Thread: The Real Causes of Income Inequality

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Whether or not a practice is called by a modern term does not diminish the fact that the concept has been carried out since Mesopotamia.
Trade between towns, cities, states, nations has been around since God knows how long and Marginal Utility sure as hell had a lot to do with it.
The reason we're alive today is because someonw, a real long tiome ago, realized the value of Marginal Utility.
Stop thinking we're so much smarter than our ancestors who survived for us to be here.

I provided links earlier on to when the theory of marginal utility was first presented.

The world was always round but until Columbus actually proved it almost no one accepted it as fact. Marginal utility may have been in use on a subconscious level but it was not presented as a theory and idea until the early 1700's. Pretty sure I have the date right from my earlier posts as it is late sunday for me.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Why should I answer you with facts? You don't do anyone else the same consideration.

Anyways I probably should have said the Dawn of Man. But as for modern thinking and such I actually should refer to Aristotle and Greece, not Rome, so I missed a little. Aristotle talked about the "art" of wealth acquisition. But time frame between Greece and Rome is pretty close. Still you failed when you joined your "marginal utility" as being as old as economics. You did not differentiate it from ancient or modern when you brought it up. I pointed out the FACT that it was originally presented approximately 300 years ago. As for saying it goes back to Greece, well that can be an opinion but claiming that marginal utility has been around as long as economics is pure bullshit.

The science of economics has only been around for around 300 years.
Aristotle described marginal utility.

external goods have a limit, like any other instrument, and all things useful are of such a nature that where there is too much of them they must either do harm, or at any rate be of no use

Marginal utility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by goober

The science of economics has only been around for around 300 years.
Aristotle described marginal utility.

Marginal utility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(There has been marked disagreement about the development and role of marginal considerations in Aristotle's value theory.[22][23][24][25][26])

Originally Posted by tsquare

You've conveyed so much with just 3 emoticons....

Care to explain why the theory of marginal utility doesn't apply to money?

Originally Posted by goober

You've conveyed so much with just 3 emoticons....

Care to explain why the theory of marginal utility doesn't apply to money?

No, I'm still asking YOU to provide a link to your source materiel on marginal utility, which you have refused to do over these last two weeks.

Well goober?

Originally Posted by tsquare

No, I'm still asking YOU to provide a link to your source materiel on marginal utility, which you have refused to do over these last two weeks.

Well goober?

What is it about the theory of Marginal Utility that you don't understand?
The link you provided gave a good example of marginal utility, you my be familiar with Adam Smiths example of the marginal utility of water, is it that you have no understanding whatsoever about it?
Maybe you have heard of the law of diminishing returns, another example of marginal utility, maybe you can start here
Marginal utility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by goober

What is it about the theory of Marginal Utility that you don't understand?

Are you saying that everything you know about the theory of Marginal Utility you got from Wikipedia? Really?

The request (remains) is to provide us with your source material for your understanding of the theory of Marginal Utility

Originally Posted by tsquare

Are you saying that everything you know about the theory of Marginal Utility you got from Wikipedia? Really?

The request (remains) is to provide us with your source material for your understanding of the theory of Marginal Utility

No I studied economics for several years in college, but I can't link to that.

The discussion here is about the marginal utility of wealth or money, some of those without the benefit of any education in economics (which includes you) have insisted that the theory doesn't apply to money, that the theory of marginal utility applies only to goods. All I pointed out was that money or wealth is a commodity like steel or cotton or pillowcases, and is subject to the theory of marginal utility just like any other good.

You jumped in, as you will, with a post that demonstrated that you had no idea what the theory of marginal utility was all about.
I am pointing you to where you can learn about it.

The reason that this subject is so touchy on the right, is that if you accept the theory of marginal utility, then progressive taxation becomes eminently fair, not only fair, but more efficient, and better for the economy as a whole, but if marginal utility, and modern economic theory is all bullshit, then a flat tax is fair.

Originally Posted by goober

What is it about the theory of Marginal Utility that you don't understand?
The link you provided gave a good example of marginal utility, you my be familiar with Adam Smiths example of the marginal utility of water, is it that you have no understanding whatsoever about it?
Maybe you have heard of the law of diminishing returns, another example of marginal utility, maybe you can start here
Marginal utility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Besides not answering tsquare's question for 2 weeks, you have not answered mine about applying the theory of marginal utility to government.

Originally Posted by goober

The reason that this subject is so touchy on the right, is that if you accept the theory of marginal utility, then progressive taxation becomes eminently fair, not only fair, but more efficient, and better for the economy as a whole, but if marginal utility, and modern economic theory is all bullshit, then a flat tax is fair.

BS. Unequal protection under the law is not fair. You blatantly advocate a form of discrimination. Moreover, regardless of the use one gets from their property, it remains their property and ALL rights are only manifest via property rights.

Originally Posted by goober

No I studied economics for several years in college, but I can't link to that.

Avoidance. If you studied economics then you would be able to do a simple google search on the authors and concepts and present a valid page other than Wikipedia. Which by the still paints early 1730's as the birth/creation of the theory of Marginal Utility. Or as the Wiki says "the first unambiguous presentation"

The discussion here is about the marginal utility of wealth or money, some of those without the benefit of any education in economics (which includes you) have insisted that the theory doesn't apply to money, that the theory of marginal utility applies only to goods. All I pointed out was that money or wealth is a commodity like steel or cotton or pillowcases, and is subject to the theory of marginal utility just like any other good.

Unless you are someone who is on something like Fourex (I think that was the site I used for a couple years) money is not a commodity that is bought an sold. What seems to me is that you feel you are so much more knowledgeable than anyone else and feel your word should be taken as gospel on this issue. That is evidenced by your trying to correct what I said even though it was a simplified version of what you are claiming. Pretty simple and basic human nature. The more you have of something, the less a smaller piece added to it is valued. BUT this does not hold true for everyone. If I had a couple million, I would have bought and paid for 2 houses, paid for a few nice muscle cars for my collection and probably would whittle that down pretty fast to a couple hundred thousand in a couple months.

The problem with marginal utility is that the more someone has the more they want. The more I got paid when I worked for someone else the more I wanted to buy more things and more expensive things. The more I make in my business the more I want to buy for myself and my family. Having paid for my house last year and finally burned the mortgage, I plan on paying off my fathers house, then my mothers. There is always MORE that someone wants.

Even Bill Gates wants more. He dropped billions into a charity. Most high rollers like him, Oprah and others do the same thing. They don't like in mediocre houses and live quiet lives. The only mutli-millionaire I know of who actually lived like he was still a working class stiff was Benny Hill. He had a small 2 floor flat, lived on the first floor and in 20 years of living their he never went to the second floor. He didn't drive all he did was produce is hilarious shows. He was worth several million pounds when he died.

That is the flaw of Marginal utility of money as there will always be more and the more you make the more you want and find you want.

You jumped in, as you will, with a post that demonstrated that you had no idea what the theory of marginal utility was all about.
I am pointing you to where you can learn about it.

Your arguments against posting more reliable source sites sound more like you read the wiki and jumped in with an assertion you could not back up.

The reason that this subject is so touchy on the right, is that if you accept the theory of marginal utility, then progressive taxation becomes eminently fair, not only fair, but more efficient, and better for the economy as a whole, but if marginal utility, and modern economic theory is all bullshit, then a flat tax is fair.

It is touchy because the Right is against tax increases simply because someone can afford to pay more. Pure marxist bullshit. To each according to their needs, from each according to the ability. Total and absolute marxist bullshit.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

BS. Unequal protection under the law is not fair. You blatantly advocate a form of discrimination. Moreover, regardless of the use one gets from their property, it remains their property and ALL rights are only manifest via property rights.

According to Goober people have no right to property. Government owns it, not them.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Besides not answering tsquare's question for 2 weeks, you have not answered mine about applying the theory of marginal utility to government.

Tsquare doesn't have a question, he's totally clueless on the subject, he thinks he's fooling people by demanding links, he doesn't even have enough grasp of the subject to frame a question, as he demonstrated by declaring the the unit of measure of utility was the dollar.

You asked a question about the marginal utility of government, like I said, it applies to everything.
For example, the more we spend on defense, the less we get for each additional dollar spent.
The more we spend on welfare, the less we get for each additional dollar spent.