Inequity is the natural order, without which there would be no working class willing to do all the hard, nasty or menial jobs, or the 'trades' and lower technical jobs, all of which are nonetheless essential to any successful civilization; and without a wealthy private and corporate sector (paying taxes) there would be no charity and little provision for the disabled, the sick, and those simply unwilling to undertake work suitable to their abilities or lack thereof or in any way alien to their 'sensibilities'.

A powerful economy needs concentrated wealth-creation to elicit the higher taxes needed to power infrastructure development and to provide for universal education, healthcare and welfare, and both private and corporate wealth are needed to spur innovation and entrepreneurship to establish new industries and new enterprises, and to build new housing for both rich and poor.

Communism has been far less successful than capitalism at least in part because it fails to take best advantage of individual abilities and motivation, has tended to give power to rogues or those most corruptible, and as it stifles individual creativity and capacity, opportunity and willingness to innovate.

So then, what is a purely egalitarian society, offering totally equitable wealth distribution and one size fits all, if not a communist one?

And, do we truly want that? I think we can do, and are currently doing, so much better.

And, the big miners pay company tax on their profits. If the tax rate is not high enough, then maybe it should be hiked; but an extra, 'special' super-profits tax? Why should this be necessary?
As for Twiggy, I would imagine his personal tax would be very substantial, but if Fortescue is plowing its net returns into further development - and maybe some small dividends to investors - that should not be seen as unreasonable, as long as the investors think it will pay dividends in the long run for both them and the economy - and don't forget that there are royalties paid to the States for every tonne mined and sold.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Thanks for the clip - it's the classical game-theory "prisoner-dilemma".

It's not an interesting case if the very first-ranking bushranger is sick - then the proposal simply passes on down the chain, but the possibility that the second or third would become sick when it's their turn to propose, is significant and those below them take it very seriously in their calculations when deciding whether or not to accept the first's proposal.

‘morning Steelie,

Why is it that I feel you just tried to poke me in the eye with the “Olive Branch”.

You nominated what you want out of the deal but failed to nominate your concession?

You ask me to accept << that the opinion I posted after the Huffington Post figures was my own or instead was that of Zueese or the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook? >>

I asked you to answer the question << What is the difference between private, institutional and corporate wealth? >>

Sounds like a deal to me?

So here goes;

Spindoc accepts and apologizes for the allegation that SteeleRedux had adopted an opinion in relation to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook.

Over to you Steelie. What is the difference between private, institutional and corporate wealth?

Dear spindoc,

Again thank you for your considered reply.

You wrote;

“You nominated what you want out of the deal but failed to nominate your concession?”

My dear friend I most certainly did not offer a 'deal' of any description rather it was what I deemed to be a logical pathway forward, one that you were free to accept or reject. My proposal simply was that we deal with the matters in the order that they had been raised between us on this thread and I'm more than happy to stick with that. If we encounter a contentious point that can not be resolved to the satisfaction of the both of us then we either both agree to move past it or we part ways, hopefully in an amicable fashion.

Now as to your apology there would be those here who are far less generous than myself who may well call it 'half-arsed at best' and 'downright childish at worst'. Not being that pugnacious nor crude I would just make the point that it is lacking in certain aspects. I suppose it would be like me replying to your later question regarding differences with; “private has 7 letters and starts with a 'p', institutional has 13 letters and starts with an 'i', and corporate has 9 letters and starts with a 'c'.”

Others, equally less generous, might also conclude that your 'apology' was written in such a fashion as to be able to be read as a complete non-apology.

“Spindoc accepts and apologizes for the allegation that SteeleRedux had adopted an opinion in relation to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook.”

It could mean I did not offer an apology at all, or that it was that of Zuesse whom you did not include.

I make no such judgement only to reiterate that it is lacking. I'm equally sure you have the skill required to bring it up to a standard that would reflect the 'honesty' for which we have agreed we are striving.

Kind regards,

SteeleRedux

Dear Yuyutsu,

Strictly speaking in the 'prisoner's dilemma' there was no negotiation allowed between the prisoners yet in the Golden Balls there was, altering the dynamic significantly. From what we can gather from the clip the larger gentleman was involved in supporting charities while the other was some kind of financial currency trader.

Why it is so interesting is that Mr Charity feels Mr Currency probably has enough money to roll the dice on a 'trade' and be prepared to risk the lot. What he effectively did was to take the dice away without compromising his own propensity to ultimately share the prize.

Quite well done but something he could only play once.

Probably the best puzzle for illustrating how much the addition of a very minimal amount of information is the following;

A religious order in India were devout followers of a certain guru and had sworn to adhere to his teachings of deep respect for intellectual and rational pursuits. One day the guru fell gravely ill and his followers gathered at his bedside. In a moment of lucidity in his otherwise overpowering delirium he rose on one elbow and commanded all those who had adorned themselves with the 'Bindi' to leave with the words “All those with the 'red eye' must remove themselves”. To him their sign of respect was instead a repudiation of all that he had taught. The guru succumbed to his illness a short time later.

Cont...

Cont...

His followers were mortified and 100 of them chose to live in a hilltop community away from everyone else and in a complete misinterpretation (as is the propensity of religious orders) of the guru's words took the following vow, if any of them found out that they had red eyes they would kill themselves that night.

Within a few short months their number had dwindled to 20 with winter being especially tragic in terms of lives lost. A meeting was called and it was determined that if they were all to die the memory of their guru was at risk of disappearing. But they did not want to retreat from their vows so it was decided that a follower would only be required to kill themselves during the night if they knew without any doubt they indeed had red eyes. The followers then removed all mirrors from their community and took a vow of utter silence in the belief that this would prevent anyone learning the state of their own eyes.

The scheme worked brilliantly and no deaths occurred for a year. Then one day a traveller, close to death himself, was found at the community gate. The followers took him in and nursed him back to health. As he was leaving, knowing nothing of the vow, he thanked them profusely and said he knew they had stayed up through the night because he could see one or more of them with bright red eyes. He then departed.

The question is what happens after that? Note before the traveller arrived they could all see followers with red eyes but this could not be communicated so their lives were spared.

My apologies if I have presented this before on OLO