promote.

Lets do a thought experiment: If you have the best flute in the world? who should play it? The worst flute player? By random? or the best flute player? Suppose money was packaged in unequal packages by nature. Then how would you choose to distribute those packages? By random? or give those who know best how to manage it the bigger packages?

There seems to be a trade-off between equal distribution on one hand and effective distribution on the other hand. If you ask me the most fair distribution is somewhere in between.

I suggest we focus on putting policies in place that: on the distribution side promote allocation of resources to those who have the most likelyhood of making good use of it.

on the spending side promote proper investment and decrease of wastage and idle resources (e.g. empty homes due to speculation)

market mechanisms do a decent job, we must augment it with common sense, not a majority rule of people who eachthemself act out of self benefit.

  • Nov 28 2011: Absolutely. Brilliant point of view..It is a grave misconception about..the money we have...and the money we utilize for non-wasteful, productive purposes!
  • Dec 19 2011: Is it really a matter of the AMOUNT of taxes or is a matter of where the tax money goes? Maybe tax payers should get to choose where a portion of their taxes go?
  • Comment deleted

    • Dec 19 2011: Actually I came up with this idea of Inertia of Money a while ago. The idea is that as long as a person can beat the tax + inflation + his spendings, his assets will remain him, eventhough there may be people who can put that money to better use. Therefore the speed at which money moves to the players that can make best use of it through market mechanisms is a function of how easy it is to beat the tax+ inflation+spendings. At the same time this is a major motivator for people to invest, since otherwise they might as well spend it sooner. There must be some delicate ballance between the two extremes that is optimal. The challenge is thus to find this optimum and use policies dynamically to create this ballance.

      In my country there are already large taxes for inherited money, but I also think that people have the right to help provide their children with better chances.
  • thumb
    Nov 30 2011: The thing is that the more money you have, the more choice you get about how to spend it. Once you've paid your rent and paid for your food, it's a lot easier to demonstrate what wonderful investment savvy you have, or what wonderful humanitarian values you have only if there's a decent amount left.
  • thumb
    Nov 29 2011: A voice of reason in these tumultuous times.