The Parable of the Gold Prospectors and the Fishermen

[old_fogey_44]

(This one ogionally comes from Paul Krugman -- Economist and NY Times columnist)

Imagine two societies -- onw which relies on prospecting for gold and one which relies on fishing.

In the prospecting society, a few people will hit it very rich, most will fail. While effort certainly plays a small part, rewards are based more on luck. And the luck is permenant -- the "find" remains with the finder who stakes the claim.

In the fishing society, he who puts in the effort will fishes will catch some fish. Some folks will be lucky and find a large school and can sell off the excess, some will find only enough to feed their families. Either way, the next day both will start even again. In the end, effort (and skill) play a far greater role than luck.

In both societies, it is possible to imagine that the same effort is expended and the total rewards across the society are the same. The difference is in the consequences -- where a few benefit enormously and most benefit not at all, versus a society where all benefit.

Which would you rather live in?

[Saundra Hummer]

Where is Andy on this one? He must be off doing his seminars or traveling and telling everyone the virtures of existing peacefully.

[Tenorman]

And then one of the fishermen discovers that by using a different net, or by fishing in a different way, he can catch far more fish, and sell them more cheaply than anyone else. Shortly he is able to buy a second boat and perhaps a couple of outboards, and is selling his fish to several villages along the coast and inland as well. Many of the fishermen discover that they can no longer sell their fish at a reasonable price to buy such things as new nets, or pay for repairs to the boat, so they abandon their fishing to try and cultivate the land, only to discover that it is now owned by our inventive fisherman, who has bought up all the good farming land.

Our fisherman is now living in a large house and is running around in a luxury car and all those who were not quick enough to take on the new methodologies are on the poverty line.

Unless stagnation is being promoted, I don't see the difference

[Saundra Hummer]

Originally Posted by Tenorman

And then one of the fishermen discovers that by using a different net, or by fishing in a different way, he can catch far more fish, and sell them more cheaply than anyone else. Shortly he is able to buy a second boat and perhaps a couple of outboards, and is selling his fish to several villages along the coast and inland as well. Many of the fishermen discover that they can no longer sell their fish at a reasonable price to buy such things as new nets, or pay for repairs to the boat, so they abandon their fishing to try and cultivate the land, only to discover that it is now owned by our inventive fisherman, who has bought up all the good farming land.

Our fisherman is now living in a large house and is running around in a luxury car and all those who were not quick enough to take on the new methodologies are on the poverty line.

Unless stagnation is being promoted, I don't see the difference

O.K Tenorman, where do I buy that net? Quick now, I need it!

[It Should be You]

Unless you have some recipes for gold, I think I will go with the fish.

This is some kind of Rohrshach test (sp?), isn't it?

[Tenorman]

Ahhh! Therein lies the catch. (Sorry I didn't spot that pun until after I had posted) The net has already been used and is now old hat. It was supeceded by the trawler, and that has now been superceded by the drag net and the fine mesh long drop drift net. Our seas are now empty of fish, dolphins, bottom dwelling molluscs and coral environments, all of which have been gathered into the nets of our fisherman, in search of yet more profits.

Can I suggest a Soylent Green manufacturing plant?

[old_fogey_44]

Originally Posted by Tenorman

And then one of the fishermen discovers that by using a different net....

No disagreement here. There is a natural tendency to the concentration of wealth. Simply put, it's the gamblers paradox -- in an even odds game, he with the most chips actually has the advantage. The reason? He can afford to lose and stay in the game, while he with fewer chips can be knocked out with a single loss. Two losses and out vs one loss and out (even in an even odds game) gives the one who can withstand two losses twice the chance of winning. Ford survived the Edsel, Delorean didn't survive the DeLorean.

Microsoft never had a noticeable better spreadsheet or word processer, it just had the deaper deeper pockets so it could drive Lotus and Ami Pro out of the business.

The problem is that destroys Adam Smith's model of a truly free market (a case he acknoledged could not exists except in an ideal model). And the question is what to do about a less than perfect market. Doers the government step in and rebalance the market, or does it let certain players achive sufficient status that they can manipulate to suit themselves? Bush seems to opt for the latter.

[old_fogey_44]

Originally Posted by It Should be You

Unless you have some recipes for gold, I think I will go with the fish.

This is some kind of Rohrshach test (sp?), isn't it?

No raw shock -- unless you go for the gold and don't find it....

Real quetion is how much we reward luck.

The history of Microsoft (Gates is, on most days the richest person in
America) is the history of a second choice who hit the jackpot because:

a) he was available, and
b) IBM didn't nail down the rights to the operating system

Before MSDOS was CPM -- Digital Research's version of a primative Unix for small processors. They wouldn't meet with IBM on IBM's schedule and Gates would -- and hence the gold mine that made him the richest man in America. Gates also didn't "invent" Windows. Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) did. Gates wasn't even the firt to use it -- Apple was. But Gates had the hegemony on the IBM clone market, so he could reap the benefits.

Talk about living in a goldmining society....

[3pointdeli]

Originally Posted by Tenorman

And then one of the fishermen discovers that by using a different net, or by fishing in a different way, he can catch far more fish, and sell them more cheaply than anyone else. Shortly he is able to buy a second boat and perhaps a couple of outboards, and is selling his fish to several villages along the coast and inland as well. Many of the fishermen discover that they can no longer sell their fish at a reasonable price to buy such things as new nets, or pay for repairs to the boat, so they abandon their fishing to try and cultivate the land, only to discover that it is now owned by our inventive fisherman, who has bought up all the good farming land.

Our fisherman is now living in a large house and is running around in a luxury car and all those who were not quick enough to take on the new methodologies are on the poverty line.

Unless stagnation is being promoted, I don't see the difference

you just gave up your right to complain about cd burners.

[Andy D]

Sound like a political broadcast from free market economics!

Is it always a case for either or? Communism Vs Democracy?; Islam Vs Christianity? etc

Personally I would rather live in a world in which opportinity was open to all, and not based on the luck of the draw. Any Gold found, any fish found should be for the good of us all and not for those that have the resources, the technology or the know-how. In my world no one should have the right to buy and sell land for private gain, and wealth in all its forms should be more evenly distributed.

Am I in danger of taking this too seriously ?

Regards

Andy D.

[Tenorman]

Originally Posted by 3pointdeli

you just gave up your right to complain about cd burners.

Run that one by me again. The logic went straight over my head

[Saundra Hummer]

Under early leaders, kings, queens warrior kings, warrior queens, they evidently collected taxes, they demanded tribute, they demanded grain, leather, cloth, animals ,geese, chickens, cattle, etc., anything their subjects owned or made. These taxes were paid by all. These kings and queens or military leaders, couldn't have possibly used it all, eaten it all, so it had to have been shared, making the lives of their subjects, while not as grand as their own, much improved, than if they were to try to acquire everything on their own. It would have probably been impossible for them. They then recieved their kings protection, and you served to protect as well, and would be handsomely rewarded for doing so.

Why is it today that people don't believe there is any responsibility on the part of governments to better our lives. Earliest man knew that to prosper, things, wealth, must be shared, or perish. The greed of kings were often times their downfall, greed and cruelty. This took many forms and in the end these charactoristics instaid of being for the good, it could be a destructive force.

I'm not a socialist as you are Andy, as I like to see a division between Socialism and Capitalism, I like to see them join up, not to totally take over, one or the other. I think that this is the best way, however both are ripe for abuse, as like we've discussed before, that's just human nature.

[Saundra Hummer]

Originally Posted by Tenorman

Run that one by me again. The logic went straight over my head

Too rich, can afford to buy? Or like I've done, a wrong thread altogether???

[Andy D]

I'm not a socialist as you are Andy, as I like to see a division between Socialism and Capitalism, I like to see them join up, not to totally take over, one or the other. I think that this is the best way, however both are ripe for abuse, as like we've discussed before, that's just human nature.

You do not have to be a socialist, a capitalist or anything else for that matter to care about human rights, the state of the planet etc etc just a human being. It is to easy to become indifferent to the suffereing of people who are a long way from you, or indeed in your own country and the danger of this is that one day the human rights abuses etc happen to you!

Human nature, in my view at least is not formed by dictators, by totalitarian regimes it is formed at birth. We all have a ,human nature, to care, to be loved, to feel valued, to contribute in some way etc. But many become indifferent, stop questioning, allow their respective governments to do almost anything in their name.

Regards

Andy D.

[old_fogey_44]

Originally Posted by Andy D

Human nature, in my view at least is not formed by dictators, by totalitarian regimes it is formed at birth. We all have a ,human nature, to care, to be loved, to feel valued, to contribute in some way etc. But many become indifferent, stop questioning, allow their respective governments to do almost anything in their name.

Andy, I's like to be more idealist, but my personal suspicion is that homan nature is very me-centric. We want to be loved and feel valued. We want food, shelter and clothing and acquisitions as well. We want control over events. It has to do with basic survival in a state of nature.

No small proportion of us have developed a more "we-centric" set of values-- some as idealists and some as pragmatists who understand being a "we" is more productive (and safer) than being only a "me." But I'm not at all sure those are values we are born with. If it were, we wouldn't have to spend so much time trying to instilling them in ourselves and others.