Originally Posted by
Surfings
Probably fear, since he was killing millions of people.
A mix of positive and negative reinforcement, yes. Sending people to the gulags is not at all humane, but it was the first example to come to mind.
Originally Posted by
Surfings
Sorry but this is pure speculation on a reality that doesn't exist.
I have anecdotal personal examples of all of them so.... it exists. Obviously, I can't speak on scope with anecdotal evidence. That said, I live a perfectly normal life so a reasonable person should expect this to be a bit more widespread.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...e-unhappy.html
Believe this or not, it's by dailymail so it's probably biased, but either way ,you are living in a fairytale.[/QUOTE]
If you'd read the actual study instead of just the article (as well as maybe what I said, since there are a few irrefutable things in there), you'd know that both can be true at the same time. The scope of the study provides interesting insight into using money to make decisions but is pretty limited.
Originally Posted by
wibblefox
The economy believes they earned it. You can't become rich without generating value, end of story.
Financial markets are an extreme but obvious example. I read an article the other day that marked a switch from investing in risky ventures to create profits to timing markets in buying and selling assets. That's not really generating value, I'd say. Overall you're right, but such confidence and strong language is probably uncalled for.
Originally Posted by
wibblefox
And you can live more comfortably with 10M than you can with 5M. By necessity you MUST give a number that you consider to be the minimum comfortable income, otherwise this argument is nonsense. Should we just keep increasing tax until everyone takes home the same amount of money? It sounds ridiculous but that's the endgame of that argument.
Of course it sounds ridiculous. It is. That's like saying the endgame of government surpluses is the elimination of the money supply. Extrapolating to infinity is never logical.
Originally Posted by
Surfings
A bit of an irrelevant bit on capitalism to start up a bit of discussion:
A common complaint about capitalism is that it's a system that takes advantage over others, but I don't see the problem. If person A pays you $20 dollars to do something, take the $20 and pay person B $10 to do what the other guy paid you to do. What are others thoughts on this process?
Well, saying it simply, it depends. Everything is relative.
Something I feel is telling is stagnant middle and lower class wages in the US over the last 20 or so years, at the same time that the country is heavily de-unionizing. Decisions are made from positions of strength and positions of weakness, and bargaining power has effect on the free market like other supply/demand forces do. That's why when the little men get together to try to get better working conditions/compensation from the big man, it works. That's also why when the little men don't get together, they get lower wages and decreased benefits. Same with imperfect information. You're willing to shop at a place that sells bread for $8 if you don't know that there's somewhere else that sells bread for $5 within the same area. The first place can likewise get away with selling bread for $3 more because you don't know about the second.