Exactly. The problem with the meme is that it's a set of unevidenced claims, which present a massively oversimplified picture of the economics is purports to be about.If you want to know the correct answer you shouldn't start from the standpoint that it's wrong, but rather that it's a hypothesis to be tested. If you're already convinced of your conclusion, then the answers you seek will be bound up with confirmation bias.
That aside, addressing the actual content doesn't have a quick or easy answer. And if I tried to give one it would assuredly be an over-simplification.
Not so. Naturally occuring common property can be had without work, either of your own or by someone else. Nobody has to work to provide the air that I breathe.#2 and #3 are trivially obviously true.
All five statements are false, because they miss the most fundamental rule of all - every person can get a bigger share of the pie if you make the pie bigger. A corollary to this is that everyone should get a bigger piece of the pie.So this was posted by a friend on Facebook. Generating much discussion.
View attachment 45060
Of course it’s just libertarian bullshit. I have my own opinions about each of these, but I value the opinion of some (maybe many) of you. Debunk these each, please!
They're false. #2 takes for granted that everything is created by labor -- a premise that isn't really good for much except claiming to have proven the workers are exploited.#2 and #3 are trivially obviously true.
Debunking it is needless; The burden of proof lies with its originator, who failed to include any evidence at all for their anonymous claims, and so we can simply say that that which is asserted without evidence may dismissed without evidence.
You appear to be assuming billionaires don't work. That may be true for a few, but Gates, Buffett and Musk all worked their asses off.Translation: It’s good to be a billionaire.
- What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
(Of course it takes a LOT of people working without receiving to create even one billionaire.)
Anyone measuring their wages in the millions per day isn’t “working” for the money in the sense I was using the term, no matter how hard they are working.You appear to be assuming billionaires don't work. That may be true for a few, but Gates, Buffett and Musk all worked their asses off.Translation: It’s good to be a billionaire.
- What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
(Of course it takes a LOT of people working without receiving to create even one billionaire.)
Indeed. And while I have no doubt that many billionaires work very hard, I also have no doubt that most people who work that hard never get to be millionaires, much less billionaires.Anyone measuring their wages in the millions per day isn’t “working” for the money in the sense I was using the term, no matter how hard they are working.You appear to be assuming billionaires don't work. That may be true for a few, but Gates, Buffett and Musk all worked their asses off.Translation: It’s good to be a billionaire.
- What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
(Of course it takes a LOT of people working without receiving to create even one billionaire.)
Some work is required to gather any resource.Not so. Naturally occuring common property can be had without work, either of your own or by someone else. Nobody has to work to provide the air that I breathe.#2 and #3 are trivially obviously true.
No. Fiat money is an evolution of previous trade systems, it doesn't exist apart from the system it comes from.And governments (or indeed, anyone else who produces money) can give that money away, without ever having taken any from anyone - indeed, they can't take any from anyone until they have first produced some and given it out, because nobody has any.
But those are two sides of the same coin.It's an interesting and unavoidable characteristic of fiat money that governments can't collect it as taxes, until after they've spent it.
True, but it has always proven an utter failure.As to history showing #1 to be true, that's a serious stretch. Very few attempts have ever been made; Failing at the first attempt (or even the first dozen attempts) to do something difficult is not a proof that that thing is impossible.
The fundamental issue here is that the "wealthy" do not comprise a sufficient source to fund what you want.History showed it to be true that heavier than air flying machines were impossible. Right up until the Wright Brothers actually did it.
History simply isn't the kind of evidence that can show what you are claiming it to show.
Of course, it might be impossible. But it probably isn't, and as stated, the claim lacks a usable definition of "prosperity", and is therefore unfalsifiable (by any means, including a futile reference to history).
Doesn't make it wrong.You cannot legislate the non-prosperous into prosperity by legislating the prosperous out of prosperity; But that's tautological.
The eat-the-rich position comes in myriad ways and always presumes they're an infinite resource that can be eaten at will. It's more like 1,000 at .5P and one at 100P. (And in the real world there's a whole range of values in between.)If prosperity is defined merely by wealth, then it's a simple arithmetic fact that you can legislate people into prosperity by legislating the wealthy to become less wealthy while remaining prosperous.
If the threshold of prosperity is $P, and there are ten people who have $0.5P, and one who has $100P, legislating that the wealthy person must give $0.5P to each non-prosperous individual results in a population in which all eleven residents have achieved the $P threshold, and are prosperous; Ten have $P, and one has $95P, so not only have you not reduced the wealthy person to a non-prosperous state, but he remains by far the wealthiest member of the subject population.
We generally agree on what it means, albeit without defining an exact threshold.Of course, prosperity isn't usually defined merely in terms of exceeding a given wealth threshold. A wealthy person can easily fail to prosper, while a poor person can prosper without amassing great wealth. So the claim is essentially meaningless without a definition of what the fuck they're actually on about - it's not even wrong.
Musk doesn't belong on this list.You appear to be assuming billionaires don't work. That may be true for a few, but Gates, Buffett and Musk all worked their asses off.Translation: It’s good to be a billionaire.
- What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
(Of course it takes a LOT of people working without receiving to create even one billionaire.)
And an inheritance.Musk doesn't belong on this list.You appear to be assuming billionaires don't work. That may be true for a few, but Gates, Buffett and Musk all worked their asses off.Translation: It’s good to be a billionaire.
- What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
(Of course it takes a LOT of people working without receiving to create even one billionaire.)
He's a whackadoodle that got very lucky.