I think rehctub's point about the asset-rich, cashflow-poor ratepayers is that they are being driven off their land because they cannot afford to pay their rates. Yes, their property is worth a small fortune, but if they sell it, what do they do with that fortune? If they buy a fantastic new mansion, they still won't be able to pay their rates. If they don't, they sacrifice the life they worked for and take up a life of suburban drudgery. They end up asset-average, cash-rich and cashflow-poor.

David's comment about the guy in Anzac Square got me thinking. Walking down Townsville's nightlife strip in the afternoon, I often pass a homeless guy sitting in a doorway, reading a book. It's not a trashy magazine, it's not a simple pulp fiction novel. He reads 'canonical' literature - the sort of thing that suggests that he is quite well educated and literate. What has happened in his life to make him discard the opportunities his education has afforded him in favour of a life of reading in doorways before being ushered away by crowds of partygoers? His story would probably be a very interesting one, should it make the (nonexistent) Poor 100.

>>Since we cannot make the deficient and defective “better”, the only alternative would be to make the strong and able weaker, which will hardly produce a practical or productive outcome or anythiing which I would ever support.<<

Col, this may not be the disaster you believe it to be. What if the weakening of the very best doers over time was replaced with lots of good doers. The effects of the go-forward would be much less lumpy (because it is less dependent on the few) and the people who are currently being eclipsed by the very good would actually have a chance to shine which would be good for their development. Your argument implies that the people lower down the pecking order are unsalvageable, when a lot of them can live productive lives if given the chance.

One thing's for sure - if you don't give them a chance you'll never find out. And, if there are a rash of high-level casualties in future, no doubt society will be giving the second wave the green light to carry things forward.

Good post, RobP. I don't think the evidence that the richest people in the world are the most intelligent, or the most productive, is all that compelling.
In fact, many of the obscenely rich, seem painfully ordinary.
Has anyone else ever seen a well regarded actor interviewed, and thought: "what a tosser!" I have seen quite a few interviewed, and without someone feeding them lines, many seem almost incoherent.
I've always wondered about that 'tall poppy' syndrome. That would be the poppy that through some natural (unearned) advantage, grew just a little bit faster, was able by that headstart to hog the nutrients of it's neighbours, grow taller and shade the neighbours, thereby putting them at a greater disadvantage...

"That would be the poppy that through some natural (unearned) advantage, grew just a little bit faster, was able by that headstart to hog the nutrients of it's neighbours, grow taller and shade the neighbours, thereby putting them at a greater disadvantage..."

I'm sure this happens quite often in life. On the bright side, in the end, the undeserving will get blown out of their tree by a big wind.

Actually, I'd like to see Col being eclipsed by someone who was manifestly undeserving. With a bit of luck, he would put his energies to good use, whip out the axe and chop the poppy down. But then again, his libertarian ideals probably extend to leaving such tall poppies alone.

RobP “What if the weakening of the very best doers over time was replaced with lots of good doers.”

Your notion of someone being a “best doer” presumes that the “good doers” are not the same folk.

History has provided us with "best doers", like the Cadbury and Fry families in UK who, (possibly because of their Quaker heritage) who were also at the forefront of improved working conditions for their workers at the time of the industrial revolution. The village of Bournville in the English Midlands, was set up by the Cadbury family as an experiment in improved industrial work environments.

“Noblesse oblige” is where the most powerful accept responsibility for the less fortunate a part of their social obligation. Again those who, at their time, would represent the “best doers” accepting responsibility to be the “good doers”

So your comment, “good doers” are a separate group to the “best doers”, is worse than a fallacy, it is a misrepresentation of historical fact.

“Your argument implies that the people lower down the pecking order are unsalvageable, when a lot of them can live productive lives if given the chance”

My argument makes no such implication, it is you who see are focusing on “social status” and pecking orders.

I believe we should all be free to aspire to the limit and reap the rewards of our individual potential, rather than being hogtied, through punitive a tax systems and limits to personal reward and freedoms, which small-minded, envy-crippled and misguided socialists think will “level the playing field” and force equal outcomes for all.

Grim “I don't think the evidence that the richest people in the world are the most intelligent, or the most productive, is all that compelling.”

Who cares, they are not subject to your judgment.

They are individuals, free to achieve for themselves and free to express their personal compassion, charity and humanity in any manner they see fit. and not subject to the whims of envy based criticism.

If relying on "compelling argument" to justify everything, we would all be dead before actually achieving anything.

>>So your comment, “good doers” are a separate group to the “best doers”, is worse than a fallacy, it is a misrepresentation of historical fact.<<

Col,

This is where we differ - you're talking about the past and I'm talking about the future. Sure, good doers and the best doers are essentially from the same stock. But there is also layering within these people. For the best outcome, it is necessary that the best go in the first wave to lead the way for those coming afterwards. That was what I was talking about. Let events telescope outwards so that those who are best equipped for the times are given the driving seat. For the best outcome overall, society needs a planning layer, followed by a foundation layer, and finally by the 'bells and whistles' layer for want of a better term, where all the gaps are filled. This requires the very smart to go first, gradually relinquishing power to others who can keep continuity with the past while still doing new things into the future.

You are consistently conflating me with socialists for the sake of making your argument easy for yourself and scoring cheap political points. Have a think about what I'm saying on their merits for a change.