[underdose]

[quote]
As one smart guy said long time ago, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.
[/quote]

Smart guy? Who? Karl Marx?

I agree with you that ability is largely a genetic accident. I call it the DNA lottery. I make decent money because I am good with computers and can automate getting a lot done with little physical effort, but a lot of mental effort and creativity. To a degree I earned it because I went to school to learn computer science and worked my tail off to learn it as best I could and get good grades. But to a degree I recognize that I was born with a predisposition for it, some freakish gift that my synapses are wired just so that analytical reasoning comes easily to me. Is it fair? Maybe not. But should I be punished for the misfortune of being born with ability? What justice would there be in that? And how much incentive would I feel to employ my natural born gifts if I am required to bear a disproportionate load? I’d be better served to fein disability, and claim extraordinary needs.

esmith, you are taking it too far to the other extreme. The key is to try to have empathy for everyone. Put yourself in the shoes of anyone in society. What if you had by accident been born with a predisposition to practice medicine. Would you want socialized medicine? Would you want to be essentially enslaved by the government? What if you had been born in poverty with below average intelligence and no hope of acquiring white collar skills? Would you want a purely capitalistic meritocracy? The tough thing is that no system is fair to everyone. But some systems are so extremely unfair to some segment of the population that they are down right oppressive. If you want full blown communism, from those with ability to those with needs, well, as John Lennon said:

If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t gonna make it with anyone any how

[underdose]

[quote]
As one smart guy said long time ago, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.
[/quote]

Smart guy? Who? Karl Marx?

I agree with you that ability is largely a genetic accident. I call it the DNA lottery. I make decent money because I am good with computers and can automate getting a lot done with little physical effort, but a lot of mental effort and creativity. To a degree I earned it because I went to school to learn computer science and worked my tail off to learn it as best I could and get good grades. But to a degree I recognize that I was born with a predisposition for it, some freakish gift that my synapses are wired just so that analytical reasoning comes easily to me. Is it fair? Maybe not. But should I be punished for the misfortune of being born with ability? What justice would there be in that? And how much incentive would I feel to employ my natural born gifts if I am required to bear a disproportionate load? I’d be better served to fein disability, and claim extraordinary needs.

esmith, you are taking it too far to the other extreme. The key is to try to have empathy for everyone. Put yourself in the shoes of anyone in society. What if you had by accident been born with a predisposition to practice medicine. Would you want socialized medicine? Would you want to be essentially enslaved by the government? What if you had been born in poverty with below average intelligence and no hope of acquiring white collar skills? Would you want a purely capitalistic meritocracy? The tough thing is that no system is fair to everyone. But some systems are so extremely unfair to some segment of the population that they are down right oppressive. If you want full blown communism, from those with ability to those with needs, well, as John Lennon said:

If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t gonna make it with anyone any how

[underdose]

[quote]
As one smart guy said long time ago, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.
[/quote]

Smart guy? Who? Karl Marx?

I agree with you that ability is largely a genetic accident. I call it the DNA lottery. I make decent money because I am good with computers and can automate getting a lot done with little physical effort, but a lot of mental effort and creativity. To a degree I earned it because I went to school to learn computer science and worked my tail off to learn it as best I could and get good grades. But to a degree I recognize that I was born with a predisposition for it, some freakish gift that my synapses are wired just so that analytical reasoning comes easily to me. Is it fair? Maybe not. But should I be punished for the misfortune of being born with ability? What justice would there be in that? And how much incentive would I feel to employ my natural born gifts if I am required to bear a disproportionate load? I’d be better served to fein disability, and claim extraordinary needs.

esmith, you are taking it too far to the other extreme. The key is to try to have empathy for everyone. Put yourself in the shoes of anyone in society. What if you had by accident been born with a predisposition to practice medicine. Would you want socialized medicine? Would you want to be essentially enslaved by the government? What if you had been born in poverty with below average intelligence and no hope of acquiring white collar skills? Would you want a purely capitalistic meritocracy? The tough thing is that no system is fair to everyone. But some systems are so extremely unfair to some segment of the population that they are down right oppressive. If you want full blown communism, from those with ability to those with needs, well, as John Lennon said:

If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t gonna make it with anyone any how

[underdose]

[quote]
As one smart guy said long time ago, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.
[/quote]

Smart guy? Who? Karl Marx?

I agree with you that ability is largely a genetic accident. I call it the DNA lottery. I make decent money because I am good with computers and can automate getting a lot done with little physical effort, but a lot of mental effort and creativity. To a degree I earned it because I went to school to learn computer science and worked my tail off to learn it as best I could and get good grades. But to a degree I recognize that I was born with a predisposition for it, some freakish gift that my synapses are wired just so that analytical reasoning comes easily to me. Is it fair? Maybe not. But should I be punished for the misfortune of being born with ability? What justice would there be in that? And how much incentive would I feel to employ my natural born gifts if I am required to bear a disproportionate load? I’d be better served to fein disability, and claim extraordinary needs.

esmith, you are taking it too far to the other extreme. The key is to try to have empathy for everyone. Put yourself in the shoes of anyone in society. What if you had by accident been born with a predisposition to practice medicine. Would you want socialized medicine? Would you want to be essentially enslaved by the government? What if you had been born in poverty with below average intelligence and no hope of acquiring white collar skills? Would you want a purely capitalistic meritocracy? The tough thing is that no system is fair to everyone. But some systems are so extremely unfair to some segment of the population that they are down right oppressive. If you want full blown communism, from those with ability to those with needs, well, as John Lennon said:

If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t gonna make it with anyone any how

[underdose]

[quote]
As one smart guy said long time ago, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.
[/quote]

Smart guy? Who? Karl Marx?

I agree with you that ability is largely a genetic accident. I call it the DNA lottery. I make decent money because I am good with computers and can automate getting a lot done with little physical effort, but a lot of mental effort and creativity. To a degree I earned it because I went to school to learn computer science and worked my tail off to learn it as best I could and get good grades. But to a degree I recognize that I was born with a predisposition for it, some freakish gift that my synapses are wired just so that analytical reasoning comes easily to me. Is it fair? Maybe not. But should I be punished for the misfortune of being born with ability? What justice would there be in that? And how much incentive would I feel to employ my natural born gifts if I am required to bear a disproportionate load? I’d be better served to fein disability, and claim extraordinary needs.

esmith, you are taking it too far to the other extreme. The key is to try to have empathy for everyone. Put yourself in the shoes of anyone in society. What if you had by accident been born with a predisposition to practice medicine. Would you want socialized medicine? Would you want to be essentially enslaved by the government? What if you had been born in poverty with below average intelligence and no hope of acquiring white collar skills? Would you want a purely capitalistic meritocracy? The tough thing is that no system is fair to everyone. But some systems are so extremely unfair to some segment of the population that they are down right oppressive. If you want full blown communism, from those with ability to those with needs, well, as John Lennon said:

If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t gonna make it with anyone any how

[underdose]

Thank you for posting this. Just responding to keep it near the top so others may read.

I wonder what investment strategies were successful for capital preservation back then. Still, I assume the one big difference between now and then is the gold standard. There was no Fed in the 1870’s, and no opportunity to print one’s way out of the crisis. I’ll still wager we are in completely uncharted waters now.

[underdose]

Thank you for posting this. Just responding to keep it near the top so others may read.

I wonder what investment strategies were successful for capital preservation back then. Still, I assume the one big difference between now and then is the gold standard. There was no Fed in the 1870’s, and no opportunity to print one’s way out of the crisis. I’ll still wager we are in completely uncharted waters now.

[underdose]

Thank you for posting this. Just responding to keep it near the top so others may read.

I wonder what investment strategies were successful for capital preservation back then. Still, I assume the one big difference between now and then is the gold standard. There was no Fed in the 1870’s, and no opportunity to print one’s way out of the crisis. I’ll still wager we are in completely uncharted waters now.

[underdose]

Thank you for posting this. Just responding to keep it near the top so others may read.

I wonder what investment strategies were successful for capital preservation back then. Still, I assume the one big difference between now and then is the gold standard. There was no Fed in the 1870’s, and no opportunity to print one’s way out of the crisis. I’ll still wager we are in completely uncharted waters now.

[underdose]

Thank you for posting this. Just responding to keep it near the top so others may read.

I wonder what investment strategies were successful for capital preservation back then. Still, I assume the one big difference between now and then is the gold standard. There was no Fed in the 1870’s, and no opportunity to print one’s way out of the crisis. I’ll still wager we are in completely uncharted waters now.

[underdose]

Yojimbo, I agree with most of what you are saying. But would you say the same for Jamie Dimon at JPMorgan?

What seems to be lost in this most delightful discussion is that we currently have the new “republicans” flavor of socialism: give to the upper 1% today and tax the other 99% tomorrow. I don’t think anyone in this class warfare battle likes this plan. Shouldn’t we, instead of bickering among ourselves, be united in our concern that the government is corrupt and dangerous, and its actions are harmful to all of us.

I haven’t read the book, but I think the point is that a government, made up primarily of people who are more skilled at winning popularity contests than they are at understanding finance, is not qualified to manage something as big and complex as the economy. Even their most well meaning efforts have unintended adverse consequences. How much should we trust these people to “fix” things? Not much, no matter where you land on the class spectrum. The idea of America is “individual freedom”, and our founders recognized that freedom for the citizens can only occur when the government’s powers are limited.

[underdose]

Yojimbo, I agree with most of what you are saying. But would you say the same for Jamie Dimon at JPMorgan?

What seems to be lost in this most delightful discussion is that we currently have the new “republicans” flavor of socialism: give to the upper 1% today and tax the other 99% tomorrow. I don’t think anyone in this class warfare battle likes this plan. Shouldn’t we, instead of bickering among ourselves, be united in our concern that the government is corrupt and dangerous, and its actions are harmful to all of us.

I haven’t read the book, but I think the point is that a government, made up primarily of people who are more skilled at winning popularity contests than they are at understanding finance, is not qualified to manage something as big and complex as the economy. Even their most well meaning efforts have unintended adverse consequences. How much should we trust these people to “fix” things? Not much, no matter where you land on the class spectrum. The idea of America is “individual freedom”, and our founders recognized that freedom for the citizens can only occur when the government’s powers are limited.

[underdose]

Yojimbo, I agree with most of what you are saying. But would you say the same for Jamie Dimon at JPMorgan?

What seems to be lost in this most delightful discussion is that we currently have the new “republicans” flavor of socialism: give to the upper 1% today and tax the other 99% tomorrow. I don’t think anyone in this class warfare battle likes this plan. Shouldn’t we, instead of bickering among ourselves, be united in our concern that the government is corrupt and dangerous, and its actions are harmful to all of us.

I haven’t read the book, but I think the point is that a government, made up primarily of people who are more skilled at winning popularity contests than they are at understanding finance, is not qualified to manage something as big and complex as the economy. Even their most well meaning efforts have unintended adverse consequences. How much should we trust these people to “fix” things? Not much, no matter where you land on the class spectrum. The idea of America is “individual freedom”, and our founders recognized that freedom for the citizens can only occur when the government’s powers are limited.

[underdose]

Yojimbo, I agree with most of what you are saying. But would you say the same for Jamie Dimon at JPMorgan?

What seems to be lost in this most delightful discussion is that we currently have the new “republicans” flavor of socialism: give to the upper 1% today and tax the other 99% tomorrow. I don’t think anyone in this class warfare battle likes this plan. Shouldn’t we, instead of bickering among ourselves, be united in our concern that the government is corrupt and dangerous, and its actions are harmful to all of us.

I haven’t read the book, but I think the point is that a government, made up primarily of people who are more skilled at winning popularity contests than they are at understanding finance, is not qualified to manage something as big and complex as the economy. Even their most well meaning efforts have unintended adverse consequences. How much should we trust these people to “fix” things? Not much, no matter where you land on the class spectrum. The idea of America is “individual freedom”, and our founders recognized that freedom for the citizens can only occur when the government’s powers are limited.

[underdose]

Yojimbo, I agree with most of what you are saying. But would you say the same for Jamie Dimon at JPMorgan?

What seems to be lost in this most delightful discussion is that we currently have the new “republicans” flavor of socialism: give to the upper 1% today and tax the other 99% tomorrow. I don’t think anyone in this class warfare battle likes this plan. Shouldn’t we, instead of bickering among ourselves, be united in our concern that the government is corrupt and dangerous, and its actions are harmful to all of us.

I haven’t read the book, but I think the point is that a government, made up primarily of people who are more skilled at winning popularity contests than they are at understanding finance, is not qualified to manage something as big and complex as the economy. Even their most well meaning efforts have unintended adverse consequences. How much should we trust these people to “fix” things? Not much, no matter where you land on the class spectrum. The idea of America is “individual freedom”, and our founders recognized that freedom for the citizens can only occur when the government’s powers are limited.

[Author]

Posts