Being rich is not a victimless crime, and some (often many) must to be without in order for some to have so much.
http://anythingbuttheist.blogspot.com/2009/06/libertarianism-study-in-history.html
Does anyone know how this myth got started? Who comes up with these crazy ideas?
In a word: jealousy.
welfare allows people to possess without production, so they assume that anyone else who possesses did it without production?
when they are kids there is only as much as their parents give them, and the kids fight over it zero-sum ?
but i psychologise…i apologise.
check out his rant on wal mart. i would recommend this blog to anyone interested in lowering their IQ by 40 points
Paul Rubin’s article “Folk Economics” gives a great evolutionary explanation of “the intuitive economics of untrained persons.”
He argues that humans evolved in an environment (hunter-gatherer society) where there was little to no specialization, capital, or growth; very little technological progess; and the supply of goods and services was more or less fixed. Wealth inequalities were due to shirking or refusing to share.
Basically, people believe the market is a zero-sum game because humans actually evolved in a zero-sum environment; we’re hardwired to believe it.
Of course, conditions in the modern market economy are the exact opposite, so we cannot rely on intuition. The economics of the market economy (i.e. catallactics) must be learned; it is not innate knowledge.
Zero sum only applies to games where one winner equals one loser. Obviously, this does not apply to wealth distribution but some people like to pretend it does.