Should a rich person help a poor person just because they're rich?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman So what am I doing when I build a TV? I'm creating wealth out of nothing.

Nope.

First of all, your time and labor are have value. So when you trade that TV for money, you're trading away your time, skill, and sweat.

But, more to the point, what did you build this tv with? Materials.

These materials cost you something to obtain.


So you didn't gain anything by trading the tv to someone. You just shifted around wealth in different combinations.

No way. In any trade, value is created. If I have $300 and you have a TV you want to sell for $300, and we exchange them, then we are both richer.

Neither of us gained any wealth. We just traded part of our current wealths in different forms.

You had a $300 TV and I had $300. Now, I have a $300 TV and you have $300. The net effect is zero wealth gain.

[SteveA]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Nope. First of all, your time and labor are have value. So when you trade that TV for money, you're trading away your time, skill, and sweat. But, more to the point, what did you build this tv with? Materials. These materials cost you something to obtain. So you didn't gain anything by trading the tv to someone. You just shifted around wealth in different combinations.

But he wasn't talking about trading a television. He was talking about creating one.

Moving things around is what government does. Creating them is what the private sector does.

Here, look at his exact quote:

"So what am I doing when I build a TV? I'm creating wealth out of nothing."

I added the bold font. He's talking about people working to create new wealth, not merely transfers that create nothing of new value.

Neither of us gained any wealth. We just traded part of our current wealths in different forms. You had a $300 TV and I had $300. Now, I have a $300 TV and you have $300. The net effect is zero wealth gain.

Though I agree wit this, one person got a television, while the other got "paper".

Sometimes these subtleties can make a big difference ... you've got be careful that both parties are satisfied with the arrangement or there are potential problems with assuming this was an equitable trade.

[RVonse]

Quote by: SteveA But he wasn't talking about trading a television. He was talking about creating one. Moving things around is what government does. Creating them is what the private sector does. Here, look at his exact quote: "So what am I doing when I build a TV? I'm creating wealth out of nothing." I added the bold font. He's talking about people working to create new wealth, not merely transfers that create nothing of new value. .

This following quote: "So what am I doing when I build a TV? I'm creating wealth out of nothing." is totally false. If Morgan would have said "So what am I doing when I build a TV? I'm spending wealth for nothing." he would have almost been right.

Just stop and think about this for a moment. No one ever builds anything without spending wealth. Not a TV or not even a roll of toilet paper. It cost money, wages, materials, time, and property taxes to build anything. Saying you can build a TV for nothing is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard.

If you are lucky enough to sell the TV after it is built, only then can you claim to have made any wealth from it. And hopefully the wealth you made was more than you spent.

[RVonse]

Quote by: ibm i've said this before. again, if the gap is widened to a certain degree, a society will come to an unrest and a riot/revolution is bound to happen. often times it means a war of some sort, and war means destruction, waste and recession. thousands of years of human history prove this again and again, the u.s. (a country that is 200 some years young) is of no exception. our current society and its structure may be able to withstand the gap to a certain degree, just like the levees in new orleans can take a cat3 hurricane. but when katrina hits, the levees would ultimately break and the city will have to be rebuilt. i’m not suggesting that our country is gonna see a major riot any time soon, but the current trend truly is worrisome and troublesome. .

Totally agree, this will be exactly the way things are going to go down and it will not be to anyones liking. I actually said the exact thing a couple pages back.

And I also notice it appears neither Morgan Freeman or SteveA are responding to this argument which tells me they must also agree as well.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: RVonse This following quote: "So what am I doing when I build a TV? I'm creating wealth out of nothing." is totally false. If Morgan would have said "So what am I doing when I build a TV? I'm spending wealth for nothing." he would have almost been right. Just stop and think about this for a moment. No one ever builds anything without spending wealth. Not a TV or not even a roll of toilet paper. It cost money, wages, materials, time, and property taxes to build anything. Saying you can build a TV for nothing is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. If you are lucky enough to sell the TV after it is built, only then can you claim to have made any wealth from it. And hopefully the wealth you made was more than you spent.

Exactly right.

[Clarence]

Quote by: njlemire87 I would have to agree. The constitution gives you the right to seekk happiness, not have it. However, if you make money and you want to hoard it, that is your choice. I think they should help because they are human and American, but thats just me.

I thought it was just me.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 First of all, your time and labor are have value. So when you trade that TV for money, you're trading away your time, skill, and sweat. But, more to the point, what did you build this tv with? Materials. These materials cost you something to obtain.

You seem to be asserting that time + sweat + materials = TV.
That's ridiculous.
I have to apply my time, sweat, and materials in a smart way in order to create value.
I can spend time shoving a pile of transistors from point A to point B. That doesn't create wealth. If I assemble those transistors into a TV, I've created wealth.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 You had a $300 TV and I had $300. Now, I have a $300 TV and you have $300. The net effect is zero wealth gain.

If the net effect was zero wealth gain, then the trade wouldn't have happened. I'm selling the TV at $300, but it's actually only worth $250 to me. The consumer is paying $300, but would actually be willing to pay $350. Hence, both parties are richer after the deal. This is basic economics.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RVonse Just stop and think about this for a moment. No one ever builds anything without spending wealth. Not a TV or not even a roll of toilet paper. It cost money, wages, materials, time, and property taxes to build anything. Saying you can build a TV for nothing is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard.

Of course there are costs that go into it. But it's a net gain, or I wouldn't have built the thing in the first place.

Quote by: RVonse If you are lucky enough to sell the TV after it is built, only then can you claim to have made any wealth from it.

Why do I have to sell the TV? I could just use it. That's wealth.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: ibm again, if the gap is widened to a certain degree, a society will come to an unrest and a riot/revolution is bound to happen. often times it means a war of some sort, and war means destruction, waste and recession. thousands of years of human history prove this again and again, the u.s. (a country that is 200 some years young) is of no exception.

Actually, the US is crucially different from any other society in those "thousand years of human history" We have a political system that protects life, liberty, and property.
The "gap" in question is the result of a few innovators becoming fabulously wealthy by providing goods and services that everyone else gets to enjoy, and doing this at the expense of noone. I don't think anyone is willing to go to war strictly out of envy.

Quote by: ibm the logic problem in that statement of yours, where you asked why so many people (although i’m not sure about the “millions”) keep coming to the u.s., is that it just proves there were poorer people in other parts of the world. it doesn’t prove here at home the poorer ain’t getting poorer.

This isn't an answer. Again, if the poor people from other countries stand to lose money by coming here, then why are they all clamoring to get in?

[SteveA]

Quote by: RVonse This following quote: "So what am I doing when I build a TV? I'm creating wealth out of nothing." is totally false. If Morgan would have said "So what am I doing when I build a TV? I'm spending wealth for nothing." he would have almost been right. Just stop and think about this for a moment. No one ever builds anything without spending wealth. Not a TV or not even a roll of toilet paper. It cost money, wages, materials, time, and property taxes to build anything. Saying you can build a TV for nothing is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard.

The only required investment was his labor. If something didn't require any labor to create, it wouldn't be considered valuable in the first place. He was paying property taxes already. He would be "spending time" either sitting on a coach or building a television. He was already eating food etc. Even the natural resources come from the land which we'll assume he already owns, because you said he's paying property taxes - though I'd differ on considering being taxed to keep something the same as truly owning it.

It might be simpler to consider the example building a house, or growing food, where the resouces are easier for one person to acquire on their own property to do so, but it doesn't really matter if someone trades televisions for wire or electronic components, it's the same creation of value/wealth being done by multiple people who specialize in various ways so that they can do these things more efficiently.

Noone even remains alive without consuming something, but to what extent a person works to create new value is a separate issue. There's a difference between spending and investment. This are a lot of the problems with viewing economics as powered by consumption.

People consume things naturally as they live but it's our ability to replenish these and create more that makes us wealthy.

Consider what it means to be poor/not wealthy too: Poverty is finding it difficult or impossible to fulfill physical needs or desires because you don't have enough valuable resources to do so. What's more valuable, raw resources or assembled products? A person with a lot of raw resources is poor in comparison to a person who assembles those into useful products.

Is the value of a television greater than the sum of its parts? Of course. If I melted it down, it would be worth less. So labor was invested into giving it additional value and that additional value is the creation of new wealth.

If heard a lot of arguments that say wealth and labor are effectively one and the same. That may true to some extent, because most things of value require labor to realize, but it's obviously not true that all these investments of labor were created equally. One person could paint rocks in a desert, while another provides medical services to people curing diseases. Wealth is subjective in value, but I'd consider a country with good medical services available wealthier than a country with painted rocks, opinions vary though.

If you are lucky enough to sell the TV after it is built, only then can you claim to have made any wealth from it. And hopefully the wealth you made was more than you spent.

I don't view currency as wealth. Even gold is only valuable mostly because of its rarity and convenience in trade, not due to any major satisfaction of human desires it provides.

Would everyone be "wealthy" if we were all given a bank account with a trillion dollars? Not really. We'd still live basically the same lifestyle, with likely a drop in quality of life as it would upset economic affairs that have taken time to develop and become efficient.

(Yes, my post could have been more direct but it just seems obvious that people who build/provide valuable products create additional wealth compared to those who don't)

And if you think wealth is indicated by paper, then we could make a country rich by printing up a ton of paper and buying all their real products. (I think they'd quickly change their mind on the deal as soon as they realized they had paper and nothing valuable to buy with it)

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman You seem to be asserting that time + sweat + materials = TV. That's ridiculous. I have to apply my time, sweat, and materials in a smart way in order to create value. I can spend time shoving a pile of transistors from point A to point B. That doesn't create wealth. If I assemble those transistors into a TV, I've created wealth.

time+sweat+materials+skill=TV.

Skill is also a cost that is made up when you sell the TV.

If the net effect was zero wealth gain, then the trade wouldn't have happened. I'm selling the TV at $300, but it's actually only worth $250 to me. The consumer is paying $300, but would actually be willing to pay $350. Hence, both parties are richer after the deal. This is basic economics.

Nope, neither of you gained anything.

The TV can not be said to have had an actual value of $350. It's only ever worth exactly what you can trade it for.

Thus, you had a $300 dollar TV, another guy had $300, and you traded exactly.

[ibm]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Actually, the US is crucially different from any other society in those "thousand years of human history" We have a political system that protects life, liberty, and property. The "gap" in question is the result of a few innovators becoming fabulously wealthy by providing goods and services that everyone else gets to enjoy, and doing this at the expense of noone. I don't think anyone is willing to go to war strictly out of envy.

morgan, if you really think that the u.s. is so “crucially” different that it will be an exception to the lessons learned from history, then i admire your confidence in this country. only that’s not the way i think.

but the “gap” does not only refer to bill gates and the like (plus your assessment of the “innovators” and the “envy” thereto is far from accurate); and the ‘widening”, again, is more of a problem.

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman … Again, if the poor people from other countries stand to lose money by coming here, then why are they all clamoring to get in?

immigration is another topic altogether. but #1, people came from other countries are not all poor people; #2, they pay a cost to come here because they have hope and anticipate to get it back. (say a mexican goes to texas and mows the lawns for the texans. he makes about $1,000 a month vs 300 in mexico. that is why he wants to come and stay, although he paid something like $3,000 to someone just to get in.)

but how’s this have do with the “gap” topic? and did i say richer and poorer is relative?

[SteveA]

Nope, neither of you gained anything. The TV can not be said to have had an actual value of $350. It's only ever worth exactly what you can trade it for. Thus, you had a $300 dollar TV, another guy had $300, and you traded exactly.

The TV is worth different things to different people. If this was a voluntary transaction, we can rather safely assume each person felt the deal was favorable to them. Maybe the person with the TV wanted to trade it for a computer, which also cost $300. Someone else who built a computer prefers a TV for $300. Each person finds more utility/value by making this exchange and they would both feel wealthier from the exchange.

You could say diamonds are ultimately carbon but the carbon can be transformed into diamonds. If a person did this, they would feel wealthier, though they still just own some carbon. Yes it took effort on their part but that's how wealth is created. The value of the diamonds wasn't stolen from anyone. They were previously just carbon that noone missed.

Now if that person with diamonds was dying of dehydration in a desert, a gallon of water might be more valuable to that person that the diamond, while someone else might have water but no diamonds and they'd both benefit from the exchange. Maybe you could view the exchange as being labor based but the value received by each person was subjective and had little to do with the labor involved but instead was based upon a personal subjective evaluation.

[RVonse]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Actually, the US is crucially different from any other society in those "thousand years of human history" We have a political system that protects life, liberty, and property.

But thats just it, Americans don't enjoy any of that anymore!

We have just witnessed first hand that life was not protected for the poor down in New Orleans.

The Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security was created at the ruins of Public Liberty.

The Supreme Court just took away the rights of private property ownership.

We are exactly like everywhere else in history.

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman This isn't an answer. Again, if the poor people from other countries stand to lose money by coming here, then why are they all clamoring to get in?

Because we offer free health care to them instead of our own citizens.

[deedee]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 This is the most obvious and base philosophical question when it comes to politics as the government is nothing more than a machine that takes money away from those who have it and gives it to those who don't. Do you think that, as a human being, you're obligated buy your wealth to help other humans simply because you have more and they have less? My answer: no. You should get to keep every red cent that you earn and do with it what you please. That's the ultimate freedom that anyone should expect.

My answer is that wealthy people should have a responsibility in helping those who are less fortunate. That's the 'ultimate love' that anyone should expect.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 time+sweat+materials+skill=TV. Skill is also a cost that is made up when you sell the TV.

"Skill" is not a cost. I don't lose skill by producing the TV, on the contrary, I gain it.
By developing my "skill" (R&D, Industrial Engineering), I am increasing my ability to create wealth. This comes at a cost to noone, and increases the absolute amount of wealth in the world.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Nope, neither of you gained anything.

If neither of us gained anything, then why did the trade take place?
Please. Tell me.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The TV can not be said to have had an actual value of $350. It's only ever worth exactly what you can trade it for.

Absolute nonsense. The value of the television is whatever I am willing to pay for it. So if I'm willing to pay $350, then that is the value of the television to me. So when I buy it for $300, I have gained $50 worth of value.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Thus, you had a $300 dollar TV, another guy had $300, and you traded exactly.

There's no such thing as a "$300 TV". $300 is the selling price. There's nothing inherent in the television that makes it $300.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: ibm immigration is another topic altogether. but #1, people came from other countries are not all poor people;

The majority of them are what liberals call the "working poor".

Quote by: ibm #2, they pay a cost to come here because they have hope and anticipate to get it back. (say a mexican goes to texas and mows the lawns for the texans. he makes about $1,000 a month vs 300 in mexico.

That's right, he does. That's not exactly "becoming poorer", is it?

Quote by: ibm but how’s this have do with the “gap” topic? and did i say richer and poorer is relative?

You (or someone) said "the poor are getting poorer". I was challenging that assertion.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RVonse But thats just it, Americans don't enjoy any of that anymore!

I agree with you here. Of course these things are all relative, and the US is still one of the best places in the world to live.

Quote by: RVonse We have just witnessed first hand that life was not protected for the poor down in New Orleans.

The "right to life" does not mean "the right to be saved from a hurricane by other people". It means the right not to be murdered.

Quote by: RVonse The Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security was created at the ruins of Public Liberty. The Supreme Court just took away the rights of private property ownership. We are exactly like everywhere else in history.

I agree, we're definitely going downhill. I'm thinking of seceeding.

Quote by: RVonse Because we offer free health care to them instead of our own citizens.

Demonstrably untrue. People have been immigrating here for centuries longer than free health care has existed in the US.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: SteveA Each person finds more utility/value by making this exchange

Correct. This is the only reason why people trade in the first place. They find more pleasure by grouping an amount of wealth in one form versus another.

One person might find that his pleasure at a certain time would be maximized by owning 3 peices of paper that say "$100" on them while another man would maximize his pleasure by owning a $300 TV.

Both parties certainly incrased their pleasure by trading, which is the sole point for trading.

If you wanted to defined "wealth" in terms of pleasure, then yes, you could say that wealth was created.


However, I personally like to define wealth only to physical quanities that can't be created or destroyed: time, materials, and value (aka money).

You could say diamonds are ultimately carbon but the carbon can be transformed into diamonds. If a person did this, they would feel wealthier, though they still just own some carbon. Yes it took effort on their part but that's how wealth is created. The value of the diamonds wasn't stolen from anyone. They were previously just carbon that noone missed.

This is where you (and most people) are wrong.

To synthisize a diamond from carbon atoms, it costs you a great deal of wealth.

First, it costs you time. A lot of time. Time spend gathering materials, time spent learning skill, time spent preparing materials, time spent synthisizing the diamonds, and time spent advertizing the diamonds for trade.

That is quite a bit (probably 90% of the cost) of wealth right there.

Then it costs you value to obtain the carbon. Sorry, but you can't just go out to the back yard and start mining carbon. It's true that almost every substance on the earth's crust contains carbon, but in very unrefined forms.

Then you have to have the carbon refined into pure carbon. This will cost you value for sure. Either you have it done for you or you spend value for that machines and time to learn the skill to operate them.

Then you have to spend value either to have the carbon turned into diamonds for you or to, again, buy the machiens and spend time learning how to work them.


After all that you just spent, you have diamonds. You've take all that wealth in the form of time, materials, and value and turned it into diamonds.

Unfortunately, the diamonds are worth $0 sitting in your living room.

So then you must spend time and value to market them for trade.


Once a person agrees to buy them for an amount of value, the diamonds take on that amount of value, and you make the trade to increase your pleasure.

Now if that person with diamonds was dying of dehydration in a desert, a gallon of water might be more valuable to that person that the diamond, while someone else might have water but no diamonds and they'd both benefit from the exchange. Maybe you could view the exchange as being labor based but the value received by each person was subjective and had little to do with the labor involved but instead was based upon a personal subjective evaluation.

The diamonds and the water take on the same value if the trade is made.

Anything is only ever worth what you can trade it for.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: deedee My answer is that wealthy people should have a responsibility in helping those who are less fortunate. That's the 'ultimate love' that anyone should expect.

Are you trying to say that love = money?

You must be a girl.