Levitra….

Fosamax. Class action fosamax. Fosamax alendronate sodium. Fosamax 70 mg tablest. Crushing fosamax. The use of fosamax as it relates to dentistry. Fosamax side effects….

I am not saying I would turn down an opportunity to garner vast wealth, I am saying that at my point in life I simply do not know what I would do with it.

A nicer car, is a relative term.

A finer wine, is also a relative term.

A woman can only get so good looking and only so willing before the ultimate has been achieved, been there done that.

Making people jumping through hoops just to satisfy me, doesn't interest me. I have been an employee and an employer and I didn't like either one.

Now flying in my own commuter jet, well maybe I could find one thing to spend it on. Can you get a decent library into one of those things?

When Communist Party Central Committee members reserve seaside villas for their "planning" meetings and otherwise organize an economy to serve themselves, everyone understands this point.

So I have no problem with vastly differing incomes in a market economy. These differences reflect the differing productivity of various organizations of productive means. We want more income flowing toward more productive organization, because this flow fuels growth of the more productive forms of organization.

We want reinvestment in these forms, not simply the greater personal consumption of the human governors. Great personal consumption of governors reflects the forcible organization of the governed to produce for the consumption of a few governors rather than for themselves.

Greater reinvestment, instead of the luxurious consumption of titular lords, increases the rate of progress toward more productive forms of organization for the consumption of the many human factors contributing to the production.

This I know, for The Wealth of Nations tells me so.

Also reminds me of the Louis CK video posted here awhile ago, "Everything's Amazing, Nobody's Happy."

I fight this battle with family members who should know better because they lived pretty much the time traveler's time.

Almost two decades after we arrived here from Moscow, my grandmother finally got permission to travel to America to visit us.

she got lost in my parents' middle class house and wanted to know how many families lived in it. Every gadget in the kitchen terrified her as her implements were not unfamiliar to a 19th century kitchen (the microwave in particular totally flipped her out). The clothes and hair dryers fascinated her. Riding in cars that weren't made out of the paper mache Ladas are carefully crafted from was unbelievable to her. The abundance of fresh fruit and vegetables and how inexpensive and NOT rotten they were astounded her daily. Upon her return to Moscow, she fell into a long and deep depression.

Somehow her lifelong contribution to a Great Society and workers' paradise didn't cheer her up and make her forget about the daily deficits of items even the very poorest Americans take for granted. Cue dg Lesvic about income redistribution and inequality.

You wrote,

"Unlike, dgl's 'masterstroke', I'd suggest income inequality, if anything, ought to increase."

I have never said that inequality ought to increase or decrease, but that the only thing an economist, as such, could say about it was that the market, always tending toward equilibrium, always tended toward the inequalities that would bring it about.

I have somewhat mixed feelings about Prof Boudreaux' argument, for, in a way, it plays into the Left's hands. For denying inequality tacitly admits that there's something wrong with it, and, therefore, with the market itself, for it depends upon inequality.

“No system of the social division of labor can do without a method that makes individuals responsible for their contributions to the joint…effort. If this responsibility is not brought about by…inequality of wealth and income…it must be enforced by…direct compulsion…by the police." Ludwig von Mises

So, Gil, it is not my point that inequality is bad or immoral. That is the Left's point. Rather than an endless argument over what is moral or not, why not simply point out that their policies are counterproductive and therefore immoral by their own standards?

"If this responsibility is not brought about by…inequality of wealth and income…it must be enforced by…direct compulsion…by the police."

Property is always enforced by…direct compulsion…by the police. Other possession is "not property" definitively. A thief possesses what he holds, but only a lawful holding is "property", and lawful holding is precisely what the police enforce. A producer holds what he produces, until a proprietor claims it from him.

No law of nature, or even of market economics, implies that a lawful holding (in the statutory sense of "lawful") somehow reflects a contribution to production. Property is a matter of legal entitlement, not productivity. Locke might have wished for legal entitlement reflecting productivity, and I might share this wish with him, but these wishes are irrelevant.

Income inequality gives me incentive to work hard knowing that I can raise my standard of living. If everything was equal I'd have no reason to get out of bed.

This "incentive" explanation of the benefits of inequality seems reasonable to a limited extent, but it doesn't explain the benefits of market organization on a large scale. Markets don't organize resources effectively because lords of propriety have greater "incentive".

Markets organize resources efficiently because only profitable organizations (organizations adding value) may persist and more profitable organizations grow faster than less profitable organizations. An incentive to pursue profit is necessary, but an unlimited entitlement of lords to consume the profit of organizations they govern is not.

What's the alternative?
Government confiscation?

I see Bill Gates using much of his wealth for charitable purposes, when the government would just waste it.

I guess a difference is that you can't use bribes to influence Gates' charitable giving, but you can use bribes to influence politicians.

Ya, I don't understand this statement either. If you don't allow consumption above a certain point, how many people are going to continue to create above that certain point? Who delineates that point?

But in a market, there is no "unlimited entitlement". There is a market for managers to govern their organizations. Or if it's some sort of proprietorship than so called "excessive" profits are going to encourage market entry, which will erode profits.

I'm not wholly unconcerned with inequality – maybe it does have negative social consequences. Maybe it doesn't. But one thing is for sure – inequality is a market signal. To the extent that we're worried about inequality for other reasons and to the extent that we do something about it, we're dulling a market signal – and that has consequences.

What's the alternative?
Government confiscation?

A threat of government confiscation is an alternative, a progressive consumption tax for example. Essentially, we have a progressive income tax, and we have individual, tax deferred investment accounts (similar to IRAs and 401ks) with unlimited contributions.

This threat transfers very little entitlement over expenditure to central authorities. It vastly curtails this entitlement in fact, and that's the whole point of it.

The tax itself (excluding the investment accounting) could be much simpler than our current income tax, because all income could be treated equivalently. Special treatment for dividends, capital gains, gifts and the rest would be unnecessary, since any income in any amount could be sheltered from all of the tax.

This threat doesn't offend my libertarian sensibilities fundamentally, because I already support governmental threats enforcing property rights. The threat only checks authority already established by existing threats.

I see Bill Gates using much of his wealth for charitable purposes, when the government would just waste it.

Gates can "waste" as well, but I'm happy for Gates to pay the same income tax that I pay, even less. I don't mean the same percentage. I mean the same dollar amount or less. I want him taxed only on his consumption, and he can easily consume at my level or less without any risk to his health or well being. If he skips the skydiving, he's arguably better off in these terms with less consumption. If his income is a billion dollars but he consumes no more than I, I'm happy for him to pay no more tax than I.

"Charity" in my way of thinking is an investment with an expected negative yield, so I don't a "charitable deduction" from a progressive income tax. I only include it within the accounting for investment.

Obviously, any distinction between expenditures (like "consumption" vs. "investment") requires accounting for one or the other or both. The form of progressive consumption tax that I favor does not require any detailed accounting for consumption, only for income and investment. Taxing authorities then retain some regulatory control over what constitutes "investment", but common juries hearing tax evasion cases effectively hold most of this authority, so the authority is less centralized than it seems.

I guess a difference is that you can't use bribes to influence Gates' charitable giving, but you can use bribes to influence politicians.

You can, especially if you're a politician yourself. You wouldn't likely bribe Gates with an offer of money, but you might bribe him with an offer of intellectual property regulation favorable to his established rights.

But in a market, there is no "unlimited entitlement". There is a market for managers to govern their organizations.

The market is the best regulator, but markets exist only within a framework of forcible propriety, and proprietors have every incentive to game this framework, so they routinely do. The market's regulation doesn't concern me. It's the statutory framework defining what's "proper".

Or if it's some sort of proprietorship than so called "excessive" profits are going to encourage market entry, which will erode profits.

No law of market organization implies that any level of profit encourages market entry. Any number of factors can discourage market entry regardless of profit.

If I'm a software developer at Microsoft, I don't compete with Windows by branching the source code at the XP version (before the "enhancements" in Vista), even if I wrote much of this code myself, because this competition would land me in jail.

That Microsoft profits from Vista is beside the point. That consumers might prefer an alternative path from XP forward is also beside the point. Markets may not choose this alternative, because it's illegal.

But one thing is for sure – inequality is a market signal.

I agree. I have no problem with unequal income.

To the extent that we're worried about inequality for other reasons and to the extent that we do something about it, we're dulling a market signal – and that has consequences.

A progressive consumption tax only "does something about" vastly unequal consumption, not unequal flows of income and the related signals.

In fact, the tax vastly decreases the greatest inequality of income by slashing the income of Congress. Bill Gates is not the wealthiest man on Earth by a long shot. Every U.S. Congressman is far wealthier. Obama is wealthier. Bernanke is wealthier. Geitner is wealthier.

Ya, I don't understand this statement either. If you don't allow consumption above a certain point, how many people are going to continue to create above that certain point?

As JohnK notes just above you, Bill Gates has not remotely consumed to the extent of his entitlement and presumably never will, so we have at least one individual for whom personal consumption is not the relevant incentive.

Many other incentives exist, you know. Natural creatures are instinctively territorial and acquisitive. Beyond a certain point, being the king of a bigger hill is just an end in itself.

Some of the very best athletes on Earth spend countless hours and vast potential income to earn Olympic medals. What is their incentive? How does your theory account for this behavior?

Even if Gates would not pursue profit without an entitlement to consume all of it, his exit from the game makes no difference, because countless other competitors would replace him for only a fraction of this entitlement to consume. The existence of these people is not merely theoretical.

Who delineates that point?

The same authorities delineating the boundaries of Gates property rights. Gates' personal productivity doesn't delineate these rights. Gates doesn't produce intellectual property law. He doesn't even produce the intellectual property he's entitled to govern.