Main Page Contact Register Log In


> In particular, redistribution tends to demotivate people on both ends of it.

In an ideal scenario where the value of money is linear etc., if you redistribute money from the poor to the rich, you will over-motivate people. They will perform work that doesn't create enough wealth to justify putting that much effort in, because the subsidies will make it worth it.

As I said before, since we're dealing with a local maximum, small changes in the conditions will result in smaller changes in the results. No matter how big the problem caused by redistributing money is, there's some sufficiently small amount where the benefit-to-cost ratio is above one.

> History shows that once the principle of redistribution is accepted, it is only a question of time before a small amount turns into as much as government can take without imploding the economy.

That's not an amazingly unlikely proposition, but it strikes me as something people are about equally likely to notice regardless of if it's true. I'm going to need some good data on this. Not just a list of examples, since they're too easy to cherry-pick. I need scatterplot or better.






No matter how big the problem caused by redistributing money is, there's some sufficiently small amount where the benefit-to-cost ratio is above one.


Not necessarily. For instance, if motivation vs. redistribution (M vs. R) graph looks like an inverted "V" letter where the peak is at R=0, your conclusion would not generally hold. Realistically, M(R) might even be discontinuous at R=0, since many people would find the mere fact that the money they earned is given to someone else to be psychologically offensive.


I'm going to need some good data on this. Not just a list of examples, since they're too easy to cherry-pick.

Normally I would agree with you as the examples are indeed easy to cherry-pick. But the problem in this case is that I cannot think of any counterexamples. Can you recall any?





69%
melian
stars0
Replies (1)