[ExI] Friedman and negative income tax

[Lee Corbin]

BillK wrote:

 > On 5/8/09, Lee Corbin wrote:
.
 >>  We too seldom inquire as to "how did anyone
 >>  become wealthy in the first place?". "How
 >>  did any society succeed to the point that
 >>  we have something against which to compare
 >>  so-called failed societies?"
 >>
 >>  Remember that this is what happened originally.
 >>  This was the natural state. This is the default
 >>  condition. We must focus on how any society rose
 >>  above this default condition, and what makes it
 >>  possible for any society to do so.
 >>
 >>  The culture had to become "strong" enough so
 >>  that a sufficient number of people chose to
 >>  behave differently. This was accomplished,
 >>  historically, in precisely the way that Rafal
 >>  indicates, namely by those who failed to adhere
 >>  to high standards becoming examples of what
 >>  not to do. This is how probity evolved.
 >>
 >
 > No, it didn't.
 >
 > In early societies, violence was the secret sauce, with slavery close behind.

It sounds as though we are talking about different
points in history.

 > People got rich by using force to take it from weaker people /
 > nations. Then using more force (legal system, armies, etc.) to keep
 > control.

Yes, that's a good description of the formation of
all the early states. Things began what I'll call
the modern transition in the 1700s.

 > The idea of democracy and working to better
 > yourself is very recent.

Well, the "democracy" or republican form of
government, despite its classical roots, became
of significant force really only in the 19th
century.

The period starting in the 1820s that lasted
about a century is the period to focus on.
That's when modern wealth started being produced
at fantastic levels (though we seldom appreciate
it properly). An extremely good book is Bernstein,
"The Birth of Plenty". Clark "Farewell to Alms"
even pinpoints the years right around 1820 as
pivotal.

 > And mostly it is not allowed to interfere with
 > the existing rich and powerful classes. (Some
 > exceptions, of course).

Well, I think that's quite right too :)  but not
really germane. (E.g. a certain part of the
present financial imbroglio is due to financial
elites in the western world.)

When I wrote

 >>  The culture had to become "strong" enough so
 >>  that a sufficient number of people chose to
 >>  behave differently.... [exemplified in a
 >>  negative way] by those who failed to adhere
 >>  to high standards becoming examples of what
 >>  not to do. This is how probity evolved.

I was speaking of this modern period.

I think that there was Darwinian selection of
successful cultural practices throughout the
whole modern period. Folks are conditioned to
an amazing extent by what their parents do/did,
and what they see the people around them doing.

To the degree that human effort makes any
difference (the "left" says "not a lot", the
right says "it's everything", e.g. Horatio
Alger myths), it stands to reason that bad
examples won't be emulated, and good ones
will.

How do you think that probity evolved?

Lee