Talk-Polywell.org

"Concentration of wealth is a natural result of concentration of ability, and recurs in history. The rate of concentration varies (other factors being equal) with the economic freedom permitted by morals and the law... democracy, allowing the most liberty, accelerates it. -- Will and Ariel Durant

...no.

Concentration of wealth is a natural result of concentration of POWER (to concentrate wealth)... That is the 'ability', none other.

rcain wrote:...no.

Concentration of wealth is a natural result of concentration of POWER (to concentrate wealth)... That is the 'ability', none other.

Are you telling me that if Polywell is successful that the capital they accumulate is only due to theft?

And that the only way to accumulate wealth is theft?

That would make economics a zero sum game. When in fact all evidence points to the opposite - in those places where ingenuity is allowed to gather wealth.

If I thought economics was a zero sum game I'd quit working on Polywell today. In fact if I thought that I would be a lawyer not an engineer. My debating skills are good enough. Instead I went into engineering to increase human wealth (as well as capture a bit for myself).

MSimon wrote:

rcain wrote:...no.

Concentration of wealth is a natural result of concentration of POWER (to concentrate wealth)... That is the 'ability', none other.

Are you telling me that if Polywell is successful that the capital they accumulate is only due to theft?

And that the only way to accumulate wealth is theft?

That would make economics a zero sum game. When in fact all evidence points to the opposite - in those places where ingenuity is allowed to gather wealth.

If I thought economics was a zero sum game I'd quit working on Polywell today. In fact if I thought that I would be a lawyer not an engineer. My debating skills are good enough. Instead I went into engineering to increase human wealth (as well as capture a bit for myself).

Those in power define what theft is, so you've somewhat confobulated the issues together.

e.g.; Define taxes as theft and the answer to your question is 'yes'. Define it as 'civil duty for the pursuance of national policy' and the answer is 'no'. Who is it that decides which is the definition?

Concentration of wealth is a natural result of concentration of POWER (to concentrate wealth)... That is the 'ability', none other.

What people who think this tend not to realize is that in a modern society, 99% of wealth is in the form of productivity improvements and collateralization; the people who get really rich these days are founding Google or Cisco or Amazon and they are only keeping a small fraction of the value they pass on to society. This is why there are no mercantilists anymore: accumulating gold or whatever just isn't that useful in relation to the incredible wealth than can be created through free markets.

chrismb,

No, there are objective truths. In a free society, each of us decides for ourself what is true. Some of us are going to be wrong, hence the need for debate. There is no final arbiter, but over time our beliefs tend to approach truth as we have more data to apply empiricism with.

Oh goody!! Another useless political arguement.

KitemanSA wrote:Oh goody!! Another useless political arguement. :P

I thought it was an economics argument.

TallDave wrote:In a free society, each of us decides for ourself what is true.

Does that permit me to decide that I am not permitted to decide what is true?

TallDave wrote: Some of us are going to be wrong, hence the need for debate. There is no final arbiter, but over time our beliefs tend to approach truth as we have more data to apply empiricism with.

This doesn't apply to "theft" though, for there is nothing intrinsic in the notion of ownership that is natural, it is purely a man-made concept, sans objectivity. Hence, when we then apply the notion of ownership to even more nebulous things like intellectual property and software, it all goes to hell and no-one has any slightest clue what *should* or *should not* be wrt ownership, it is only through the artificial constructs provided to us by our governments so as to manage the processes [and, supposedly, manipulated so as to encourage innovation] that we know how such IPR ownership should be implemented.

Regarding Polywell I very much doubt Richard Nebel or Robert Bussard will capture most of the wealth they created even if it does work. There'll probably be some entrepreneur who negotiates most of the rights from them in exchange for capital.

The "abilities" that allow you to amass wealth are:

1) A good eye for value
2) Being a good negotiator (and ripping others off whenever the chance arises)
3) Being a good organiser (The guy who makes the rules can make the rules to suit himself)
4) Having a keen sense of self-interest (Knowing what jobs offer the highest salary and developing the skills to get them)

You could ofcourse argue that some of these abilities are indeed valuable but whether their more valuable than other abilities that get less pay is something I'd disagree with.

My general experience is that there is an actual discount in salaries regarding many jobs that are for the public good. Most people working for Oxfam are usually extremely highly qualified with a university education etc.
they are typically paid £10,000 a year for full time work (not that I'd want them tom get paid more as it comes out of the budget that could be used to help the chronically poor)

I rented a house with a girl who came out of university with a first and wanted to work in conservation. She worked ten hours a day at a combination of voluntary work and part time jobs to pay the bills, earned £4000 that year, ate through her savings, the reason? There are so few jobs in conservation that you need experience as well as university qualifications to get them. She earned less that social welfare and still paid council tax. When she finally get her job she'll end up earning less than average too.

Nurses are highly qualified with very low pay, why? Because the people who pay them know that they won't strike as their consciences won't let them leave all those poor sick people to suffer, so as a result the people who pay them know they can get away with paying them less.

There are countless other examples of a "conscience discount" salarywise. On man's conscience is another man's profit. MSimon working as a lower paid engineer as opposed to a high paid lawyer is a typical example of this.



The only ability that is rewarded financially is the ability to acquire money (which is rather self evident when you think about it.)



I'm not sure I have a better system in mind when I say this, but the idea that capitalism perfectly rewards merit is simply not true.

chrismb wrote:

TallDave wrote:In a free society, each of us decides for ourself what is true.

Does that permit me to decide that I am not permitted to decide what is true?

TallDave wrote: Some of us are going to be wrong, hence the need for debate. There is no final arbiter, but over time our beliefs tend to approach truth as we have more data to apply empiricism with.

This doesn't apply to "theft" though, for there is nothing intrinsic in the notion of ownership that is natural, it is purely a man-made concept, sans objectivity. Hence, when we then apply the notion of ownership to even more nebulous things like intellectual property and software, it all goes to hell and no-one has any slightest clue what *should* or *should not* be wrt ownership, it is only through the artificial constructs provided to us by our governments so as to manage the processes [and, supposedly, manipulated so as to encourage innovation] that we know how such IPR ownership should be implemented.

Ever have kids chris? Two year olds understand ownership.

The only ability that is rewarded financially is the ability to acquire money (which is rather self evident when you think about it.)

Which is why engineers get paid more than scientists. An engineer's decisions can be the difference between profit and loss.

MSimon wrote: Ever have kids chris? Two year olds understand ownership.

Two. And they squabble over each other's toys. Clearly they understand possession, but not ownership. Whereas the government seems to think that their possession of something is ownership, yet they regard an individuals ownership as not guaranteeing possession!!

chrismb wrote:

MSimon wrote: Ever have kids chris? Two year olds understand ownership.

Two. And they squabble over each other's toys. Clearly they understand possession, but not ownership. Whereas the government seems to think that their possession of something is ownership, yet they regard an individuals ownership as not guaranteeing possession!!

Strange country you live in.

Ownership is basic. Government is instituted to prevent squabbling. You might want to look at how Egypt handled ownership on the Nile flood plain 3,000 years ago. Here is a good place to look:

The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else by Hernando Desoto

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00147 ... B00147QGZQ

But there is lots of Capitalism Triumphs outside the west.
Maybe more now outside the west. But is not pure capitalism.
In reality there is no such thing as pure capitalism or a free market.

Torulf2 wrote:But there is lots of Capitalism Triumphs outside the west.
Maybe more now outside the west. But is not pure capitalism.
In reality there is no such thing as pure capitalism or a free market.

I think the book was written 20 or 30 years ago when things were not so obvious.

In any case it is about property rights. Government recognized Property rights. And how that recognition enhances wealth creation.