Tough questions? No, I think not. Why? Why should we worry about different outcomes, unless of course they are products of some ugly form of discrimination like a race-based qualification for service or admission.
Look, I retired at 55 on a small pension. Great decision, or a silly one? At the time, I could not know, but I took a chance. Now, twenty years later, I firmly believe it was among the best decisions I have ever made, my lower-class income, notwithstanding. Another individual -- say Warren Buffett, or Jimmy Cramer -- look at life in a different manner. They continue to work and seemingly discount free time. Why? Why do they continue their slavery to market actions and investments? I do not know. Of course, not for me, but I'll note, in this comparison, there is no issue of race, class, ethnicity, religion, or even geography. Point is, differences in life stations can arise for a host of reasons, totally divorced from the assumption that we should strive for equality or equity. That Cramer and Buffett disagree with me is fine. I feel no moral imperative to 'educate' them that the first principle of economics is "scarcity." They answer by using their time in a way that I do not. I fail to see the moral imperative for everyone to use free will for the same objective.
Finally, I will also note that I have yet to write a book. Does that imply or suggest I have nothing to say? Thanks for your contribution.
Thanks for your comment. We're mostly in agreement. We may differ when it comes to our levels of concern about the resentment and dysfunctional politics that various forms of inequality have catalyzed. I don''t resent or envy Buffett and his wealth because I think he came by it honestly and that his success didn't come at my expense. Nor do I envy the wealth of others such as Bezos, Musk, or Zuckerberg. There are others, however, who believe that nobody should be able to amass so much wealth. Senator Bernie Sanders, for example, said during the 2016 Democratic debates that billionaires shouldn't exist:
I think he's wrong and that the politics of resentment are harmful. They exacerbate divisions within the country and lead to bad policy ideas. My hope is that fact-based arguments that show outcomes are more the result of the choices we make than the predetermined outcomes from a stacked deck will help move our politics in a better direction.
Agree. I don't resent Cramer's wealth...nor that of Buffett. What I tried to make clear was that I feel richer than both of them.....richer in the sense that I would never spend my "scarce time" before death, chasing even more dollars. That they waste their time chasing more money seems both shallow without meaningful marginal gain or achievement. Thus, I have no interest in doing something to attain their level of wealth.
Tough questions? No, I think not. Why? Why should we worry about different outcomes, unless of course they are products of some ugly form of discrimination like a race-based qualification for service or admission.
Look, I retired at 55 on a small pension. Great decision, or a silly one? At the time, I could not know, but I took a chance. Now, twenty years later, I firmly believe it was among the best decisions I have ever made, my lower-class income, notwithstanding. Another individual -- say Warren Buffett, or Jimmy Cramer -- look at life in a different manner. They continue to work and seemingly discount free time. Why? Why do they continue their slavery to market actions and investments? I do not know. Of course, not for me, but I'll note, in this comparison, there is no issue of race, class, ethnicity, religion, or even geography. Point is, differences in life stations can arise for a host of reasons, totally divorced from the assumption that we should strive for equality or equity. That Cramer and Buffett disagree with me is fine. I feel no moral imperative to 'educate' them that the first principle of economics is "scarcity." They answer by using their time in a way that I do not. I fail to see the moral imperative for everyone to use free will for the same objective.
Finally, I will also note that I have yet to write a book. Does that imply or suggest I have nothing to say? Thanks for your contribution.
Thanks for your comment. We're mostly in agreement. We may differ when it comes to our levels of concern about the resentment and dysfunctional politics that various forms of inequality have catalyzed. I don''t resent or envy Buffett and his wealth because I think he came by it honestly and that his success didn't come at my expense. Nor do I envy the wealth of others such as Bezos, Musk, or Zuckerberg. There are others, however, who believe that nobody should be able to amass so much wealth. Senator Bernie Sanders, for example, said during the 2016 Democratic debates that billionaires shouldn't exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kpWkjlR3OQ
I think he's wrong and that the politics of resentment are harmful. They exacerbate divisions within the country and lead to bad policy ideas. My hope is that fact-based arguments that show outcomes are more the result of the choices we make than the predetermined outcomes from a stacked deck will help move our politics in a better direction.
Agree. I don't resent Cramer's wealth...nor that of Buffett. What I tried to make clear was that I feel richer than both of them.....richer in the sense that I would never spend my "scarce time" before death, chasing even more dollars. That they waste their time chasing more money seems both shallow without meaningful marginal gain or achievement. Thus, I have no interest in doing something to attain their level of wealth.