Thursday, October 19, 2006

A Thought For Today

Time constraints are back to being a part of my life, once again. Today is one of those days. So I will leave you all with a brief thought to chew on:

If you took all of the wealth and redistributed it equally so that everyone had equal wealth, it would only be a matter of time before the same people that have it now, would get it all back.


Flocon said...

It would have been interesting to know what was the ultimate motivation that led you to this question and what you, somehow, intended to "demonstrate" -whether you know it or no- in the end.

Basically, your "food for thought" refers to a very old problem that was at the foundation of the ancient Greek philosophy.
See Parmenides vs. Heraclitus with a look at Zeno's paradoxes.
It all has to do with the possibility (or not) of the movement.

- Malheureusement, je ne suis pas capable de l'expliquer en anglais...
- Leider ist es mir total unmöglich auf English zu erklären...
- Purtroppo, non posso spiegare in inglese.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

Though I am the farthest from supporting wealth redistribution, I think the result would be slightly different. I think there is a slice of the population that would thrive, given the opportunity. There is also the slice that did not earn the wealth they have. I fully support inheritance, but there are some heirs who have no drive or ability to regain wealth.

So I think that for the most part people would go back to what they had, there would be a slight shift.

LASunsett said...

Hi Flocon,

Actually, it's not rooted in anything quite as deep as Greek philosophy. At least if it is, it was purely coincidental.

I am not copping out tonight, I am very tired and have to repeat my long hard day, again tomorrow. So, hopefully I will get to my explanation tomorrow evening.

LASunsett said...


You make some valid points. But as said in my reply to Flocon, I must wait to address my thoughts later, when my brain has more neurons firing.

Anyone else want to give it a go? I am actually surprised more people that frequent Super Frenchie's blog didn't jump on this.

Mark said...

I dunno...if i'm faster, i'll catch and pass yertle the turtle. I forgot the intricacies of the race just after i graduated.

this comment dedicated to "the reverend" Jim Beam on this thursday evening...

First impression: Yes, entrepreneurs will find and get the money. They will dangle the lure, be it a good product or bulls**t. Always folks to buy the abflex at two in the a.m. And if they will buy the snakeoil then it's their problem.

Money redistributed with current regulations and laws...

1) Money/Pride/Power hungry folks. Will get as much as they are able. Fine.

2) Comfort seeking, "I'm o.k. with this," folks. Will get theirs.

3) Struggling to make it, "should have got my g.e.d." folks. Working hard and living...wishing they had more...but living.

4) Welfare recipients. there a welfare system in this redistribution? If not...these folks either work into number three or four or really embarass themselves taking red cross handouts.

Think things would generally go the way they are now. Maybe there would be more small business...good. Lots more investment...good.

In this scenario I would definitely receive a bonus. What would I do with the money?

Invest a chunk for security.
Start a business. (I'm thinking about a beef jerky factory/brewery/restaurant/music venue/possible skin joint if nothing else works that caters to just about everybody possible who would eat and drink and be entertained on any given night...where can i go wrong?)

I remember that exceptions prove the rule but don't remember why they do..

Anonymous said...

Regarding exceptions being prove of the rule:
Precisely because the exceptions aren't part of the rule... there allways is a small detail that distinguish them from all other cases. It's usually an unvolontary sophism that confuses the speaker, reader, user. He/she doesn't see the detail and fails to understand why what seems to pertain to a commonly accepted rule... actually doesn't. It looks like the so called exception is like all other similar cases (apparently) but it isn't.
And the rule stands right because it is unaffected by an occasion that, in the end, cannot obey the rule it doesn't belong to.

Sorry for the broken English but I guess you get the point...

Anonymous said...

I forgot to identify for the above comment about the rule and the exception. Sorry...


LASunsett said...

This deserves a more thorough answer than just a couple of paragraphs. I will incorporate my responses to these comments in my next post.