tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post2950392783352873202..comments2024-03-14T11:09:32.759-05:00Comments on Falkenblog: Chance, Effort, and AbilityEric Falkensteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07243687157322033496noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-20088920502345285082011-11-10T18:30:34.242-06:002011-11-10T18:30:34.242-06:00James, we do not need to accept the current histor...James, we do not need to accept the current historically high (and, historically, unsustainable) level of wealth and income inequality, and we do not need micromanaged salaries to fix the problem either. Your lack of imagination is distressing:<br /><br />"This means ther are really only two options: either someone plans the economy down to individual salaries, or we accept that inequality is inevitable. "<br /><br />I can think of at least 10 other alternatives in which variation of wealth becomes non-random, without having to invoke socialist micromanagement of individual salaries. There are many ways to put the Gini back in the bottle.<br /><br />For a good start, one might look at 1950s tax policy and the consequent distribution of income and wealth. One could also look at any number of other countries or historical periods. <br /><br />Finally, there is very clear evidence that a significant amount of wealth inequality is generated by financial fraud and unbalanced power. I think it's very difficult to justify CEO payouts of over $10,000,000/year for corporations that are LOSING MONEY within profitable industries, for instance.Wisdom Seekerhttp://i4sg.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-80736607479011848712011-11-05T11:30:15.886-05:002011-11-05T11:30:15.886-05:00The method is fine. It's the interpretation t...The method is fine. It's the interpretation that went wrong. The right interpretation is that inequality is unavoidable except in cases where variations in wealth are non-random. This means ther are really only two options: either someone plans the economy down to individual salaries, or we accept that inequality is inevitable. <br /><br />If the researcher had assumed a non-random pattern of variations in income, that would have to be justified vs some other non-random pattern of variations.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-703363234908461812011-11-03T10:09:40.324-05:002011-11-03T10:09:40.324-05:00Kierkegaard overcomes anxiety by faith in god. Fo...Kierkegaard overcomes anxiety by faith in god. For Heidegger, this is the beginning of anxiety, he leap of faith. For Heidegger, it is to take responsibility for yourself, ‘anticipatory resoluteness’ of one’s mortality, and do something ‘authentic.’ It opens the door for a lot of things--stoicism, Nazism--because you can say people making a fully conscious, individual choice to plough the field, work as a prison guard, are authentic choices. Both solutions, I think, are daft, but at least they are addressing an important question. I think it’s important to recognize anxiety as a part of human consciousness, and the solution is pragmatism (finding one’s comparative advantage, seek to build relationships and things of excellence).Eric Falkensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07243687157322033496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-58584688572042055912011-11-03T08:23:03.123-05:002011-11-03T08:23:03.123-05:00I am probably diving in deeper than my ability in ...I am probably diving in deeper than my ability in statistics would warrant, however, here goes:<br /><br />In a model like this, wouldn't the assumption that future results are random actually be quite accurate? It is very difficult to predict which entrepreneurs will be successful at the start of their ventures. In fact, accurate predictions about this are probably indistinguishable from pure chance (on a statistical basis).<br /><br />Would you have predicted that the guy who came up with the idea for Silly Bandz would be fantastically wealthy today? Probably not.<br /><br />I would guess also that if you reversed the question and said, "prove these successful entrepreneurs did not succeed just because of chance", you would never be able to statistically prove that.TDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06468054754043514702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-48039377565770809732011-11-03T00:29:27.144-05:002011-11-03T00:29:27.144-05:00What was Heidegger's solution?What was Heidegger's solution?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-69022447680019747802011-11-02T13:48:55.044-05:002011-11-02T13:48:55.044-05:00“He assumed that all entrepreneurs began with equa...“He assumed that all entrepreneurs began with equal wealth. Returns varied, solely by chance.”<br /><br />So, whether you make a crappy product that no one wants or one that people will line up around the block for…its just dumb luck if your subsequent returns end up being big or small? With assumptions like that you don’t need to build a model. If your study gets fawning attention in the StarTribune is that mere chance too?...or might you be selling something they’re eager to buy? <br /><br />It’s hardly news that one of the easiest ways to make a large fortune is to start out with a small one but that doesn’t mean the original small fortune was accumulated mostly by chance. I dare Mr. Fargione to do a study on which kinds of people tend to compound multi-generational wealth and which kinds tend to blow it before the end of the first. Then, try and sell the results to the StarTribune editorial board.Mercurynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-64162526116335034832011-11-02T12:27:37.546-05:002011-11-02T12:27:37.546-05:00Great post, as always. You eloquently framed the k...Great post, as always. You eloquently framed the key element missing from both sides of the rabid debate. <br /><br />On the other side of the debate, recent viral blogs purportedly representing "the 53%" that pay tax utterly ignore the positive impact that chance and (perhaps) higher intelligence has played in their lives. Rather, they frame success as entirely owed to their hard-work and strong ethics (they sound like Wall Street traders!).<br /><br />As your post lays out, the interrelationship of all three elements is critical. Nicely written. TroyTroy Petersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07875167937834417070noreply@blogger.com