Along the lines of the economic essay I shared last week, making a strong point that redistribution of wealth does much less to improve the lot of humanity than the capitalist drive for progress, I have another specimen to share:

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/042/epstein.html

I quote a particular section that spoke to me:

The basic position that I would defend—I would almost call it the “non-envy principle”—holds that if you have two states of the world, such that in state A everybody, or even one person, is better off than in state B, while nobody is worse off in B than in A, then choose A. So don’t quake with each revelation that the rich have increased their share of wealth. Rather ask the question whether this comes at the expense of other individuals, or whether it is part of a rising tide that raises all ships. By this measure, property rights and the rule of law really do matter. Where these are not in place, then the good fortunes of the few frequently come out of the hides of the many. But when they are secure, then accept that those who have acquired wealth have done so through market transactions that have made everyone better off across the board.

Defending the capitalist status quo is their raison d'etre. Capitalists pay their rent and salaries in exchange for studies calling 'em groovy.

You can legitimately argue this point, if you want, but citing the Hoover Institute as supporting evidence is like me quoting a study from the Lenin Colletch of Economic Knowletch. What do you EXPECT 'em to say?

Fair enough. Would you accept the CATO Institute? ;) I read a lot of sources on the topic and I haven't found a convincing argument to the contrary, but I keep an open mind about it. I happen to believe that envy is a poisonous attitude that holds people down, but a little bit of competitive spirit can ennoble people to do great things. I keep looking for contrary examples. Maybe you can help?

Fair enough. Would you accept the CATO Institute? ;) I read a lot of sources on the topic and I haven't found a convincing argument to the contrary, but I keep an open mind about it. I happen to believe that envy is a poisonous attitude that holds people down, but a little bit of competitive spirit can ennoble people to do great things. I keep looking for contrary examples. Maybe you can help?
I don't believe we are yet ready for the Red Future.

The necessity for collective effort and cooperation -- as opposed to solipsistic, dog-eat-dog individual-enrichmentism -- has not been sufficiently established in the human psyche. As Earth's resources dwindle, and as wealth continues to concentrate in the hands of a comparative few, this absolute imperative will reveal itself.

But the Red Futire will come, sooner or later. Just look at Star Trek: A moneyless, classless society roaming the Universe! Obviously, a bunch of Commies.

I've worked quite a bit in Argentina and Brazil. A very good, well-respected Engineer there makes an equivalent of about $25,000 per year. An equivalent engineer in the U.S. would make abut $75,000 per year. There is certainly some envy of the U.S. salary by the South American, but he maintains a level of dignity and self worth at least equal to the North Amerrican. The social status of the South American engineer is probably higher than that of the U.S. engineer.

A worker in the U.S. making $25,000 per year is generally considered in poverty and a welfare case. There is no way to convince that person making $25,000 in th U.S. that he' should appreciate being better off than 90% of the people on the earth, and better off than even the rich people who lived a hundred years ago. Society does not respect the individual at the bottom tier of the wage scale. The individual at the bottom tier of the wage scale generally has low self worth.

I've worked quite a bit in Argentina and Brazil. A very good, well-respected Engineer there makes an equivalent of about $25,000 per year. An equivalent engineer in the U.S. would make abut $75,000 per year. There is certainly some envy of the U.S. salary by the South American, but he maintains a level of dignity and self worth at least equal to the North Amerrican. The social status of the South American engineer is probably higher than that of the U.S. engineer.

A worker in the U.S. making $25,000 per year is generally considered in poverty and a welfare case. There is no way to convince that person making $25,000 in th U.S. that he' should appreciate being better off than 90% of the people on the earth, and better off than even the rich people who lived a hundred years ago. Society does not respect the individual at the bottom tier of the wage scale. The individual at the bottom tier of the wage scale generally has low self worth.
Yeah but what is the cost of living in SA? I'm guessing WAY lower than in the US where you can make $75k being an engineer. My guess is that it still works out about the same.

Rather ask the question whether this comes at the expense of other individuals, or whether it is part of a rising tide that raises all ships.

and here lies the crux. are the wealthy gaining that wealth at the expense of others? i would hazard the argument that yes, they are.

Yeah but what is the cost of living in SA? I'm guessing WAY lower than in the US where you can make $75k being an engineer. My guess is that it still works out about the same.

I didn't mean to impy that they make $25,000 per year. The salary they make affords them the lifestyle of someone in the U.S. making $25,000 per year. They typically live in a small apartment, frequently with extended family. They might have one small economy car. If they've been working 20 years and saving money, most of it disappeared during recent currency problems.

AAAhhhh, I get so tired sometimes... So the Hoover Institution backs a conservative, pro-biz president. Who'll surprise us next? The Chamber of Commerce?

I believe part of the argument in the article is that a new social class of professional workers are being created in countries like Brazil and Argentina. While many remain in the agrarian economy, others have an opportunity to be an engineer. Relative to the local economy in which they operate, the engineer does well if I understand you.

This whole "progress" thing isn't a perfect transition, but gradually people have new and interesting opportunities for career and fulfillment. People spend more time in education and live longer lives. We haven't solved every problem to satisfaction, but the capitalist drive to satisfy the desires in the marketplace eventually raises the standard of living of all people, more so than social programs.