Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Unjust Deserts - Gar Alperovitz & Lew Daly
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 53 (723375)
03-31-2014 4:46 PM


In Unjust Deserts: How the Rich are Taking our Common Inheritance, Gar Alperovitz and Lew Daly present the argument that the wealth of the modern worldheld largely by a small percentage of the populationis almost entirely attributable to the history of human civilization and philosophical and technological innovation.
From the invention of the wheel to the development of current information technologies and infrastructures, the fundamental underpinnings of modern progress owe their existence not the the efforts of those in the modern world but to the efforts of those in the past. In this sense, the wealth derived through use of these essential components of development is 'unearned' by anyone living today.
The contributions to wealth creation of each generation are small compared to the contribution of the past taken as a whole, and so the percentage of any individual's income that can be said to have been earned is exceptionally small. Instead, Alperovitz and Daly argue, the wealth that comes through the use of technologies and institutions developed in the past represents a "common inheritance", unearned by anyone living today though bestowed on our generation as a free gift from the past.
Thus, it is only equitable that this common inheritance be commonly shared by all members of society equally. The modern entrepreneur played no role in the development of the alphabet, the printing press, the adding machine, and most of the other technologies that form the backbone of his inventions and thus the wealth they bring. All the wealth attributable to these developments is unearned by himas, indeed, it is unearned by anyone living today. What then, other than injustice, entitles him to sole enjoyment of this wealth in the stead of millions of others who worked just as hard not earning it?
This is the topic at the center of Unjust Deserts. Though lacking in original ideasthe work is essentially (and ironically) a drawn-out book reviewthe author's deserve due credit for their effort in bringing the important ideas they discuss to the access of the general public. It's worth a read for anyone living with the delusion of the self-made man; the authors make it clear that most of what makes the man the man did not make.
Jon

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-31-2014 5:03 PM Jon has replied
 Message 4 by Taq, posted 03-31-2014 8:49 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 53 (723394)
04-01-2014 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Taq
03-31-2014 8:49 PM


My initial question is how can we have fair profits while keeping incentives in place to encourage innovation?
And that's a good question. I still have the last several pages to read. I hope the authors address the question there; so far the book has just been a discussion of previous writings on the topic.
A couple proposals not originating with the authors are cited:
quote:
Unjust Deserts:
A forward-looking proposal that also alters ownership (and echoes ideas of some of the nineteenth-century theorists reviewed in chapter 6) has recently been put forward by Yale law professors Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott. This would allocate a "capital stake" of $80,000 to every citizen on reaching adulthoodto be used for any purpose an individual chose (in most cases, probably, for college education). The program would initially be financed by a 2 percent annual wealth tax, thus simultaneously challenging the top beneficiaries of the current system with a strategy that could provide large numbers with the means of acquiring knowledge. The capital stake would be recouped at death through an inheritance tax. (p. 148)
quote:
Unjust Deserts:
Huet did not flinch from the logical implications or from the technical challenges his position inevitably created. One first had to focus upon (and in principle disentangle) that which a person, today, actually could be said to have contributed and "earned" himselfthe person's unique contribution. Then it was both necessary and possible to estimate the share that logically came from nature and from past historical contributions. Huet then proposed differentiating the first type of wealth in a twofold system of inheritance: first, any wealth actually acquired by an individual's labor during his lifetime could be freely transferred in bequest or gift to another person, or heir. The recipient could enjoy this gift or bequest as she saw fit. On the other hand, Huet held there could be no moral rationale for this second person passing on to the next generation that which she had done nothing to earn during her lifetime. Accordingly, Huet proposed a tax on subsequent gifts and inheritance equal to 100 percent of the amount the person originally inherited, so that all wealth received through such transfers would revert into a common fund upon the death of the recipient:
Constantly fed by an inexhaustible spring, the general patrimony would be made up, at a given moment, of the old patrimonial assets and of all capital goods, accumulated in each generation which, being capable of gratuitous transfer only once, would join the mass of the first upon the death of the donees.
(pp. 121—122)
A few other proposals are cited, but these seem to be the theme of most of them.
Also, we do put expiration dates on copyrights and patents.
But the expiration dates are ridiculous. Roughly two generations (in addition to the original author) can benefit from the copyright or patent despite having done absolutely nothing to earn that benefit.
And that is just the crux of the argument in Unjust Deserts: the current system is highly biased toward rewarding non-contributors and rewarding them far too handsomely.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Taq, posted 03-31-2014 8:49 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Taq, posted 04-01-2014 10:55 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 53 (723395)
04-01-2014 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by New Cat's Eye
03-31-2014 5:03 PM


The ability to apply technology in a way that will successfully provide him with more wealth.
Knowing how to get rich is not the same as deserving to be rich.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-31-2014 5:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-01-2014 10:33 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 53 (723467)
04-02-2014 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by New Cat's Eye
04-01-2014 12:47 PM


Its an injustice that some poor kid had to be born into a starving family in Africa while I get to sit here eating cheese and grapes.
And the fact that you can sit and eat cheese and grapes while a poor African child starves is due almost entirely to no effort on your part whatsoever.
You didn't invent the milking machine that makes mass-produced milk possible. You didn't invent the vats (or whatever the hell they use) to mechanize cheese-making. You didn't invent the internal combustion engine that powers the trucks that brings the cheese to the store. You didn't build the roads; you didn't invent the concept of money; you didn't... etc.
And so it is that almost everything that lies behind your ability to have affordable and easily-accessible cheese has nothing to do with you at all; likewise the starving African child has done nothing to put himself into his current position. In this sense, you don't 'deserve' the cheese (at least not so damn much of it) and the African child doesn't 'deserve' to have no cheese at all.
The authors argue that a fair economic system rewarding people based on what they earn must also not reward people for things they did not earn. You are to the African child what the disgustingly wealthy are to you. You have something you didn't work for (and couldn't possibly have worked for) and so do the super wealthy.
That's what I was saying; nobody is going to give you anything, regardless of what is deserved, you have to go out and get what you want.
But you can't. We don't live in a world where the common inheritance is just sitting there in a bucket for everyone to grab into and remove their equal share. A select few have hoarded the common inheritance. The African child cannot get his share of your cheese because you own it; you cannot get your share of the common inheritance because the super wealthy own it. Is that fair?
If you want to do that illegally, then you may face the legal consequences. If you do it legally, you can obtain wealth and live your life.
But sitting around calling it an injustice and saying the people who have obtained wealth don't deserve it doesn't really accomplish anything.
The authors do not accuse anyone of doing anything illegal. The point they seek to make is a moral one.
If you want there to be changes, you have to go out and make changes. Us sitting around discussing how unfair life is, is a waste of time.
We aren't going to take up arms. Talking is the only reasonable course of action: talk enough, convince enough, vote enough.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-01-2014 12:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 53 (723491)
04-02-2014 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by New Cat's Eye
04-01-2014 10:33 AM


Jon writes:
Knowing how to get rich is not the same as deserving to be rich.
Deserving? That's not even a factor that is in the equation.
The notion of 'deserving' is in the title of the book.
It is clear that the very wealthy know how to get super rich. It is the contention of the authors that they don't deserve to get super rich.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-01-2014 10:33 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 53 (723502)
04-03-2014 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Phat
04-03-2014 12:04 AM


Re: Share and Share Alike
How do we go about determining what ones share is? If all of the wealth in the world were divided equally, the system wouldnt work.
Unfortunately the authors don't get that far. Though recognizing the need for "incentives to reward effort" (p. 156), they are also pretty clear on just what they consider to represent one's just deserts:
quote:
Alperovitz & Daly in Unjust Deserts (2008):
[If] Bill Gates were to be kidnapped from his Seattle-area mansion and put on a deserted island where the only factors of production were raw nature and his own physical efforts and intelligence, we would quickly learn how much of his wealth is due to living in an advanced society with access to technological capabilities and vast stores of knowledge. If he managed to survive, he might even see that, indeed, virtually all of this wealth (beyond barest subsistence) is due to such access. (pp. 167—168)
How much "incentive" should Bill Gates get beyond what he has 'earned' as barest subsistence? If all but his most basic of life-supporting necessities are the fruits of society's (past and present) labors, then anything rewarded to him beyond these are part of the societal surplus.
How much of that surplus do we give him?
Indeed, how do we figure out how much anyone has earned through their own unique effort separate from what society has earned for them?
And this is probably the most disappointing aspect of this book: Alperovitz and Daly argue for a "distributive justice" without ever telling us what that distribution is.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Phat, posted 04-03-2014 12:04 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 53 (723636)
04-04-2014 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Phat
04-04-2014 12:05 PM


Re: Share and Share Alike
We would never get governments to follow Jesus mandates,however.
Why not?
Governments already facilitates the creation of massive amounts of wealth. And they facilitate the accumulation of that wealth into the hands of a few people. Certainly a single man, such as Bill Gates, could not defend his wealth against all the millions of people who might contest him for it in a world without government and the protection of property rights it creates through its monopoly on force.
So, your position that governments have no role to play in determining who gets what is dead: the primary function of governments (past and present) is to determine who gets what and to protect that determination through use of force.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 04-04-2014 12:05 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 04-04-2014 6:11 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 04-04-2014 6:12 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 53 (723646)
04-04-2014 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phat
04-04-2014 6:12 PM


Re: Share and Share Alike
Aint nobody gonna start redistributing stuff on a massive scale that wont likely get shot in so doing.
Except world governments, who, as I've said, have a monopoly on things like shooting folk.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 04-04-2014 6:12 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Phat, posted 04-05-2014 2:11 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 53 (723656)
04-05-2014 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Phat
04-05-2014 2:11 AM


Re: The Hillbilly Militia
This gets back to guns. Americans own far and away more guns than any other nation on earth. They won't let them be taken away---not all of them, at any rate---and even if our military did try and enforce law on its own citizens, these folks would not obey peacefully. In addition, much of our military is made up of working class citizens who likely wouldnt go against their own people. Of all of the "Arab Springs" and uprisings globally---none would hold a candle to the raw outrage and energy of the home bred folk of rural America. To sum it up: No government would ever tame the wild, rebellious, and eternally free and feisty spirit of the Americans.
Where did you pull this from, Phat?
Do you have any evidence for this nonsense?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Phat, posted 04-05-2014 2:11 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 04-05-2014 11:41 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 53 (723691)
04-05-2014 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Phat
04-05-2014 11:41 AM


Re: The Hillbilly Militia
I do know the mindset of many people, however and I do know that they would resist a world government.
Who said anything about a world government?
Or are you just in boogie-man mode again?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 04-05-2014 11:41 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Phat, posted 04-06-2014 3:02 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 53 (723709)
04-06-2014 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Phat
04-06-2014 3:02 AM


Re: The Hillbilly Militia
The only reason I say "world" government is because I cannot fathom how a democratically elected national government would ever redistribute the wealth---on a more massive scale than they have already done--especially abroad.
And why not?
Government's enact trade laws and regulations all of the time. A simple example of a trade law that would help distribute first-world wealth to developing nations would be a ban on imports produced by workers making less than a certain amount of money.
It would never pass the vote.
Who wouldn't support a law that not only promotes human rights but also helps keep jobs at home instead of overseas?
As is, our government is polarized between moderate democrats and fascist republicans who are part of the problem anyway as they seek to redistribute the wealth more towards the monied class.
And they are doing a good job of it too, which should be all the evidence you need that governments have the power to redistribute wealth.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Phat, posted 04-06-2014 3:02 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024