Economics Questions

Re: Praxeological case for redistributing wealth

idol — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:36:13 GMT

That is called the Easterlin Paradox. Here's a graph of a study that had the opposite result; per capita GDP correlated positively with happiness.

Furthermore, would you rather live in a country with:

(A) 1.000.000 people and 500.000 poor (poverty rate = 50%)

(B) 2.000.000 people and 666.666 poor (poverty rate =33%)

If you prefer (A), try country (C)

People are generally better off in a wealthy country no matter what their wealth.

Re: Praxeological case for redistributing wealth

Buzz Killington — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 22:33:42 GMT

I suppose that's true, if they get their profits that they could have kept taken away.

Re: Praxeological case for redistributing wealth

z1235 — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 22:27:54 GMT

Buzz Killington:

Libertarians and neoliberals often point out that redistributing wealth destroys wealth and thus makes us poorer.

This is true.

BUT, what matters for happiness is not so much absolute wealth as relative wealth. If I have 55,000 dollars, I'm not going to be particularly happy if all the people around me are frickin' millionares.

Therefore, redistribution.

Even if the ridiculous (bolded) assertion was accepted a priori, how/why does redistribution necessarily follow? I mean, millionaires would be less happy if the alledged source of their happiness (relative wealth) was taken away from them, no?

Re: Praxeological case for redistributing wealth

Buzz Killington — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:42:04 GMT

Though this study: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3315638/Relative-wealth-makes-you-happier.html studies it directly, not just people's answer to the survey.

Re: Praxeological case for redistributing wealth

Buzz Killington — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:38:48 GMT

I guess it has to do with how people perceive the surveys. I guess that when a lot of people think of a world of billionares they subconsciously assume inflation, if you get what I'm saying.

Re: Praxeological case for redistributing wealth

Neodoxy — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:17:13 GMT

The land of billionaires (so long as my REAL income is still the same) because that would mean that I'd live in society where everyone is so amazingly productive that they are billionaires. The external benefits I would receive would be absolutely off the chain... Like I'm talking chocolate fondue fountains on street corners. If people were that rich in real terms then petty donations could fund things like that.

Re: Praxeological case for redistributing wealth

Wheylous — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:15:39 GMT

Would you rather everyone go back to owning an equal amount of sticks and stones and sleep in trees or do you prefer to live in a society where the high productivity of a lot of people creates cheap technological marvels. Um... I'll take the poor person in rich world, please.

Re: Praxeological case for redistributing wealth

Buzz Killington — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:14:57 GMT

Though this applies to a society where people don't know their place, I think people are happy as long as they don't live in a society that holds to the doctrine of equality.

Re: Praxeological case for redistributing wealth

Wheylous — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:14:35 GMT

Just think about it, would you rather have 30k a year in a land of billionares, or 30k a year in a land of people making the same amount of money?

Are you serious? The answer is not what you would expect.

Re: Praxeological case for redistributing wealth

Buzz Killington — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:13:10 GMT

Just think about it, would you rather have 30k a year in a land of billionares, or 30k a year in a land of people making the same amount of money?

Re: Praxeological case for redistributing wealth

Wheylous — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:11:10 GMT

Good for you.

Re: Praxeological case for redistributing wealth

Neodoxy — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:09:48 GMT

"BUT, what matters for happiness is not so much absolute wealth as relative wealth."

How do you know?

Praxeological case for redistributing wealth

Buzz Killington — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:04:26 GMT

Libertarians and neoliberals often point out that redistributing wealth destroys wealth and thus makes us poorer.

This is true.

BUT, what matters for happiness is not so much absolute wealth as relative wealth. If I have 55,000 dollars, I'm not going to be particularly happy if all the people around me are frickin' millionares.

Therefore, redistribution.