Take Two "Normal" People, Add Money To Just One Of Them, And Watch What Happens Next

Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 4 months ago to Economics
58 comments | Share | Flag

This is pretty interesting, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. What do you guys think?

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The phrase "distribution of wealth" is just a figure of speech. And yes, wealth is certainly earned at some point (though sometimes fortunes are amassed through theft), but wealth is not always earned by the person who happens to currently posses it. Tell me, if a man starts a company and makes a fortune off of it, and then dies and passes his fortune onto his son, what did that son do to earn the fortune other than be fathered by the man who earned it? In other words, how does inheritance factor into the theory that all wealth comes as a result of having earned it?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Haha, I wasn't endorsing wealth redistribution, just asking you to clarify your position since you seemed to think it was only fair if everyone started the game with an equal amount of money. ;)

    Also, I think Glenn Beck beat you to that book idea:
    www.glennbeck.com/agenda21/
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "circumstances of their birth" ... wtf?? maybe newborns should all be handed over to the government at birth so they all have equal "birth circumstances", equal wealth, equal healthcare, equal attention, equal food, equal belongings, equal everything...surely that will make them ALL equal and then life will be FAIR. Right, Maph? And we can name them all 'Equality 7-2521' and they can never refer to themselves as "I", only as 'we'... Hey you might be on to something...maybe you could write a book about it.... don't forget the part where you save the planet by eliminating electricity and cars and stuff too. Everyone will be happily employed as well with no need for redistributing the earnings of some to the unearners. Title the book "Bliss"...no wait...title it "Anthem". While you're working on that I'll go work on a great idea for a book titled "Agenda 21".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Wealth is EARNED...it's not 'distributed'.
    A person's 'success' can't always be represented by how much money they have either. I consider success as being a principled person who doesn't cave to others...and that doesn't always pay so well. My idea of wealth is living within our means. No, I am not in favor of stealing one person's earnings and giving them to a moocher. I'm also not in favor of playing games with cheaters. Cheaters and moochers have very similar meanings in my book. What's your point?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think the purpose behind starting players with an unequal distribution of wealth in the game was done to emulate the unequal distribution of wealth in real life, and to point out that those who are born into wealth achieve success at least partially because of the circumstances of their birth, and that such success cannot be attributed entirely to their own efforts and abilities (though that certainly does play a role).

    If you say that you're opposed to starting players with an unequal distribution of wealth, and that such an act constitutes cheating, does that mean you're in favor of wealth redistribution?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo