Wealth Distribution

I am opposed, however, to the idea, expressed by some, above, that those who won the "vaginal [really uterine?] lottery" somehow don't deserve, and therefor should lose, most of their wealth. If we take the lottery analogy to its Rawlsian conclusion, the only differences in income and wealth are due to winning or losing that lottery. After all, if you're smart, it's because you inherited intelligence. If you have the capacity to work hard or to defer gratification, it's because you inherited that capacity.

Sooo, let me get this right, you f*#k off, don't get your sh#t together and those of us working our tails off should give you our money?

This is a classic example of a non sequitur.

the capitalist collects the capital we produce

No. The government may collect some of the capital we produce, but workers produce capital only if they save some of it, just like anyone else.

Even though I believe that the "birth lottery" has very definite winners and losers, I don't think that, alone, accounts for differences in wealth

Think about that for a moment. Historians start with Cleopatra and the Pharaohs and comb through every year in human history ever since, looking in every corner of the world for evidence of extraordinary wealth, and almost 20 percent of the names they end up with come from a single generation in a single country.

Here's the list:

01. John Rockefeller, 1839.
02. Andrew Carnegie, 1835.
28.Frederick Weyerhaeuser, 1834.
33. Jay Gould, 1836.
34. Marshall Field, 1834.
35. George Baker, 1840.
36. Hetty Green, 1834.
44. James G. Fair, 1831.
54. Henry H. Rogers, 1840.
57. J.P. Morgan, 1837.
58. Oliver Payne, 1839.
62. George Pullman, 1831.
64. Peter Widener, 1834.
65. Philip Armor, 1832.

What's going on here? The answer is obvious, if you think about it. In the 1860's and 1870's, the American economy went through perhaps the greatest transformation in its history. This was when the railways were built, and when Wall Street emerged. It was when industrial manufacturing started in earnest. It was when all the rules by which the traditional economy functioned were broken and remade. What that list says is that it really matters how old you were when that transformation happened.

If you were born in the late 1840's, you missed it. You were too young to take advantage of that moment. If you were born in the 1820's, you were too old: your mindset was shaped by the pre-Civil War paradigm. But there is a particular, narrow nine-year window that was just perfect for seeing the potential that the future held. All of the 14 men and women on that list had vision and talent. But they also were given an extraordinary opportunity. . .

This is actually rather stupid. Wealth equality would be monumentally unfair.

It's stupid to assume that there is no choice between monumentally warped wealth inequality or complete wealth equality. You'd have us have only one extreme or the other.

Learned some basics in my teens, dollar cost averaging, diversification, dividends yield.

At 21 I added a digit to my net worth, and even though I spent half my twenties living out of a Ford Pinto my wealth grew ever so slowly.
At 42, another digit added, and if things go as they are seeming to, at 63 I might have one more.

Wealth is easy (although execution can be hard)

1) live well within your means. Pay cash or DO WITHOUT! (the key to happiness actually).

2) a part of everything you earn is yours to keep





Currently my portfolio is peaking and my gun collection doing even better.

You can whine or you can make it happen.
The US is still the land of opportunity and might remain so for another decade or two, but others are passing us by

Gary, we obviously have different definitions of capital.

In classical and neoclassical economics, capital is one of the factors of production. The others are land, labour and, according to some proponents, organization, entrepreneurship, or management. Goods with the following features are capital:

It can be used in the production of other goods (this is what makes it a factor of production).
It was produced, in contrast to "land", which refers to naturally occurring resources such as geographical locations and minerals.
It is not used up immediately in the process of production unlike raw materials or intermediate goods.