Debates
29 Jul 06
29 Jul 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMost wealthy people have become so by being frugal.
1. Productive people create wealth and thereby become wealthier.
2. Such wealthy people pass on their wealth to their children.
3. These children do not need to be productive to be wealthy.
4. Therefore, these children will tend not to be productive.
5. The process of financial inheritance, in which children get their parents' wealth, is detriment ...[text shortened]... nancial inheritance is a problem in society that should be modified or eliminated.
Thoughts?
The inablility to pass on assets to siblings will result in an increase
in spending by parents.
Successful parents may be less inclined to be productive in the
knowledge that there siblings will not benefit and will be more
likely to take an early retirement.
Siblings of wealthy parents who have not had hardwork ingrained
in them may have difficulty finding work and being frugal.
29 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, I suppose it depends whether point 6 is relative to one person or to the society at large. If a person who has no money recieves an inheritance, it could be said to have created wealth for him. Obviously if for society, no new wealth has been created, merely passed on.
How does "inheritance create wealth"? It simply transfers wealth.
It is interesting to consider at what point acquisition is termed wealth. Would someone who had a large amount of a particular item be wealthy from holding it, or would he have to sell it first? Also, where does the service industry fit within productivity, it does not create any new assets, but nevertheless produces more wealth.
29 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanHe wouldn't have to sell it, but it must be possible for him to sell it. His wealth is not measured as the personal value he assigns to his property, but the market value of the property that he is able to sell.
Well, I suppose it depends whether point 6 is relative to one person or to the society at large. If a person who has no money recieves an inheritance, it could be said to have created wealth for him. Obviously if for society, no new wealth has been created, merely passed on.
It is interesting to consider at what point acquisition is termed wealth. Wou ...[text shortened]... t within productivity, it does not create any new assets, but nevertheless produces more wealth.
There are many definitions of wealth, though. I'm using the monetary value of accumulated property.
Edit - In that sense, some services produce wealth indirectly (e.g. consulting), may produce directly (e.g. investing in foreign companies) and may not produce wealth at all (e.g. haircuts).
29 Jul 06
Originally posted by PalynkaSure,
Since this is the basis for your argument, can you explain what exactly do you mean by frugal in this context?
"frugal
adj : avoiding waste; "an economical meal"; "an economical shopper"; "a frugal farmer"; "a frugal lunch"; "a sparing father and a spending son"; "sparing in their use of heat and light"; "stinting in bestowing gifts"; "thrifty because they remember the great Depression"; "`scotch' is used only informally" [syn: economical, scotch, sparing, stinting]"
ref. dictionary.com
29 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanIf you're using the term "wealth" in the economic sense, you're talking about assets that have a market value. So someone can be wealthy i.e. possess assests that have a high value without selling them. Remember that money itself is merely an asset and thus a form of wealth. If I sell a share of stock for an amount of money, no wealth has been created; one asset (share of stock) has merely been exchanged for another (money).
Well, I suppose it depends whether point 6 is relative to one person or to the society at large. If a person who has no money recieves an inheritance, it could be said to have created wealth for him. Obviously if for society, no new wealth has been created, merely passed on.
It is interesting to consider at what point acquisition is termed wealth. Wou ...[text shortened]... t within productivity, it does not create any new assets, but nevertheless produces more wealth.
29 Jul 06
Originally posted by lebowskiThat is a logical fallacy; please stick to the topic and stop worrying about the personal situation of someone you know nothing about.
which would have a DIRECT bearing on how he felt about the subject and which side of the argument he'd be more inclined to follow.
29 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderso you're telling me that someone about to inherit a large fortune would be disinterested in whether inheritances should be abolished or not? THAT is a logical fallacy. To deny it would be the mark of an ass.
That is a logical fallacy; please stick to the topic and stop worrying about the personal situation of someone you know nothing about.
29 Jul 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lebowskiWhen considering a proposition the reasons why someone might be arguing for it are irrelevant; the proposition is either true or it is not. The fallacy you are making is called Ad Hominem (Circumstantial). Put bluntly it doesn't matter whether ATY is going to inherit a billion dollars or is an orphan; he presented an argument based on certain premises - please discuss his premises and argument and stop dragging the discussion into the utterly irrelevant question of ATY.
so you're telling me that someone about to inherit a large fortune would be disinterested in whether inheritances should be abolished or not? THAT is a logical fallacy. To deny it would be the mark of an ass.
Please read the following:
The "Ad Hominem - Circumstantial" fallacy persuades by mimicking our legitimate concerns over conflict of interest. However, arguments are not decisions. A person with a conflict of interest may reason badly (and thus make a bad decision), but his conflict of interest need not influence our assessment of his argument. We need to decide whether or not to accept his argument. The decision to be made is ours, not his. Hence we would be right to be concerned with our own conflicts of interest, but his conflicts of interest are an irrelevant distraction.
www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/circumstantial.asp