"Less than zero in my case," said Clayton.
-copied from 3, here.
Anyone cannot. There are perhaps three factors. Personally, I have always lacked ambition and have always been theoretical, never remotely practical. There is no way that I could have prospered starting from nothing.
Secondly, our economic system is pyramidal. Everyone cannot be a billionaire. There are fewer employers than employees, fewer big investors than workers whose labor is invested in. Encouraging employees to own a few shares does not democratize the economy. The economy booms and slumps unpredictably so that, at any time, skilled workers can be laid off. I have read the opinion that unemployment happens because some people are "too emotionally knotted" to find work.
In this environment, success results from a combination of ability and luck and is not the prerogative of just anyone.
4 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
But I do believe more people can and SHOULD try to invest. You don't have to start with a lot of money. Even merely one thousand dollars, invested while young in a company selling a good or service many people are very likely to need over many years, can pay off handsomely if the investor is patient and is willing to wait.
An economy cannot be "democratic," because, ideally, it is not controlled or driven by political factors. Rather, demand and supply drives the allocation of goods and services (which includes labor of all kinds), with the most efficient firms and individuals supplying those needs also being, quite properly, the most successful.
Slumps and recessions occur when too many of these resources of all kinds are so inefficiently used and misallocated that the economy seizes up. Ideally, a slump should be used for liquidating failed businesses and reallocating resources to being more efficiently and profitably used.
MY view is that what makes some recessions so painful and long drawn out is when politicians and the voters who elected them try to either prevent slumps or to keep afloat failing businesses. That delays and prevents the most efficient reallocating of resources and labor into new and more efficient investments. Best would be to allow recessions to follow their natural courses as quickly and decisively as possible. If necessary, the state could give TEMPORARY assistance to those most adversely affected by a slump.
Ad astra! Sean
A
Kaor, Paul!
This reminds me a bit of what Henry George wrote in PROGRESS AND POVERTY about the idea that workers could escape poverty by being more diligent and frugal, that it was like saying that every runner could win a race. That anyone might is true, but that everyone might is not. As a Georgist, my position is different from that of either a socialist like you or a non-Georgist conservative like the esteemed Sean: viz., that I am in favor of free enterprise, but I see a big difference between capital, which is produced by human effort, and land, which is not. I favor equal rights to land, which, in a simpler form of society, can be achieved by letting anyone hunt or gather or ploughing where he wishes, but in a more complicated and populous society should be achieved by charging landowners for their use of land which they did nothing to create, abolishing all other taxes, and using land tax revenues not applied to other purposes for a per capita citizens’ dividend.
This principle should not only be applied to the ground beneath our feet, but to “land” in the sense used by classical political economists, meaning resources not of human creation, such as fishing rights, and the privilege of releasing pollutants into Earth’s atmosphere.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Nicholas,
I knew a Social Crediter in Dublin years ago, Raymond Hannigan. I might still have a copy of a book he wrote, PEOPLE'S CAPITALISM (I think).
Paul.
Kaor, Nicholas!
Thanks for the nice mention of me! First, I agree that it is not likely that everyone who is frugal, diligent, forethoughtful, etc., will be successful. And not all investments, however carefully planned, will pay off. But I do believe that if MORE people of all kinds were like that, there would be a lot less poverty.
Alas, I can't entirely agree with Georgist ideas about landownership. While most land was not "created" by humans, USES for those lands were created. That is, for undeveloped land, it took effort, forethought, planning, etc., to make that land USEFUL, whether for agricultural, industrial, commercial, or residential purposes. Or simply for turning into a golf course! And the same reasoning applies when any such parcels of land is redeveloped for other purposes. The IMAGINATION of human beings found USES for otherwise fallow lands.
Also, I think it can fairly be said that sometimes land can be "created," as when marshes are drained or regions covered by water are filled in. My view is that conflicts with Georgist views of landownership. And, of course, there will be multiple possible uses for such "created" lands.
Lastly, I'm dubious of the kind of tax system Georgists advocate. Largely because I put little trust in the state, any state, composed as they are of human beings, wisely using any such funds.
Ad astra and regards! Sean
Post a Comment