**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

You said that Person A is contributing by just existing, which I interpret to mean that anyone can contribute by spending money regardless of whether they earned it or not, as this was the case for both Persons A and B.

My argument is that Person A is doing no more or less than Person B in directly producing no goods or services for the economy; the only contribution they make is by buying things. And if that were the only requirement for contributing to the economy then Person B must have the same effect, albeit to a lesser extent.

Person A's contribution by existing is due to his wealth being real. Your proposal is nominal and some other stuff. If Person A has 10m of real wealth sitting in a bank, it's doing good for the economy. Its most notable impact is probably that it acts as investment capital. If instead it's all consumed, well that's fine too because it's real. In your proposal, the change in income is not real; instead it's inflation. It won't boost the real economy and the situation includes some other stuff that is not good.

[Poopadoop]

Person A's contribution by existing is due to his wealth being real. Your proposal is nominal and some other stuff. If Person A has 10m of real wealth sitting in a bank, it's doing good for the economy. Its most notable impact is probably that it acts as investment capital. If instead it's all consumed, well that's fine too because it's real. In your proposal, the change in income is not real; instead it's inflation. It won't boost the real economy and the situation includes some other stuff that is not good.

My point is that the money is only tied to him through his good fortune.

If Ong found $10m on the beach while looking for washed up coke shipments, or, found a winning $10m lottery ticket, or, found out a long lost relative had bequeathed him $10m, then according to your argument he'd be the same as Person A - i.e., he'd be contributing to the economy just by possessing the money. Then suddenly he'd be getting instant respect. Surely you see how this doesn't make sense.

[wufwugy]

My point is that the money is only tied to him through his good fortune.

If Ong found $10m on the beach while looking for washed up coke shipments, or, found a winning $10m lottery ticket, or, found out a long lost relative had bequeathed him $10m, then according to your argument he'd be the same as Person A - i.e., he'd be contributing to the economy just by possessing the money. Then suddenly he'd be getting instant respect. Surely you see how this doesn't make sense.

It's not so much he who is contributing to the economy, but the capital. Since he is the one who has it, his behavior of letting it sit in the bank is contributory to the economy. There are things he could do that would be more contributory and things he could do that would be negative. Somebody who has money can sit on it and he is contributing more to the economy than somebody who is given money for the purpose of sitting on it.

[Poopadoop]

It's not so much he who is contributing to the economy, but the capital.

ok, then let's go back to my original question:

Person A does nothing but has lots of money. Person B does nothing but has little money. Why are people indignant about Person B and not A? Morally, they are equivalent.

[BananaStand]

Morally, they are equivalent.

False. The difference has to do with where each of their money comes from.

[wufwugy]

ok, then let's go back to my original question:

Person A does nothing but has lots of money. Person B does nothing but has little money. Why are people indignant about Person B and not A? Morally, they are equivalent.

I dunno. I tend to see some dislike for both. It's not like Paris Hilton is popular. And some people like the idea of getting by on little.

Where I see an surge of dislike for the person living on little is if other people are paying for it by force, i.e., they're being taxed. But if you can live a meager life by your own wits and be happy, I'm kinda envious.

[wufwugy]

Where I see an surge of dislike for the person living on little

This dislike is also rampant for people with a lot when they are viewed as not deserving it or whatever. Lots of people really do believe capitalism and any sort of wealth accumulation is evil. They text about it from their smart phones. The classy bohemians.

[Poopadoop]

I dunno. I tend to see some dislike for both. It's not like Paris Hilton is popular. And some people like the idea of getting by on little.

Paris Hilton's ditzy behavior has more to do with her not being respected than the fact that's she's fallen bass-ackwards into money imo, though certainly the latter doesn't help her image. I also think that in general, Person A is far more respected than Person B.

Where I see an surge of dislike for the person living on little is if other people are paying for it by force, i.e., they're being taxed.

That sounds more like someone who has a beef with the government than with Person B. And that I can understand. I have a beef with a lot of things the gov't does with my taxes.

[JKDS]

ok, then let's go back to my original question:

Person A does nothing but has lots of money. Person B does nothing but has little money. Why are people indignant about Person B and not A? Morally, they are equivalent.

In this specific example, few see a difference. There are some who would say that Person A has a moral obligation to use his wealth. It's a mentality like, "people who can help, should help".

But you left the part out where Person B gets to live off of everybody else's labor. Thats where the jimmies get rustled. I don't care if Person A wastes their fortune away. I do care if someone is taking advantage of me. It's like the roommate who never buys groceries but eats all your food. Jimmies rustled.