Insight

[unixronin]

A study that I came across via Chris Martenson set me to thinking somewhat about distribution of wealth, and I found myself with a comclusion that turns out to be able to be expressed in strikingly simple terms.

That conclusion is expressed in the following two simple statements:

Wealth should be shared fairly¹, but government cannot be trusted to do it or to oversee it.

Those who do honest labor must be able to reap the rewards of their labors, or there will be no incentive for them to labor.

Discuss.

[1]  Which does not mean "equally".  See the second point.

Comments

[ithildae]

Wealth accumulates when you inherit it from daddy. People who create wealth tend to use it to create more wealth. Breaking down big piles of rotting money is only useful if it is not being used to build bigger piles somewhere else.

Money is dynamic. There is nothing bad about having large piles of it, it is just wasteful to not try to make the pile bigger. (It means you have stopped creating value for others.)

It is quite possible to make money without putting other people down. Those who build wealth should be allowed to use it for their priorities and goals. What I think it should be used for is not as important as their goals and purposes for accumulating the stuff in the first place. (That is my fundamental complaint with the Nanny State government, that my money should be taken from me because someone else has insufficient for their goals.)

Some of my proudest moments, concerning money, are helping others build some small pile of it for themselves. I have spent more than they have accumulated, but I have taught them how to go out and get more if they want it. The wealthy people I know have a similar mindset. (That is where I learned it from.) I know my experience is a statistically insignificant sample, but it still accounts for over two score people, enough to get off the t-test table.