Comments on: Pleistocene Redistribution http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/04/23/pleistocene-redistribution/ Just another geek in the geek kingdom Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:38:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: dan http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/04/23/pleistocene-redistribution/comment-page-1/#comment-2078 dan Sat, 19 May 2007 04:17:00 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1744#comment-2078 I've always taken Hobbes to be talking about, inter alia, killing people while they sleep. Yeah, just pulled it out--the weakest has the power to kill the strongest "either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger as himself." Surely the weakest chimp could, if so inclined, sneak up upon and strangle/bash on the head with a rock (or do you count that as technology?) the local alpha chimp as he dozed. Granted on language and confederacy, of course. I’ve always taken Hobbes to be talking about, inter alia, killing people while they sleep. Yeah, just pulled it out–the weakest has the power to kill the strongest “either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger as himself.” Surely the weakest chimp could, if so inclined, sneak up upon and strangle/bash on the head with a rock (or do you count that as technology?) the local alpha chimp as he dozed. Granted on language and confederacy, of course.

]]> By: Brian Moore http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/04/23/pleistocene-redistribution/comment-page-1/#comment-2077 Brian Moore Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:03:11 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1744#comment-2077 I think a large problem in deriving real-world conclusions from that study was that the wealth was distributed randomly, so, just like Bailey says, it was un-deserved wealth. All else equal, if 150 people get something, each should get 1/150th. So the test subjects were reacting to a perceived unfairness. I think the extent to which we aren't running around "levelling" everyone's income, and why people aren't spending some of their (relatively) meager wealth to burn Bill Gates' money is because the vast majority of us have a general acceptance that most of the wealth in society is rather fairly earned. Whether this is true or not is debatable, of course. You can now take a moment to laugh at my naive assumption. :) Very few people (though of course there are some) actually advocate taxing the rich just to reduce their wealth (and then burning the money), most feel that would should do some specific thing with that tax money, and that the wealth are most able to shoulder the burden. I would like to see the study repeated, in exactly the same format, but that the people involved actually do something to earn the money, say in some silly math test. Then, ask the students if they wish to level the results, giving money to the worst performers, and taking it from the best. Even more interestingly, have a combination, where some people's wealth is determined by math test prowess, and others determined randomly, and see how they react. Run one test where the subjects know which people "earned it", and another where they don't. Give me some grant money! I think a large problem in deriving real-world conclusions from that study was that the wealth was distributed randomly, so, just like Bailey says, it was un-deserved wealth. All else equal, if 150 people get something, each should get 1/150th. So the test subjects were reacting to a perceived unfairness.

I think the extent to which we aren’t running around “levelling” everyone’s income, and why people aren’t spending some of their (relatively) meager wealth to burn Bill Gates’ money is because the vast majority of us have a general acceptance that most of the wealth in society is rather fairly earned. Whether this is true or not is debatable, of course. You can now take a moment to laugh at my naive assumption. :)

Very few people (though of course there are some) actually advocate taxing the rich just to reduce their wealth (and then burning the money), most feel that would should do some specific thing with that tax money, and that the wealth are most able to shoulder the burden.

I would like to see the study repeated, in exactly the same format, but that the people involved actually do something to earn the money, say in some silly math test. Then, ask the students if they wish to level the results, giving money to the worst performers, and taking it from the best.

Even more interestingly, have a combination, where some people’s wealth is determined by math test prowess, and others determined randomly, and see how they react. Run one test where the subjects know which people “earned it”, and another where they don’t. Give me some grant money!

]]>