Viliam’s point, which is that if a substantial fraction of the world’s economic inequality arises from cause 2 (taking by force or fraud) more than from cause 1 (creating value)
That may have been implied, but wasn’t stated. Is it actually Viliam’s point? I am not sure how true it is—consider e.g. Soviet Russia. A lot of value was taken by force, but economic inequality was very low. Or consider the massive growth of wealth in China over the last 20 years. Where did this wealth come from—did the Chinese create it or did they steal it from someone?
This is a tricky subject because Marxist-style analysis would claim that capital owners are fleecing the workers who actually create value and so pretty much all wealth resulting from investment is “stolen”. If we start to discuss this seriously, we’ll need to begin with the basics—who has the original rights to created value and how are they established?
Is it actually Viliam’s point? [that a larger fraction of the world’s economic inequality arises from taking by force or fraud than from creating value]
I believe this, at least in long turn; i.e. that even if once in a while some genius creates a lot of wealth and succeeds to capture a significant amount of it, sooner or later most of that money will pass into hands of people who are experts on taking value from others.
No Marxism here, merely an assumption that people who specialize at X will become good at X, especially when X can be simply measured. Here X is “taking value from others”.
consider e.g. Soviet Russia. A lot of value was taken by force, but economic inequality was very low.
Nope, that was merely the official propaganda. In fact, high-level Communists were rich. Not only they had much more money, but perhaps more importantly, they were allowed to use “common property” that the average muggle wasn’t allowed to touch. For example, there would be a large villa that nominally belonged to the state, but in fact someone specific lived there. Or there would be a service provided nominally to anyone (chosen by an unspecified algorithm), but in fact only high-level Communists had that service available and average muggles didn’t. High-level Communists were also in much better positions to steal things or blackmail people.
consider the massive growth of wealth in China over the last 20 years. Where did this wealth come from—did the Chinese create it or did they steal it from someone?
How is this wealth distributed among the specific Chinese? It can be both true that “China” created the wealth, and that the specific “Chinese” who own it, mostly stole it (from the other Chinese).
Marxist-style analysis would claim that capital owners are fleecing the workers who actually create value
My argument is completely unrelated to this. For me the worrying part about rich people is that they can use their wealth to (1) do crime more safely, and even (2) change laws so that the things they wanted to do are no longer crimes, but the things that other people wanted to do suddenly become crimes.
I disagree. As I mentioned, they did live better (more comfortably, higher consumption) than the peons, but not to the degree that I would call “rich”. I don’t believe that critics of communist regimes, both internal and external, called the party bosses “rich” either. For comparison, consider, say, corrupt South/Central American dictatorships.
Things have changed, of course. Putin is very rich.
the worrying part about rich people is that they can use their wealth to (1) do crime more safely, and even (2) change laws
You are worried about power, not wealth.
It’s true that wealth can be converted to power—sometimes, to some degree, at some conversion rate. But if you actually want power, the straightforward way is attempt to acquire more power directly.
There is also the inverse worry: if no individuals have power, who does? Is it good for individuals to have no power, to be cogs/slaves/sheep?
I’ll let Viliam answer that one (while remarking that the bit you quoted certainly isn’t what I claimed V’s point to be, since you chopped it off after the antecedent).
A lot of value was taken by force, but economic inequality was very low
That’s not a counterexample; what you want is a case where economic inequality was high without a lot of value being taken by force.
the massive growth of wealth in China
Mostly a matter of real growth through technological and commercial advancement, I’ve always assumed. (Much of it through trade with richer countries—that comes into category 1 in so far as the trade was genuinely beneficial to both sides.) But I’m far from an expert on China.
If we start to discuss this seriously, we’ll need to begin with the basics
It seems like one could say that about a very wide variety of issues, and that it’s more likely to prevent discussion than to raise its quality in general. As for the actual question with which you close: I am not convinced that moral analysis in terms of rights is ever the right place to begin.
moral analysis in terms of rights is ever the right place to begin.
I am not so much asking for moral analysis as for precise definitions for “using force or fraud in a wider meaning of the word; sometimes perfectly legally; often using the wealth they already have as a weapon”. That seems like a very malleable part which can be bent into any shape desired.
To get a bit more concrete I’m talking about the Soviet Russia of the pre-perestroika era, basically Brezhnev times.
Do you have something specific in mind? Of course party bosses lived better than village peons, but I don’t think that the economic inequality was high. Money wasn’t the preferred currency in the USSR—it was power (and access).
That may have been implied, but wasn’t stated. Is it actually Viliam’s point? I am not sure how true it is—consider e.g. Soviet Russia. A lot of value was taken by force, but economic inequality was very low. Or consider the massive growth of wealth in China over the last 20 years. Where did this wealth come from—did the Chinese create it or did they steal it from someone?
This is a tricky subject because Marxist-style analysis would claim that capital owners are fleecing the workers who actually create value and so pretty much all wealth resulting from investment is “stolen”. If we start to discuss this seriously, we’ll need to begin with the basics—who has the original rights to created value and how are they established?
I believe this, at least in long turn; i.e. that even if once in a while some genius creates a lot of wealth and succeeds to capture a significant amount of it, sooner or later most of that money will pass into hands of people who are experts on taking value from others.
No Marxism here, merely an assumption that people who specialize at X will become good at X, especially when X can be simply measured. Here X is “taking value from others”.
Nope, that was merely the official propaganda. In fact, high-level Communists were rich. Not only they had much more money, but perhaps more importantly, they were allowed to use “common property” that the average muggle wasn’t allowed to touch. For example, there would be a large villa that nominally belonged to the state, but in fact someone specific lived there. Or there would be a service provided nominally to anyone (chosen by an unspecified algorithm), but in fact only high-level Communists had that service available and average muggles didn’t. High-level Communists were also in much better positions to steal things or blackmail people.
How is this wealth distributed among the specific Chinese? It can be both true that “China” created the wealth, and that the specific “Chinese” who own it, mostly stole it (from the other Chinese).
My argument is completely unrelated to this. For me the worrying part about rich people is that they can use their wealth to (1) do crime more safely, and even (2) change laws so that the things they wanted to do are no longer crimes, but the things that other people wanted to do suddenly become crimes.
I disagree. As I mentioned, they did live better (more comfortably, higher consumption) than the peons, but not to the degree that I would call “rich”. I don’t believe that critics of communist regimes, both internal and external, called the party bosses “rich” either. For comparison, consider, say, corrupt South/Central American dictatorships.
Things have changed, of course. Putin is very rich.
You are worried about power, not wealth.
It’s true that wealth can be converted to power—sometimes, to some degree, at some conversion rate. But if you actually want power, the straightforward way is attempt to acquire more power directly.
There is also the inverse worry: if no individuals have power, who does? Is it good for individuals to have no power, to be cogs/slaves/sheep?
I’ll let Viliam answer that one (while remarking that the bit you quoted certainly isn’t what I claimed V’s point to be, since you chopped it off after the antecedent).
That’s not a counterexample; what you want is a case where economic inequality was high without a lot of value being taken by force.
Mostly a matter of real growth through technological and commercial advancement, I’ve always assumed. (Much of it through trade with richer countries—that comes into category 1 in so far as the trade was genuinely beneficial to both sides.) But I’m far from an expert on China.
It seems like one could say that about a very wide variety of issues, and that it’s more likely to prevent discussion than to raise its quality in general. As for the actual question with which you close: I am not convinced that moral analysis in terms of rights is ever the right place to begin.
I am not so much asking for moral analysis as for precise definitions for “using force or fraud in a wider meaning of the word; sometimes perfectly legally; often using the wealth they already have as a weapon”. That seems like a very malleable part which can be bent into any shape desired.
Well, that would be for Viliam to clarify rather than for me, should he so choose. It doesn’t seem excessively malleable to me, for what it’s worth.
I am contesting this.
The first part, or the second, or both?
Second.
To get a bit more concrete I’m talking about the Soviet Russia of the pre-perestroika era, basically Brezhnev times.
Do you have something specific in mind? Of course party bosses lived better than village peons, but I don’t think that the economic inequality was high. Money wasn’t the preferred currency in the USSR—it was power (and access).