"Giving Back" by Walter Williams
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:38:07 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  "Giving Back" by Walter Williams
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: "Giving Back" by Walter Williams  (Read 5497 times)
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 09, 2007, 04:48:59 PM »

Your opinion of this article?

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/02/givingback.html
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2007, 08:01:41 PM »

Typical greedy libertarian capitalist.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2007, 09:22:52 PM »

Typical greedy libertarian capitalist.
Libertarianism works.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2007, 04:28:43 AM »


All systems 'work' in dominating the majority for those with power.  'Libertarianism' is no different, Straha.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2007, 12:20:13 PM »

Walter Williams is spot on. Of course, the wealthy may have a moral obligation to engage in charity. But it's the notion that they must "give back" to society that is terminally absurd.
Logged
DWPerry
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,674
Puerto Rico


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2007, 02:30:33 AM »

Walter Williams is spot on. Of course, the wealthy may have a moral obligation to engage in charity. But it's the notion that they must "give back" to society that is terminally absurd.
Logged
The Man From G.O.P.
TJN2024
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,387
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2007, 03:57:46 AM »

Walt Williams, of course it's dead on.
Logged
DWPerry
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,674
Puerto Rico


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2007, 04:18:31 AM »

I LOVE Dr. Walter E. Williams. I had the pleasure of meeting him at the 2004 PA Libertarian Party Convention.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2007, 08:55:43 AM »

Typical greedy libertarian capitalist.

Most libertarians I know of support private charity, so this doesn't seem at all typical to me.


Anywho, his notion of "giving back" is flawed, as displayed by this:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't become rich by giving - you become rich by selling, which is what these people did. Henry Ford sold cars, he didn't give them away. Sure, he made them affordable for the common man, but he did that so he could make a greater profit. He also instituted a lot of programs for his workers as well as increased their pay, but he did that to reduce his employee turnover rate instead of a spirit of giving to the workers. And you don't see Steve Jobs handing out iPods to everyone who walks into his stores, he sells them to make money. Again, it's patently absurd to call making money by selling a product or service "giving".
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 11, 2007, 04:49:09 PM »

A basic definition of trade is "to give in exchange for something else." Williams is not claiming that these individuals have engaged in charity. Rather, he is making the point that should be absolutely obvious. If I receive money for nothing, then it may be legitimate to say that I should "give something back." But these individuals already "gave" to society in the form of their contributions to commerce.

A free market economy is based on mutual assistance. Too many people fail to grasp this basic (but fundamental) insight.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 11, 2007, 05:06:04 PM »

A basic definition of trade is "to give in exchange for something else." Williams is not claiming that these individuals have engaged in charity. Rather, he is making the point that should be absolutely obvious. If I receive money for nothing, then it may be legitimate to say that I should "give something back." But these individuals already "gave" to society in the form of their contributions to commerce.

If you give a gift, you don't necessarily expect to get anything in return. If you sell a television, you expect money in return. The individuals sold their products to society for their own gain, not for the sake of the public. Yes, their products were beneficial, but that doesn't mean they gave them away. Don't get me wrong - I don't hold anything against them, and I don't think they necessarily owe anyone anything, but to call it "giving" when they were doing it for money is absurd.

"Giving back" may imply they owe something to society, but it doesn't imply they didn't earn their wealth. I would agree it's a bad way to put that those with wealth should give to charity, but again I don't call selling a product giving in the sense that "giving back to society" implies because it's not.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 11, 2007, 05:26:45 PM »

To "give" and to "give a gift" are not always, and in all contexts, two expressions for the same thing. I did not think this required citation, but if it does, I suppose dictionary.com is as good as any other internet source. See various entries under exchange and trade.

The notion that a person should "give back" to society implies that he has taken something without offering any consideration. It seems to me that that alone is what Williams is addressing, when he says that these people have "given"--that they received their money by improving the welfare of "society."

But I suppose there is no need for us to quibble over semantics. It appears we agree in principle. Those who earn wealth in a free market have neither engaged in charity, nor have they "exploited" anyone (for lack of a better, equally succinct term). They have benefited themselves and society through mutually beneficial exchange; with, of course, the standard caveat that results are not always in line with expectations.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2007, 07:27:53 PM »


Platonically, of course.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2007, 05:08:53 PM »


Something which in theory should be correct; but rarely actually works that way in the real world.

Plus the Percentage of people who 'earn' their way up from the bottom rung to at least the Middle is extremely small in the States iirc. (It is Ireland too, but let's not bring Ireland into it. Poverty is very complex issue that can't be just solved by giving poor people lots of money - Welfare is meant to be a stopgap (and an instrument of Social stability) though I've never bought into the whole "OMG WELFARE WHORES!!11" - the funny thing is I can't imagine anyone who says that actually trying to live on social welfare for a week. (In Ireland it's only slightly do-able; but only if you already have accomodation, don't drink, don't smoke and don't have a car - which excludes a good portion of people..)
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2007, 04:07:29 AM »

Precision is important in stating and evaluating statistics. But I don't know what so-called social mobility has to do with this subject, anyway. Even supposing that the entire class of people arbitrarily defined as "rich" merely inherited large sums of money, they have not "taken" from society at large without offering compensation, but from family. A person may well have a moral obligation to, in appropriate form and in appropriate circumstances, "pay back" his parents for all they've done for him, but that's entirely beside the point. (The family members, moreover, have obviously in this case died.)

Of course, all the principles at issue in this discussion apply equally in the case of the non-rich.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.039 seconds with 12 queries.