The justification for wealth-redistribution.[W:2037]

[imagep]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

That's not logical. It would be theoretically possible for there to be infinite demand but only of a single product. Al others might well fail miserably even with infinite demand for some other product or products. I'm not arguing that demand is infinite, though. I'm merely saying that the more new stuff you bring to market, the more people will want to trade for it.



You bet. We need food, water, shelter and clothing and, arguably, sex even though it's not something we need on a personal level for personal survival (though we do need it for the survival of the species). Pretty much everything else we have is because we want it.

Now we get to your ideas about wants or needs. While no one may need a 100k auto, people may very well want one. I'd love to have a Ferrari. Not because it would make me seem wealthy. I'd just love to take one to a road where no one was looking and stomp on the gas pedal. I don't want it because it's a 100K car. I don't want it for the status symbol. I want it for the experience of driving such a fine piece of equipment. Thing is.... I don't want it bad enough to buy one. I don't even want one bad enough to lease one for a day. But if I had 20 or 30 million dollars sitting idle somewhere, I'd probably change my mind on that. Then it would be worth it to me.

So if you had more money in your pocket, you would spend more, and create more jobs doing so. Hmmm.

 

[PMZ]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

That's not logical. It would be theoretically possible for there to be infinite demand but only of a single product. Al others might well fail miserably even with infinite demand for some other product or products. I'm not arguing that demand is infinite, though. I'm merely saying that the more new stuff you bring to market, the more people will want to trade for it.



You bet. We need food, water, shelter and clothing and, arguably, sex even though it's not something we need on a personal level for personal survival (though we do need it for the survival of the species). Pretty much everything else we have is because we want it.

Now we get to your ideas about wants or needs. While no one may need a 100k auto, people may very well want one. I'd love to have a Ferrari. Not because it would make me seem wealthy. I'd just love to take one to a road where no one was looking and stomp on the gas pedal. I don't want it because it's a 100K car. I don't want it for the status symbol. I want it for the experience of driving such a fine piece of equipment. Thing is.... I don't want it bad enough to buy one. I don't even want one bad enough to lease one for a day. But if I had 20 or 30 million dollars sitting idle somewhere, I'd probably change my mind on that. Then it would be worth it to me.

If all you wanted is the thrill of going fast, rent one for a week. Or go to one of the many tracks around the country that will let you drive one for a time, supervised.

I will always believe that their brand are people who want to be noticed for their wealth.

 

[PMZ]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

It was interesting and I think on the surface it makes some key findings, although I'm not sure it holds up. Still thinking about this and just finished reading some criticism to Wilkinson and how a lot of these statistics are achieved as follows: http://thespiritleveldelusion.blogspot.com/2010/04/20-questions-for-richard-wilkinson-kate-html?m=1 Not sure if link is good but you can search it by 20 1uestions the spirit level delusion.

My feelings are that its not so much as income level disparity that is a major cause of social ills but rather a culture centered around materialism, how people feel about themselves maybe comparing their lives to what they see on television. How Beiber or the Kardashians live etc. We can censor commercials about people smoking and drinking, but we can't seem to censor a lot of filth on tv. if it was my choice, I would limit the amount of materialism in our culture and promote more televsion for example that shows are value is not determined by materialism etc.

I would do that versus giving government more power to correct social ills through more taxation. At least that is my stance at this time.

Perhaps Wilkinson's findings reflect that materialism is another product of gross wealth inequality. Certainly my experience is that the wealthier people are, the more compelled they are to show off that wealth. It's hard to be materialistic when you are in the middle of the middle class in today's America.

Wealth people typically talk about wealth envy and are the most ruthless in trying to pass their neighbors.

 

[PMZ]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

So if you had more money in your pocket, you would spend more, and create more jobs doing so. Hmmm.

What the very wealthy spend that wealth on is not what creates many jobs. It's the middle class buying a million Fords that is the basis of our economy.

 

[PMZ]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

This prose assumes there isn't another justification for redistribution. The flaw in the reasoning is the assumption greed IS the reason to the exclusion of other justifications. This is a false assumption.

Another justification is the idea wealth needs to be redistributed because of exploitation, specifically people aren't fully compensated for their labor.

Another justification is compassion, a desire to help those less fortunate.

To be sure, greed is also prevalent but for you to assume it is greed and no other is erroneous.

It also assumes that wealthy people earn their wealth through vastly more contribution. Very rare in my experience.

 

[Awesome!]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

..or be accused of jealousy, poor 'self-marketing' or 'trading' skills, envy, cowardice and thievery every time you point out that the more wealth-oriented path does not entirely consist of genuises slogging through 80 hour weeks :roll: There's a rather striking dissonance between Papa's (very rare) statements that wealth has fairly limited association with happiness - which I fully agree with - and his (very frequent) suggestions and implications that anyone daring to comment unflatteringly on the subject of wealth acquisition must be poor and envious.

A cynical person might be tempted to ponder the fact that there are more than a few post-rationalizing, failed would-be billionaires out there.
(I myself can relate in another area; my own ambitions have never really been financial.)

I don't know....People get upset when they perceive that you are criticizing a system that they believe in, and don't like it when you state your a victim of a rigged society and the best solution is redistribution. Not you directly but that is usually how I perceive the left and it pisses me off. If your goal is not to attain financial freedom, then more power to you.

Or are you saying that due to lack of redistribution, a lot of the programs that you would like society to have is limiting your goal that is not money driven? In other words if society was more equal and excess profits were redistributed, then you would be happy?

I agree with you that money and power don't necessarily bring happiness, but neither do government handouts.

 

[Awesome!]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Perhaps Wilkinson's findings reflect that materialism is another product of gross wealth inequality. Certainly my experience is that the wealthier people are, the more compelled they are to show off that wealth. It's hard to be materialistic when you are in the middle of the middle class in today's America.

Wealth people typically talk about wealth envy and are the most ruthless in trying to pass their neighbors.

I think there is some truth in that. From my experience though having worked my way up over the years holding different titles etc, is that there is a competitiveness at all levels whether at work or in whatever class we find ourselves in. Sometimes very ruthless and it just doesn't apply to the rich.

I mean look at what happened on black Friday this year and in years past. People camping outside stores so they can get that latest electronic upgrade. Some were shot this year, some were stun gunned, fights looking like a ruthless mob storming the stores. I guess its human nature.

I think a lot of it has to do with your upbringing. For example my Father never came home from work and said that he was a victim of wealth inequality or that life was unfair, etc. I entered the workforce based on his example that anything was possible by my efforts as he had two businesses completely self made, nothing had ever been handed to him. I think him and his buddy came to California with a few hundred dollars in their pockets. It took him 25 years but the point is that he never was anchored in an ideology that said he was a victim, society is not fair blah, blah and I think that is the problem with the latest generation as there is so much BS that limits their ability to be successful, because of class warfare perpetuated by the left.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

This prose assumes there isn't another justification for redistribution. The flaw in the reasoning is the assumption greed IS the reason to the exclusion of other justifications. This is a false assumption.

Another justification is the idea wealth needs to be redistributed because of exploitation, specifically people aren't fully compensated for their labor.

Another justification is compassion, a desire to help those less fortunate.

To be sure, greed is also prevalent but for you to assume it is greed and no other is erroneous.

Charity is for helping the less fortunate and everyone is fully compensated for their labor because it's only worth whatever people are willing to pay for it. Still, there are people who would argue these rationalizations and they are much less unflattering reasons than arguing based purely on greed and envy. When you boil it all down, it really does wind itself right back to the core fact that it is about wanting what wasn't earned; whether it was in wanting to give to others what you didn't earn or to give to yourself what you didn't earn. Or... of course.... asserting that people aren't being "fully paid" for what they do and claiming wealth redsitribution fixes this rampant and imaginary evil. All just rationalizations for why it's right to take what wasn't earned as the spoils of class warfare.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

..or be accused of jealousy, poor 'self-marketing' or 'trading' skills, envy, cowardice and thievery every time you point out that the more wealth-oriented path does not entirely consist of genuises slogging through 80 hour weeks :roll: There's a rather striking dissonance between Papa's (very rare) statements that wealth has fairly limited association with happiness - which I fully agree with - and his (very frequent) suggestions and implications that anyone daring to comment unflatteringly on the subject of wealth acquisition must be poor and envious.

If you are happy doing what you are doing and, thereby making what you are making, why would you make unflattering comments about people who have a different value system and seek to earn more? It sounds a lot to me like you are saying that those grapes you can't reach are probably sour, anyway... and the people who can and do reach them are... well, whatever unflattering things you say they are.

When I say this, I use the universal you/your.... it is directed toward conditions; not individuals. People can identify if they want to assume the mantle of the conditions but that's optional.

If you believe you aren't getting what you rightfully deserve then there's a problem. Your product is your labor so where does the problem in you selling your labor for what you perceive to be the right price lie?

1. You aren't capable of convincing anyone to purchase your product. Points to sales/marketing
2. You aren't capable of convincing anyone of the true value of your product. Points to sales/marketing
3. Your product isn't worth what you want it to be worth. Points to envy

The upshot is that because you want more than anyone is willing to pay and you are incapable of marketing yourself for more pay, you think that the government should step in and take the money from the rich and redistribute it so you can what you believe for NO good reason is your "fair share". That's theft. And you want the government to do your stealing for you. That doesn't speak to an aggressive go-getter attitude, either.

A cynical person might be tempted to ponder the fact that there are more than a few post-rationalizing, failed would-be billionaires out there.
(I myself can relate in another area; my own ambitions have never really been financial.)

Then you have nothing to bitch about, do you?

And yet......

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

If all you wanted is the thrill of going fast, rent one for a week. Or go to one of the many tracks around the country that will let you drive one for a time, supervised.

I thought I said that I didn't want one enough to lease one for a day or a week, either. There are places where I could but I don't think it's a good value for my money.

I will always believe that their brand are people who want to be noticed for their wealth.

Absolutely, but you have undoubtedly been around a lot of people that are very, very wealthy and never known it because most aren't really interested in flaunting it at all. But.... I'm sure some do, particularly if they have newly acquired wealth. Even so, it may be annoying and ungracious, but that's their prerogative. If they busted their ass to acquire wealth just so they could be pompous and assuming, that doesn't make their wealth acquisition wrong. It just makes them ungracious people who like flaunting wealth for some perverse satisfaction. There will always be people like that at all levels of wealth, actually. You'll even find them in trailer parks flaunting their new car or their new black velvet Elvis.

 

[Starbuck]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

For many years now the vast majority of political division is directly or indirectly over wealth redistribution. . .

I completely agree that this is a prevalent political debate, especially as of the past twenty to thirty years. It really started in the 1980's with the Union busting regime of the Reagan administration.

Sure the Reagan administration was handed a poor set of cards, as I certainly don't envy the economy that he inherited from Carter. However, with several paths to choose in rehabilitating our nation. . . he chose poorly. The decisions to repeatedly target and blame the unions/ middle class for the loss of our manufacturing industry led to the beginning of a vicious cycle.

It is the greed of people who envy what others have and have such weak morality that they want to take it.

Although I completely disagree with the idea of forced wealth distribution, be it popular or not, I don't think that this all erupted through simple greed. Especially, where the greed is had solely on the part of the lower classes.

What we are looking at here is almost mathematical, and also a repetition of history.

Capitalism is a great system, but it is not without flaws. It is also a system that cannot run without proper management, leastwise it would be like a river on the plains. I could reference all the way back to the times of the Pullman Strike, but the lessons learned back then have obviously been lost.

Following WWII, the United States was the economic centerpiece of the globe. Especially where our manufacturing facilities and infrastructure were both intact and staffed with competent employees. At that time there was no real global competition that could match our ability to produce and as a result we were engaged in a virtuous cycle where individuals were well compensated on all levels and allowed to freely engage in the consumer economy. With higher (relative) earnings people spent more and as a result corporations earned more, thereby creating more jobs and yet more economic activity.

Problem is, the rest of the world didn't remain dormant forever. Once other nations began repairing/ developing their manufacturing infrastructure we found new competition, a competition which mis managed (and nearly pure) capitalism didn't allow us to win.

This is where we found ourselves by the beginning of the 1980's, after nearly four decades of successfully riding a virtuous cycle of non-competitive winning.

In order for these discussions to stay in the narrow field of rational focus, value and merit must be discussed, but not in negative terms for the haves but in positive terms for the have-nots. Prove the positive because that's how our economy works.

I think the idea of merit based compensation is a corner stone to any successful capitalist system, which is why I'm a big fan of piecemeal/ salary pay. Hourly wages, in my opinion create a 'make work' mentality and lead to gross inefficiencies.

That being said, there has obviously arisen this sentiment (from both sides) of haves v. have nots.

While this might literally be the case, I don't think that we should argue in those terms. We should be arguing in purely mathematical terms, where numbers are looked at coldly.

 

[Starbuck]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

If you believe you aren't getting what you rightfully deserve then there's a problem. Your product is your labor so where does the problem in you selling your labor for what you perceive to be the right price lie?

This is true, all anyone in this world can do is offer their labor. However, the tables aren't always even for people. In a capitalist system, as with any system, there are problems.

At some points, such as the present, the system becomes trapped in a vicious cycle where people aren't being compensated for what they need, much less what they deserve.

If you were to look at our economy as a un controlled river, where erosion naturally changes the river's course and causes bends/ bights.

We are at a point where we are looking at a very sharp bend, that could do one of two things:

1. Cut through and isolate the inefficient bight.
   
   
3. Continue down our current path and eventually inflate the bight, while starving everything downstream.

When Reagan took office, he had two primary choices to restart our economy.

Once choice was to pump adrenaline into the dying manufacturing sector.

The second would've been to invest public money into new industries (research, services, education, medicine).

Obviously, he chose the first option. Naturally, the adrenaline came at a cost to many and lead to only temporary gains. Similar to giving a shot of adrenaline into a drug addict, who is going to continue using drugs. By the end of the 1980's this temporary boost had worn off, totally screwing President Bush's chance for reelection.

Basically, we've been on the same inefficient course since the late 1970's. And rather than looking to straighten the run of our economy the powers-that-be, have simply continued to reinforce that bight.

This is where we have come, and after nearly three decades of the bight starving everything downstream, we've began to really dry up. Maybe it sounds like classism or greed, but in reality it's the drying up of people.

The story of every ghost town across the southwest would read the same, people clinging on to what they "have." Rather than looking to what they can do.

 

[Starbuck]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

I'm sure it often manufactures itself as pure envy, people are pretty simple that way, but what you are talking about is a little bit more complex than that.

The greed comes from both sides, we've even witnessed this within the past four years. People asking for compensation/ protection that they aren't worth (auto dealer unions, fast food workers, unemployed college graduates), and the corporations doing the exact same (AIG, Wal Mart, insert health insurance company here).

Charity is for helping the less fortunate and everyone is fully compensated for their labor because it's only worth whatever people are willing to pay for it.

That's a very clever statement, it's both true and untrue at the same time.

Value is a highly variable and transitional thing. Sometimes unmanaged capitalism leads to gross abuses on one side or the other, look at 1790's France. Mismanaged capitalism led to a gross abuse of the lower classes. This in turn lead to a gross abuse of the upper classes.

Obviously this is an extreme case, but it's mathematically sound capitalism nonetheless.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

I'm sure it often manufactures itself as pure envy, people are pretty simple that way, but what you are talking about is a little bit more complex than that.

The greed comes from both sides, we've even witnessed this within the past four years. People asking for compensation/ protection that they aren't worth (auto dealer unions, fast food workers, unemployed college graduates), and the corporations doing the exact same (AIG, Wal Mart, insert health insurance company here).



That's a very clever statement, it's both true and untrue at the same time.

Value is a highly variable and transitional thing. Sometimes unmanaged capitalism leads to gross abuses on one side or the other, look at 1790's France. Mismanaged capitalism led to a gross abuse of the lower classes. This in turn lead to a gross abuse of the upper classes.

Obviously this is an extreme case, but it's mathematically sound capitalism nonetheless.

Capitalism had nothing to do with the French Revolution. The gross abuse of the upper classes was a fact but it wasn't capitalism in action but the tyranny of stupidly high taxation and a tyrannical monarchy complete with corrupt court systems. To argue that the French Revolution was the result of failed capitalism is ridiculous.

 

[Arbo]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

At some points, such as the present, the system becomes trapped in a vicious cycle where people aren't being compensated for what they need, much less what they deserve.

That you put forth 'needs' before 'deserve' says all that anyone needs to hear of your beliefs, and lays bare the left wing spin. The world is not run on 'need', nor could any such model ever be supported for very long.

 

[Starbuck]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

People talking about capitalism, socialism, utopianism and communism in very absolute and very defining terms. Sometimes communism and socialism are presented as one idea, which is obviously untrue.

Personally, I don't see that any of these systems are actually real or concrete. What I see is the various descriptions of what happens. They aren't rules to play by, but more descriptions of what happens.

To that end, and through my experience/ research, I've found that capitalism is generally at the base of all human activity. With that in mind, I'd argue that even the most corrupt actions on the part of a stupid monarchy or the most tyrannical actions on the part of a angry mob were the result of what we could call the capitalist system.

All of the major "ism's," claim to lay out the rules for ideal economic/ human activity. I think they simply describe what people have done & will do.

Sort of like the speed limits on a freeway. . . California is very hesitant to post a 70MPH limit, where Arizona and New Mexico are very hesitant to post anything below 75MPH. In either case the limit is supposed to describe what is done on the freeway, but in the first scenario the description is unrealistic and as a result makes criminals out of otherwise innocent people.

Capitalism had nothing to do with the French Revolution. The gross abuse of the upper classes was a fact but it wasn't capitalism in action but the tyranny of stupidly high taxation and a tyrannical monarchy complete with corrupt court systems. To argue that the French Revolution was the result of failed capitalism is ridiculous.

The tyrannical monarchy was a result of capitalist activity, not something that sprung up overnight.

The French revolution was pure capitalism at it's finest, with absolutely no controls, no safeguards and no long-term thinking. If you were to trace back, all the way to the dawn of the French monarchy, you'd find that one individual gained control over others through capitalistic principles and then passed it on to his/her spawn over generations. In time people's collective memory forgot how this started and created the system of 'royalty.' But to look at it economically, it's no different than what we have going today in the United States. Well, aside from the controls.

Our economy is the same in 1790's France, as it is capitalist, but different in that we've taken some measures to prevent the gross extremes witnessed there.

 

[Starbuck]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

That you put forth 'needs' before 'deserve' says all that anyone needs to hear of your beliefs, and lays bare the left wing spin. The world is not run on 'need', nor could any such model ever be supported for very long.

What do people need?

 

[Arbo]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

What do people need?

Feel free to spew forth your left wing nonsense of what is not just a 'need' but a 'right' of the people. It will be nothing we haven't heard before…

 

[Papa bull]

The justification for wealth-redistribution.

People talking about capitalism, socialism, utopianism and communism in very absolute and very defining terms. Sometimes communism and socialism are presented as one idea, which is obviously untrue.

Personally, I don't see that any of these systems are actually real or concrete. What I see is the various descriptions of what happens. They aren't rules to play by, but more descriptions of what happens.

To that end, and through my experience/ research, I've found that capitalism is generally at the base of all human activity. With that in mind, I'd argue that even the most corrupt actions on the part of a stupid monarchy or the most tyrannical actions on the part of a angry mob were the result of what we could call the capitalist system.

All of the major "ism's," claim to lay out the rules for ideal economic/ human activity. I think they simply describe what people have done & will do.

Sort of like the speed limits on a freeway. . . California is very hesitant to post a 70MPH limit, where Arizona and New Mexico are very hesitant to post anything below 75MPH. In either case the limit is supposed to describe what is done on the freeway, but in the first scenario the description is unrealistic and as a result makes criminals out of otherwise innocent people.



The tyrannical monarchy was a result of capitalist activity, not something that sprung up overnight.

The French revolution was pure capitalism at it's finest, with absolutely no controls, no safeguards and no long-term thinking. If you were to trace back, all the way to the dawn of the French monarchy, you'd find that one individual gained control over others through capitalistic principles and then passed it on to his/her spawn over generations. In time people's collective memory forgot how this started and created the system of 'royalty.' But to look at it economically, it's no different than what we have going today in the United States. Well, aside from the controls.

Our economy is the same in 1790's France, as it is capitalist, but different in that we've taken some measures to prevent the gross extremes witnessed there.

I guess you think that a tyrannical ruling class forcing on the people extremely onerous taxation without representation that would actually result in their starvation is capitalism. Seriously? This had nothing to do with free market principles and fair trade.

 

[PMZ]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

I don't know....People get upset when they perceive that you are criticizing a system that they believe in, and don't like it when you state your a victim of a rigged society and the best solution is redistribution. Not you directly but that is usually how I perceive the left and it pisses me off. If your goal is not to attain financial freedom, then more power to you.

Or are you saying that due to lack of redistribution, a lot of the programs that you would like society to have is limiting your goal that is not money driven? In other words if society was more equal and excess profits were redistributed, then you would be happy?

I agree with you that money and power don't necessarily bring happiness, but neither do government handouts.

I believe that history has provided more than ample proof that extreme wealth inequity creates societies that range from dysfunctional to unstable.

Free enterprise without restriction leads to that, and it's very, very expensive for everyone.

In this country we are at that extreme. The wealthy are going to have to let go of a few cookies to get their hand out of the cookie jar. Or they won't be getting any more.

 

[PMZ]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

I guess you think that a tyrannical ruling class forcing on the people extremely onerous taxation without representation that would actually result in their starvation is capitalism. Seriously? This had nothing to do with free market principles and fair trade.

If, in fact, residents here were subject to "onerous taxation without representation", why aren't people, in droves, choosing to live elsewhere?

My explanation is that America is a very competitive place to live, all things considered.

 

[PMZ]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Feel free to spew forth your left wing nonsense of what is not just a 'need' but a 'right' of the people. It will be nothing we haven't heard before…

Sometimes, when you hear things a lot, it's because they are true.

 

[PMZ]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Capitalism had nothing to do with the French Revolution. The gross abuse of the upper classes was a fact but it wasn't capitalism in action but the tyranny of stupidly high taxation and a tyrannical monarchy complete with corrupt court systems. To argue that the French Revolution was the result of failed capitalism is ridiculous.

The French Revolution, and the American Revolution, had at their roots, plutocracy, and great wealth inequity, the latter a product of the former.

We are heading in that direction too.

 

[Papa bull]

The justification for wealth-redistribution.

The French Revolution, and the American Revolution, had at their roots, plutocracy, and great wealth inequity, the latter a product of the former.

We are heading in that direction too.

That is false. They had at their roots, great injustice. Wealth inequality isn't necessarily unjust. In fact, wealth equality would actually be unjust. If you produce more and better, you should be able to keep the fruits of your production. 1790's France had a lot more differences than similarities to today's US political and economic systems.

 

[Starbuck]

Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

I guess you think that a tyrannical ruling class forcing on the people extremely onerous taxation without representation that would actually result in their starvation is capitalism. Seriously? This had nothing to do with free market principles and fair trade.

You need to look beyond the surface level of what was going on in France during the 1790's and the decades (centuries) leading up to that.

It's all based upon free market principles, just like whats going on in the United States currently. . . or back in the late 19th century. The Pullman Strike is a more controlled version of what happened in France. An unmitigated ruling class (monarchy or capitalist take your pick) was trying to soak more from the working class than it could stand. In this situation, the U.S. went the more reasonable path, using strikes and government intervention to reach a middle ground. Certainly, in that situation it wasn't much different than France.

What do you think about the Pullman strike?