Chance favors the concentration of wealth, study shows

Jul 21, 2011

Most of our society's wealth is invested in businesses or other ventures that may or may not pan out. Thus, chance plays a role in where the wealth of a society will end up.

But does chance favor the concentration of in the hands of a few, or does it tend to level the playing field? Three University of Minnesota researchers have built a simplified model that isolates the effects of chance and found that it consistently pushes wealth into the hands of a few, ever-richer people.

The study, "Entrepreneurs, chance, and the deterministic concentration of wealth," is published in the July 20 issue of the journal .

The researchers simulated the performance of a large number of investors who started out with equal amounts of capital and who realized returns annually over a number of years. But wealth did not remain equal, because each year an entrepreneur's return was a random draw taken from a pool of possible return rates. Thus, a high return did not guarantee continuing high returns, nor did early low returns mean continuing .

Even though all had an equal chance of success, the simulations consistently resulted in dramatic concentration of wealth over time. The reason: With compounding capital returns, some individuals will have a string of high returns and, given enough time, will accumulate an overwhelming share of the wealth.

This appears to be a fundamental feature of economies where wealth is primarily generated from returns on investment (for example, through business ownership and growth), the researchers said.

"Predictions from this model about how wealth is distributed were more accurate than predictions from classic ," said first author Joseph Fargione, an adjunct professor of ecology, evolution and behavior in the university's College of Biological Sciences.

The model predicts that the rate at which wealth concentrates depends on the variation among individual return rates. For example, when variation is high, it would take only 100 years for the top 1 percent to increase their share of total wealth from 40 percent—a recent level in the United States—to 90 percent.

Healthy economies support diverse entrepreneurial efforts, leading to high economic growth. But concentration of wealth reduces diversity, and with it the most likely growth rate for a country's economy, according to the researchers.

"The implication is that nations with diverse economies should tend to outcompete on the world stage those with large concentrations of wealth, such as monarchies, or established democracies that have allowed their wealth to concentrate," said author Clarence Lehman, associate dean for research in the College of .

But while the rate of wealth was increased by high variation among individual investors' returns, it bore no relation to the average economic growth.

"This leads to the surprising finding that wealth will concentrate due to chance alone in growing, stagnant or shrinking economies," said author Steve Polasky, professor of applied economics in the College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences.

The results showed wealth concentrating regardless of economic cycles of growth and recession and regardless of whether wealth is split between two offspring every generation. As wealth concentrates with a few individuals, the growth of the economy will depend more and more on the returns of those few, making the economy less resilient to disruptions in their investments, the researchers said.

"The irony is that the economic diversity that helps ensure the presence of some successful enterprises and spurs economic growth could be lost if the success of these enterprises undermines economic diversity," said Fargione. "To retain the benefits of a diverse capitalist economy, we need economic policies that counter what seems to be the innate tendency for economies to concentrate wealth and become less diverse."

The simulations showed that a tax (or other mandatory donation to the public good) on the largest inherited fortunes would short-circuit the over-concentration of wealth. But the researchers stress that their point is to advocate not a particular policy, but a policy that accomplishes the goal of protecting long-term economic stability.

Explore further: Entrepreneurs to venture capitalists: Don't be a Scrooge

Related Stories

'Technology' plays large role in wealth inheritance

Oct 30, 2009

A new study reveals the important role inherited wealth plays in sustaining economic inequality in small scale societies. A team of 26 anthropologists, statisticians, and economists based at the Santa Fe Institute in New ...

Inequality, 'silver spoon' effect found in ancient societies

Oct 29, 2009

The so-called "silver spoon" effect -- in which wealth is passed down from one generation to another -- is well established in some of the world's most ancient economies, according to an international study coordinated by ...

Recommended for you

Over-identifying restrictions in economic analysis

Nov 25, 2014

The analysis of empirical economics has long made use of a tool called the generalized method of moments (GMM). This method is used as a generic way of estimating parameters in an empirical model where the ...

Tracking Chinese aid to Africa

Nov 24, 2014

Is a fancy new school in an African government official's hometown a coincidence, or evidence of systematic favouritism in the distribution of aid?

User comments : 58

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

StandingBear
2.2 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2011
This means a stiff inheritance tax, progressive in nature to steeply progressive in the case of large concentrations of ill gotten gains. No one needs to gain more than he/she can ever spend. Since nations of the world participate in world wide competition, tariffs take the place of taxes, however in a free trade environment, that so called 'free trade' is not free, but a worldwide subsidy of slave labor of some of the most odious kinds. So to maintain a 'free trade' in the face of the existance of slave labor is to subsidize slavery, hence guaranteeing it as a growing and spreading reinstitutionalization world wide. Yes, eventually slavery will be made legal here, possibly as part of a forced Islamization of our nation in exchange for a little oil from the middle east. That is, unless we wake up and stop 'free trade'; and start producing and using our own goods, like shoes for one.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2011
Yes, eventually slavery will be made legal here, possibly as part of a forced Islamization of our nation in exchange for a little oil from the middle east.

Christianity created the modern institution of slavery, by making it an inheritable condition.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2011
because each year an entrepreneur's return was a random draw taken from a pool of possible return rates.

This is the flaw in the simple model.
The success of an entrepreneur is not a random event no matter how much the socialists want to believe it is.
Birnleitner
5 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2011
"Yes, eventually slavery will be made legal here, possibly as part of a forced Islamization of our nation in exchange for a little oil from the middle east."

Stunning...how on earth can you not be ashamed of such an absurd assertion?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2011
A national health care plan will turn all health care 'professionals' into slaves.
that_guy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2011
ah rygg, you got a good comment out before going out on your libertarian rant.

So I agree with Rygg about the simplicity of the model. It places a lot of focus on chance with out extrapolating or considering caveats of its own simplicity.

It does not take into account that humans are humans and have drive, intelligence, persistence, etc. Those aspects of us can change the situation.

But it also doesn't connect the dots far enough. You can change a lot of variables short of outright collapse of the rich only, and come out with the same result. Once you have an unbalanced distribution of wealth, it becomes much more difficult for the poorer to keep up with the richer. If most or all of my money is eaten up by basics, it becomes difficult for me to create wealth. A person with enough beginning wealth can afford to have a much lower average return (say 4% on 1 billion) and still keep or increase his total proportion of wealth...and still live much more lavishly than on 30k
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2011
still live much more lavishly

How do they live lavishly? What do they buy, yachts, corporate jets,...? Who builds yachts, corporate jets? Who flies corporate jets? Who maintains them? Who cleans the $10k/night hotel rooms? Who serves the food in the expensive restaurants? Who...
Do you get the point, yet?
Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, JD Rockefeller (The full salary for his first three months' work was $50), and thousands of others in the USA did NOT start with wealth.
Why would you want a govt system that destroys that opportunity?
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2011
The success of an entrepreneur is not a random event no matter how much the socialists want to believe it is.

Sounds like a dogma.
With the supplement
"It is forbidden to call 'entrepreneur' those whose success is a random event.
And it's forbidden to call 'random event' what is the base of an entrepreneur's success."

It's the mandatory jargon of certain dogmatic circles.
Callippo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2011
Money are doing money. Concentration of capital attracts the people, willing for another concentration of it and it increases the effectiveness of methods of money concentration.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2011
Sounds like a dogma.

The simple model reported assumed success was a random event. Sounds dogmatic and follows the 'progressive' doctrine.
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2011
Sounds like a dogma.

The simple model reported assumed success was a random event. Sounds dogmatic

Science is based on falsifiability. Thus, this article is based on falsifiability.
Your jargon, as well as dogma, is based on the exclusion of falsifiability.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2011
This article is based upon a model with very narrow assumptions based upon dogma.

Observations do not support the model therefore the model is false.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2011
Science is based on falsifiability. Thus, this article is based on falsifiability.
These two things aren't logically connected at all. It considers, this article is scientific in an effort to prove, it's based on falsifiability. This is what the circular reasoning is called. In addition, whole your premise is wrong. For example, the string or multiverse theories are indeed part of contemporary science, but they're not based on falsifiability at all in its present state.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2011
Sounds like a dogma.

The simple model reported assumed success was a random event. Sounds dogmatic

Science is based on falsifiability. Thus, this article is based on falsifiability.
Your jargon, as well as dogma, is based on the exclusion of falsifiability.
Whatever and whatever, after reading the article I think it is clear that we need more laws to take money away from those who have accumulated too much of it and give to those who dont have enough of it. This is pretty obvious to me.
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (50) Jul 23, 2011
They are competing theories Callippo. Nowhere in any highschool, or even outside of any theoretical physics class, is anyone being taught such theories as anything other than a point of curiosity.

I believe in my education the "farthest out" thing I was ever taught (this was highschool chemistry) were quantum orbitals. I have never had a teacher mention strings, brane theory, anything like that. This is because they aren't accepted theory.

They will not be considered adequate descriptions of reality until they can be falsified and stand up to such falsifications. I don't know of any theoretical physicist that claims otherwise.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jul 23, 2011
Moreover, it's wrong to put multiverse and string theories on the same level.
The multiverse idea is non-falsifiable and will stay so forever as other universes cannot - by definition of the term 'universe' - be observed. Hence, it's not science.
String theory, however, is not yet fully developed and cannot be regarded a full-fledged physical theory yet. But there's hope and it's just too promising in view of the many inconsistencies of the two standard theories of physics to discard of it too soon.
Thrasymachus
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2011
Sounds like a dogma.

The simple model reported assumed success was a random event. Sounds dogmatic and follows the 'progressive' doctrine.

No, the model did not assume success was random, they modeled success as if it were random, and found that the results more closely matched reality than does the classical model which you purport to subscribe to, without displaying any understanding of that model. The hypothesis the model tested was whether randomness increases the development of wealth inequality. They found a correlation and measured that correlation. You don't like it because the existence of that correlation undermines your faith in the infallibility of the market. If you were rational, you would reform your beliefs in light of conflicting evidence, not make excuses for your beliefs to deny or dismiss that evidence.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2011
"The researchers simulated the performance of a large number of investors who started out with equal amounts of capital and who realized returns annually over a number of years. But wealth did not remain equal, because each year an entrepreneur's return was a random draw taken from a pool of possible return rates. Thus, a high return did not guarantee continuing high returns, nor did early low returns mean continuing bad luck."

How does this reflect reality?

"The simulations showed that a tax (or other mandatory donation to the public good) on the largest inherited fortunes would short-circuit the over-concentration of wealth. "

Did they bother to consider the effect of the foundations created by Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, etc? Why is the assumption that a 'mandatory' donation (an oxymoronic term) is required?
Why? Because the authors were biased.
Thrasymachus
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 23, 2011
"The researchers simulated the performance of a large number of investors who started out with equal amounts of capital and who realized returns annually over a number of years. But wealth did not remain equal, because each year an entrepreneur's return was a random draw taken from a pool of possible return rates. Thus, a high return did not guarantee continuing high returns, nor did early low returns mean continuing bad luck."

How does this reflect reality?
Are you really that thick? That was not meant to reflect reality. It was constructed to test the effects of randomness on the distribution of wealth. The distributional results they got matched reality closer than the distributional results you get if you run the classical model.

Of course they didn't bother to consider the effects of wealthy philanthropy because even if it would moderate wealth concentration, no wealthy person would give so much as to short-circuit their own concentration of wealth.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2011
The distributional results they got matched reality

What reality?
no wealthy person would give so much as to short-circuit their own concentration of wealth.

Never heard of Chuck Feeney?
http://www.atlant...-founder
Thrasymachus
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2011

What reality?

The reality we all live in. The reality where, as of 2004, the wealthiest 10% of the population owned 69.5% of all the net wealth in the country, the richest 1% owned 33.4%, and the poorest half of the country collectively owned 2.5%.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2011
What 'reality' did the study use? How well does the model correlate to that 'reality'?

How about the reality that the top 50% pay ALL income taxes?

Which then leads to the warning many have made about mob rule ('progressivism').

"A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.
Alexis de Tocqueville "
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
Alexis de Tocqueville
"
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Alexis de Tocqueville "
The American Republic died decades ago. Murdered by 'progressives'.
Thrasymachus
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2011
You don't correlate models to reality, you correlate the results of the model to reality. Think of a map. If there were a perfect correlation between the map and the reality it maps, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two, and the map wouldn't be any use to you. Maps and models are entirely artificial and arbitrary constructs that are vastly simpler than the reality they are used to interpret.

And your "reality" that the top 50% pay all income taxes is an illusion. Once all state, local and excise taxes are factored in, on average the poorest 50% have an effective tax rate of around 22.5%, while the richest 10% have an effective tax rate of 18.5%.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2011
poorest 50% have an effective tax rate of around 22.5%, while the richest 10% have an effective tax rate of 18.5%.

All the more reason to lower tax rates.
But, like a good 'progressive', you speak of rates instead of tax revenue.
JFK and Reagan lowered rates and revenue increased.
So, if you want to continue to starve the govt of revenue, advocate and promote increasing tax rates.
Even Sweden had to back off high tax rates and end their wealth tax to stimulate economic growth.
starve the govt of revenue, advocate and promote increasing tax rates.
Even Sweden had to back off high tax rates and end their wealth tax to stimulate economic growth.
And of course very few 'progressives', like Warren Buffet, donate their wealth to the govt. Instead, they whine they are not taxed enough. MA has an option to pay at a higher rate. Few choose it even though the state has very many wealthy 'liberals'.
Thrasymachus
3.4 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2011
Revenue as a percentage of GDP is at an historic low, which is why we have such immense budget deficits these past couple of year. Real personal and corporate tax rates are lower in the US than in any other first or second world country. You think the Laffer curve is applicable to our reality when the Bush tax cuts resulted in a persistent and long-term decreases in revenue? You really are delusional.

The truth is the US needs to completely readjust its taxation scheme. I only mentioned the poorest 50% and the richest 10% in the tax rates above. The 50%-90% folks pay north of 45% of their income in taxes once all taxes are counted. Those folks are the drivers of the economy, the small business owners and skilled employees earning enough to spend, and Republican tax policies are killing them. Meanwhile the folks that can easily afford a 50% rate skate by with a < 20% rate.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2011
'Progressives' around don't have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem.
And their statism compounds the problem by increasing costs to business (those that actually create wealth).

"Everybody here is focusing on spending and taxes, Inhofe said, but what most people dont realize is the cost of regulation is just as much as the cost of all of the taxes its just less detectable.

Read more: http://dailycalle...SzbKEvhg
"
As long as you keep looking at the blades of grass in the forest, the forest will burn down around you.

Republican tax policies? The 'progressive' tax policies increase rates even more and will NOT generate more revenue. That HAS been PROVEN to be true.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2011
Another prediction that has proven to be true:
"Contrary to popular belief, the rescue package cannot help the economy; it will only severely weaken wealth generators. (The larger the package, the more misery it will inflict.) Hence, once the massive rescue plan is implemented, it will not prevent an economic slump but, rather, runs the risk of plunging the economy into the mother of all recessions."
http://mises.org/daily/3119
frajo
1 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2011
Did they bother to consider the effect of the foundations created by Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, etc? Why is the assumption that a 'mandatory' donation (an oxymoronic term) is required?
Why? Because the authors were biased.

Sorry for the rating - it was an unintentional accident.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2011
"the tax laws say that companies can avoid paying taxes as long as they keep their profits overseas"
"cutting Medicare and Social Security, so that Google can keep paying its current 2.4 percent effective tax rate and GE, a company that received a $140 billion bailout en route to worldwide 2010 profits of $14 billion, can not only keep paying no taxes at all , but receive a $3.2 billion tax credit from the federal government."
[RollingStone: corporate tax holiday]

"average American worker was taking home $752 a week in late 2010, up a mere 0.5 percent from a year earlier"
"median pay raise for chief executives last year 23 percent was roughly in line with the increase in net corporate profits"
"so-called tax gross-ups, in which companies cover executives tax bills on perks like corporate jets "
[NYT - we knew they got raises]

Tax holes exist - exclusively for the wealthy.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2011
Revenue as a percentage of GDP is at an historic low, which is why we have such immense budget deficits these past couple of year.

"In the three years 2009, 2010, 2011, US federal spending was an astounding $2.2 trillion more than in the three years ending 2008."
"The deficit in the first three years of the Barack Obama administration will total 28.3 percent of GDP, versus 6.3 percent the last three years President Bush was in the White House."
"In the broadest sense, monetary and fiscal policies have failed because government financial transactions are not the key to prosperity. Instead, the economic well-being of a country is determined by the creativity, inventiveness and hard work of its households and individuals."

Read more: http://www.nypost...T1sK7nEj
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2011
average American worker was taking home $752 a week in late 2010, up a mere 0.5 percent from a year earlier"

"Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds."
"The pay gap between workers in the private and public sectors has widened to its highest in a decade, according to government figures.

Civil servants, teachers and other public sector workers were paid an average of 7.8% more per hour than private sector staff in April last year"
http://www.guardi...p-widens
Thrasymachus
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2011
Keep posting marjon, eventually you'll find something that's relevant, though you probably won't know when that is.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2011
Govt forced redistribution of wealth (socialism) has never been proven to create prosperity yet that is what T and the other 'progressives' support.
T seems to believe govts cant extract as much wealth as it wants without impacting the behavior of the individuals in that economy. Why else is he focused on tax revenue/GDP? Why not focus on the govt spending/gdp? That is a more important ratio.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2011
It's nice to see you're staying well practiced in your old standbys. So far I see red herrings, straw men, and ad hominems. And just to keep you frothing, the longest sustained period of growth and shared prosperity in the US economy also saw effective tax rates of the wealthiest 10% of better than 70% of their income, which permitted the effective tax rates of the other 90% to be less than 35%. The US needs higher taxes at the top end and lower taxes for everybody else.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2011
The govt needs to stop extracting 25% of GNP every year.
effective tax rates of the wealthiest 10% of better than 70% of their income

Is that why Sweden abolished its net wealth tax, to destroy its economy?
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2011
GNP is gross national product. Product as in real goods and services. The only way the government can "extract" any amount of GNP is by buying it. People might choose not to produce because they fear some tax liability (I've never seen any evidence of this) or be unable to produce because they don't have enough money to buy the inputs, but then the government hasn't extracted any amount of product because it was not produced. And since you're on about Sweden, for some reason, you should know that the highest effective tax rate for the wealthy is 57% over there, and federal revenues represent 56% of Sweden's GDP. I wonder how many red herrings, straw men, ad hominems and other fallacies you'll throw at the wall in response to that.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2011
Data: col 1, year, col 2, GDP (per capita, 2005 USD), col 3 tot govt spending (per capita, 2005 USD), col 4 spending/GNP:

1997 36339 12270 0.34
1998 37456 12452 0.33
1999 38781 12660 0.33
2000 39784 12954 0.33
2001 39803 13288 0.33
2002 40142 13948 0.35
2003 40784 14388 0.35
2004 41849 14570 0.35
2005 42769 14881 0.35
2006 43528 15263 0.35
2007 43989 15405 0.35
2008 43605 16109 0.37
2009 42086 17576 0.42
2010 42231 16880 0.40

http://www.usgove...;local=s
As you can see, the GDP fell in 2009, and govt spending rose.
The solution is NOT to extract more wealth from GDP, the solution is to raise GDP. Punishing those that create the wealth (increasing taxes) won't increase wealth creation.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jul 24, 2011
Govt forced redistribution of wealth (socialism) has never been proven to create prosperity

[I]
China.
[II]
Dikaiosyni (there's no English word with the same semantics - justice and fairness are similar but not the same) is more important than prosperity.

People who promote the spreading of pain in the society for the benefit of ever diminishing minorities - the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the wealthy by depriving the state of its power - like the Norwegian mass-murderer of socialist youths - are finally destabilizing their society and making themselves expendable as history shows.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2011
The wealthy don't create wealth. They hoard wealth created by others. It's the folks in the middle that create wealth. And of course spending went up when GDP went down. More people lost their jobs and filed for benefits so the government had to spend more to pay those benefits. The drop in GDP was caused by a decrease in the velocity of money, which was caused by the hoarding of money and other resources by those with a very small marginal propensity to spend, consume or productively invest their hoardings. The solution is to increase the velocity of money by taxing the hoarders and spending on those with a large marginal propensity to spend and consume.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2011
China is prosperous?
Per capita income: China (126)7.6K USD, Singapore(5)62.1K USD, Norway(7)54.6K USD.
The wealthy don't create wealth. They hoard wealth created by others. It's the folks in the middle that create wealth.

Capital is required to create wealth. Who provides the capital?
decrease in the velocity of money

Like the collapse of the govt inspired housing bubble?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2011
GNP is gross national product. Product as in real goods and services. The only way the government can "extract" any amount of GNP is by buying it. People might choose not to produce because they fear some tax liability (I've never seen any evidence of this) or be unable to produce because they don't have enough money to buy the inputs, but then the government hasn't extracted any amount of product because it was not produced. And since you're on about Sweden, for some reason, you should know that the highest effective tax rate for the wealthy is 57% over there, and federal revenues represent 56% of Sweden's GDP. I wonder how many red herrings, straw men, ad hominems and other fallacies you'll throw at the wall in response to that.
You may appear to be a little less inventive and unsubstantiated if you posted sources for your info like your adversary does? Otherwise your posts are easily discounted.

Thanks.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2011
The Regulatory State make the poor poorer.
"The aggression of licensing laws simply made the rich richer and the poor poorer."
"The more laws and restrictions there are, the poorer people become."- Lao-tsu, TAO TE CHING
"Disadvantaged individuals, however, have to start at the bottom and work their way up. Training jobs at low pay and home businesses are the first rungs of the Ladder.

Minimum wage and licensing laws destroy the lower rungs, giving the disadvantaged less opportunity than ever. Instead of being paid a low wage while getting training and experience, the disadvantaged must pay for training or an expensive license."
http://www.ruwart...ap4.html
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2011
I do that just to annoy you, otto. You see, these are comment boards, not peer-reviewed journals. If you disbelieve the facts I report, you are free to look it up yourself. You might even learn something in the attempt. At least I do not support my arguments with an absurd, unevidenced conspiracy theory.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2011
The theories of Mises, Hayek, ... have a much better track record of prediction the the 'progressive' socialists.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2011
The theories of Mises, Hayek, ... have a much better track record of prediction the the 'progressive' socialists.

Correction:
The theories of Mises, Hayek, ... have a much better track record of prediction than 'progressive' socialist theories.

these are comment boards, not peer-reviewed journals.

Which provides many with the opportunity to lie. But then, many lies are also published in peer reviewed journals.
Otto_the_Magnificent
2 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2011
I do that just to annoy you, otto. You see, these are comment boards, not peer-reviewed journals. If you disbelieve the facts I report, you are free to look it up yourself. You might even learn something in the attempt. At least I do not support my arguments with an absurd, unevidenced conspiracy theory.
Naw youre just lazy I think, plus you like to ad lib a little (a lot) sometimes yes? No?

And youll remember the last time we traded info I made you look uh mealy? Intellectually unsound? Vapid? Because I did look your facts up and found that you had scrambled and weeded them to suit. Which I demonstrated. Which is why you dont source what you post.

Because perhaps youre just another flavor of self-deceptionist?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2011
"In the North American Review in 1934, the progressive writer Roger Shaw described the New Deal as Fascist means to gain liberal ends. "
"Roosevelt himself called Mussolini admirable and professed that he was deeply impressed by what he has accomplished. The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelts 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism."
"A decade later, he (Hoover) wrote in his memoirs that the New Deal introduced to Americans the spectacle of Fascist dictation to business, labor and agriculture, "
http://reason.com...sevelt/1
It is so amusing when 'progressive' accuse libertarians of fascism when it is the 'progressives' who are advocates of fascist policies.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2011
It is so amusing when 'progressive' accuse libertarians of fascism when it is the 'progressives' who are advocates of fascist policies

I'd like to know whether user ryggesogn2 (Norwegian for 'reverse parish 2') is a member of the Tea party group 'Americans for prosperity' whose staff member Tim Phillips spoke on an April 2010 event of the Norwegian anti-tax, small-government, far-right Progress Party and whether he advocates "gruesome, but necessary" moves.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2011
whether he advocates "gruesome, but necessary" moves.

Again, 'progressives' try to attach a violent act to an organization promoting limited govt. They tried to do this in Tucson and failed, miserably.
However, it the 'progressives' who have DEMONSTRATED time and again their support for violence. They must as violence is the ONLY way they can succeed.
Magnette
not rated yet Jul 25, 2011
Ryggesogn2
A national health care plan will turn all health care 'professionals' into slaves.


Now you are presenting scenarios for which you obviously have no idea.

My wife works for the UK National Health service and in no way is she a 'slave' as you would have it but is in a good career with a great pension scheme at the end of it.
A government run service that, whilst funding is becoming tight these days, looks after their staff (all 1.5million of them)well.

So, how did you arrive at your slavery comment?
Is it by interpreting the available information for a possible US healthcare system or was it purely your bias speaking?
antonima
not rated yet Jul 25, 2011

It does not take into account that humans are humans and have drive, intelligence, persistence, etc. Those aspects of us can change the situation.


I think that's exactly the point. Even WITHOUT drive, intelligence, and persistence wealth would accumulate in the hands of a few. With those factors in play it will happen, but much more quickly.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2011
whether he advocates "gruesome, but necessary" moves.

Again, 'progressives' try to attach a violent act to an organization promoting limited govt. They tried to do this in Tucson and failed, miserably.

His hatred for socialists is well documented.
And now he doesn't answer the question whether he advocates what he calls "violent acts".
But in using the term "violent act" to describe mass murder he is indeed exposing a revealing belittlement.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2011
So, how did you arrive at your slavery comment?

So far pay is good. What happens if that changes? Either the customer will suffer with rationing, or the medical staff will somehow be forced to work for lower pay and benefits.
richard2
5 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2011
ryggeson, to correct your statement "JFK and Reagan lowered rates and revenue increased", Reagan did lower tax rates and tax revenue PLUMMETED. Tax rates then went well above their current level. Yes, that's right, taxes were higher under godly conservative Reagan than under the crazy socialist Obama.
Magnette
5 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2011
So, how did you arrive at your slavery comment?

So far pay is good. What happens if that changes? Either the customer will suffer with rationing, or the medical staff will somehow be forced to work for lower pay and benefits.


It's been good for the last fifty or so years but you're now predicting it all going wrong?

I guess you answered my question indirectly...you haven't made a judgement using available information it's just your bias speaking.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2011
We're all wage slaves man. Off the pigs. Comes the Revolution. Power to the People!!!

Lenin/Lennon/bin Laden
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2011
We're all wage slaves man. Off the pigs. Comes the Revolution. Power to the People!!!

Lenin/Lennon/bin Laden
Yah you dont has to remind me thrassymachnuts you dont has a sense of humor. Too bad for you not me-
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2011
frajo:
China is prosperous?
"Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com...TQAa2JMc

Hundreds of rioters in a southern Chinese city battled with police into the early hours of Wednesday morning after a disabled fruit vendor died while being beaten by Chinese officials on the street in broad daylight.

The man, identified by the government as 52-year-old Deng Qiguo, died on Tuesday afternoon after a dispute with city management staff in the city of Anshun, in southern Chinas Guizhou province, according to state media reports."
http://www.ft.com...TQ9lgW6W
I can see why 'progressives' like China.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.