From: Clay Olbon II <olbon@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 05:21:01 -0800 (PST)
To: Stephen Boursy <boursy@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: wealth and property rights
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961127131858.006ebe30@popd.ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 09:08 PM 11/26/96 -0500, Stephen Boursy <boursy@earthlink.net> wrote:
>  I sincerely don't believe that.  If you look at your above
>examples, or Bill Gates below, much of their motivation is not
>the accumulation of weath per se but rather power and performance.
>I know I would do much the same job (not that I'm in the wealthy)
>even if the salary were more or less--I enjoy it (I'm a programmer).
>Same is true for education--much of the motivation is either 
>intrinsic or status oriented and has little or nothing to do with
>marketablity.

This is provably bullshit.  Look at the HUGE numbers of people in this
country who make the economic decision to do nothing and go on welfare vs.
going to work.  Examine carefully the economic performance of the US vs the
Soviet Union - two countries with quite similar natural resources and
population.  To believe as you do belongs in the same category as believing
in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.  It requires complete ignorance of reality.

>> In a capitalist society, I have to provide something that you want 
>> more than your wealth in order to obtain it.  
>
>  That's true--as with all labor--but it is a matter of scale.  
>Gates would do the same thing if you limited his income just
>for the sake of power accumulation--he's got all the money
>he could ever consume.  That's not his real motive.

More bullshit.  You don't know what anyones motives are.  To ascribe your
motivations to Bill Gates is unrealistic.  

What is your defined limit on what people should earn?  A thought
experiment.  The govt decides that the maximum anyone can earn in a lifetime
is $10M.  Bill Gates earns his $10M, he then decides that he doesn't feel
like working for free, so he quits.  Pretty soon, the people most effective
at creating wealth in society will all "reach their limit" and quit.  Then
the economic growth rates in this country can approach those of the
socialist societies that you seem to adore.  Either that or the best and
brightest will leave.  
 

>> 5. Government is the least efficient means of resolving the problem.  The
>
>   As inefficeint as it is it is really the only effective means.  A
>simple 100% inheritance tax would be very helpful as would limitations
>on how much property a given individual (and a corporation is a virutal
>individual) may own.

See my above points.  Implement this and prepare the for US to become a
third world country.  100% inheritance taxes would probably be the largest
incentive for people to leave (they leave now with ONLY a 50% inheritance
tax).  And who would get the money?  Those who are producing nothing, giving
them even greater incentives for producing nothing (heck, get welfare
payments up around $50K and I would quit work - I could find lots of
enjoyable and intellectually stimulating ways to keep myself busy!).


>  As to your other issue here--earnings and limitations on accumulation,
>much would be equalized without inheritance.  But yes--there would
>still be accumulators--most would still produce regardless of
>limits because as I said their motives are not simply income--power,
>prestige, etc. all come in to play as well as the gratification that
>comes with winning.  Gates enjoys his cover on Time Mag. much more
>than a few extra million a day.

Bullshit.  See above.

>  But the basic answer to your argument--from my standpoint--is that
>some people are extremely intellegent, others very gifted in other
>ways, others very dull witted, etc.  Some possess artistic genius
>that can pay off immediately, others have none that is valued dollar
>wise by society.  I sincerly don't believe one has the right to
>live better than the other--that the rewards, if different, sould
>be negligable.  
>
>  If I could make as much as I do know programming by working as
>a clerk in a convenience store or whatever I would still choose to
>do what I am doing.  If you are in a different situation you're
>in the wrong career.

You are extremely idealistic.  Try coming back to reality.  Examine the
"test cases" for the policies you advocate (and there are plenty of examples
of socialist policies both in this country and others) - and realistically
assess the consequences.  If you do this, you will find that these policies
are unworkable, and lead to lower - not higher standards of living for
everyone.  

        Clay
*******************************************************
Clay Olbon			    olbon@ix.netcom.com
engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc.
**********************************************tanstaafl