Why do people fall for jerks?

[gut]

> What is a fair distribution of wealth?

I'd say one in which the strides of workers were not systematically
rendered useless by illegal activities of gov and business corruption.
There's what, 6 billion people in the world? USA has only 0.3 billion.
That means any time minimum wage threatens to work it's way over
starvation level, all the gov has to do is turn a blind eye to a few 10's
of millions of unskilled workers flooding into the country. There,
problem solved. Dramatically reducing the demand for American
workers is a nice way of keeping the rabble in line.

> What does America have to do with a free economy?

Couldn't have said it better.

[grobblewobble]

On topic:

[garyd]

The rich getting rich and the poor poorer in respect to the rich is the natural order of things. It never becomes a problem except when government tries to interfere in the natural order of things.

The only time the rich don't get richer in comparisom to the poor is when we are all starving.

[auricbond]

The rich getting rich and the poor poorer in respect to the rich is the natural order of things. It never becomes a problem except when government tries to interfere in the natural order of things.

The only time the rich don't get richer in comparisom to the poor is when we are all starving.

Yes. Why do people present the gap as being a problem? Is it envy? Or do they think another person's wealth was achieved at their expense? It's called making money, not taking money.

The fact is, when the gap increases the net amount of wealth is greater among everybody. If a man is a trillion times richer than me, then i'm probably pretty rich myself.

[Moeba]

Yes. Why do people present the gap as being a problem? Is it envy? Or do they think another person's wealth was achieved at their expense? It's called making money, not taking money.

The fact is, when the gap increases the net amount of wealth is greater among everybody. If a man is a trillion times richer than me, then i'm probably pretty rich myself.

Agree with the first one; it does not necessarily have to be a problem. Certainly it is good to reward people for working, or doing a better job than others. Even though the rewards are often divided wrongly.
On the other hand, even if someone does nothing, he should not die of hunger or something which needs money.

The question is which things should be earned as rewards, and which should be given for free. And, of course, which things CAN be given for free, or which are worth the cost of giving it for free. In my opinion, the basic needs for life and education to some extent should be given for free.

But I don't agree with the 2nd part, just check statistics; some of the richest people live in lands where 98% of the people are starvingly poor, for instance.

[auricbond]

But I don't agree with the 2nd part, just check statistics; some of the richest people live in lands where 98% of the people are starvingly poor, for instance.

I'd consider how they acquire their wealth and what kind of a culture they have. A modern innovator isn't the same as an egyptian Pharaoh or his modern counterpart. Are these lands you speak of particularly free? Are they intellectually advanced?

Some places will "channel" the wealth into certain pockets, be it the many or the few. The examples you suggest will be of crony capitalism and protectionism, not laissez faire. Any country that practices wealth distribution or economic sanctions on its own people is going to make someone poorer.

On the other hand, even if someone does nothing, he should not die of hunger or something which needs money.

One would hope not, but I believe the fewer enforced safety nets there are, the more natural ones take place, far more fairly and generously. You would have to have a very cynical society for it to be otherwise. If people instinctively want 'safety nets' in place through government programs, why would they abandon those instincts if those programs were taken away? In other words, why would they vote themselves into wealth redistribution but not perform equivilent charity of their own volition if laissez-faire were to occur?

In my opinion, the basic needs for life and education to some extent should be given for free.

If you make it a matter of right, then that means that some people have to provide it unfreely. Rights can't occur at the expense of someone elses rights. If nobody wants to be a doctor but you declare a right to health care, or nobody wants to teach but you declare a right to education, then you have to violate a basic right of others: liberty in this case-- in order to make them provide it.

For me, I don't know how anyone can propose not to pay a doctor given how needed he is. If your life depends on his knowledge and expertise, wouldn't you give him anything he wants within reason? I would. Suggesting that we don't pay those who contribute the most value is anathema to me...

[Al-Khwarizmi]

Agree with the first one; it does not necessarily have to be a problem. Certainly it is good to reward people for working, or doing a better job than others. Even though the rewards are often divided wrongly.

The problem is that, despite what some neoliberals want people to think, the free market does not reward people for working or doing a better job. A liberal free market is incompatible with meritocracy.

Think about a guy from a poor family who has to work long hours every day to pay a university degree and has almost no time to study, vs. a guy from a well-off family whose parents pay for his degree so he has plenty of time to study, learn a foreign language and go to parties in his spare time. Think about a guy from a rich family who hasn't got a problem with making an unpaid internship at a top company to get some experience for his CV, vs. a guy who can't do that because he needs money for food and shelter (and probably they won't give him a paid internship when they can get the previous guy for free!). Think about a guy who has a great idea and wants to create an innovative company, but has no money so he has to go to the banks, convince them that his idea is good, get loans and risk everything for that enterprise, vs. a guy who has the same great idea but has enough money, so he just creates the company risking some of his assets but it won't be a catastrophe if things go wrong.

Come on, no one can seriously think that a system like this significantly rewards effort, merit and/or hard work. To some extent it does, but it's 10% those things and 90% luck.

System with the "safety nets" that liberals despise are much more meritocratic and reward hard work more than the pure free market system. In a country with free education and some help for needy families, if I'm born very poor but I'm an intelligent, hard-working person and I want to become (say) a lawyer, I can study and become a lawyer. In countries with no government intervention on economy, I'll probably be too busy struggling for my life to think about becoming anything.