How to counter statistic-loaded arguments (top 10% have 90% of money, etc.)

[socialize_me]

I really get sick of people saying things are "distributed too unevenly," and trying to convert them to a limited government stance in a matter of five minutes isn't very practical, especially when they're Neocons or psychotic environmentalists...basically the kind that Obama attracts. Anyway, how do you counter these arguments that the top 10% own like over 80 or 90% of the nation's wealth? I see nothing wrong with it, but then again that's not a very good answer. I just get tired of people whining about this shit.

[angelatc]

Start by asking how they think that situation occurred.

[danberkeley]

Ask how stealing over $2,000,000,000,000 from Americans and giving it to the wealthy and elitist banksters helps that situation.

UPDATE: Here is one answer to your question http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=177226, and it has everything to do with government intervention.

[FrankRep]

The top 10% know how to manage the money and the other 90% are economically clueless.

[Truth Warrior]

Isn't that usually applied to "wealth" distribution and NOT just money?

[Peace&Freedom]

Give the statistician two scenarios: 1) You have $10 in your pocket, and you get mugged. 2) You have $1 million bucks in your pocket, and you get mugged. Ask how 'fair' the resulting situation was for them in either case. Is there a fair way to get mugged? If not, the 'evenness' of the prior distribution of assets is irrelevant. Now you can talk to them about wealth, taxes, etc., following the fundamental idea that Peter stealing from Paul to pay for Mary is not the basis for dealing with problems.

[Original_Intent]

1 way to shut them up is to ask for a source. I think a lot of this just gets entered into "common knowledge" and circulated. I think most people spouting this stuff (whether true or not) would not be able to provide a source for the statistic.

If you actually want to engage them in conversation throw out something like "Yeah that same 10% pays 90% of all the taxes paid too."

[fatjohn]

Say that it is that way because the government allowed the fed to create a fiat money system, which is inflationary and explain to them that if you have 1 million in a society yesterday and the fed prints 100 grand today that that 100 grand will buy one tenth of the assets the 1 million would have bought yesterday.

But once the 100 grand has circulated through society you will need 110 grand to buy those same assets back tomorrow. And it's always the bankers who get hold of the 100 grand in the first place and it is always ordinary people who have to buy the assets back for 110 grand the day after.

[TastyWheat]

I wonder how many politicians are in that 10%. Seriously, does anybody know?

[heavenlyboy34]

I really get sick of people saying things are "distributed too unevenly," and trying to convert them to a limited government stance in a matter of five minutes isn't very practical, especially when they're Neocons or psychotic environmentalists...basically the kind that Obama attracts. Anyway, how do you counter these arguments that the top 10% own like over 80 or 90% of the nation's wealth? I see nothing wrong with it, but then again that's not a very good answer. I just get tired of people whining about this shit.

Cui bono? The STATE. ;) Statism led to this redistribution of wealth. You can dig up any number of statistics to support this, but this is a great guiding principle, IMHO. :D

[Redmenace]

I always refute this argument by saying that it is impossible to enact a type of "Robin Hood" government that steals from the rich and gives to the poor.

Why? because the rich are in charge of the government and they would never allow such a system to occur. So what you end up with is a government that steals from the poor, pays a few hundred thousand bureaucrats, and then gives whatever is left back to the poor.

So what is better, a government that steals from the poor or a government that steals from no one?

[Xenophage]

Economic class disparities are the greatest in controlled economies. The U.S. practically invented the middle class with our free market system, and free economies always tend to grow larger middle classes.

[Dieseler]

..

[Kraig]

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose--because it contains all the others--the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality."

Wealth is not a static quantity.

[SimpleName]

People are trapped by statistics. Obama is quite an experienced statistic monger. He throws them out as often as possible, no matter how far fetched and scientifically lacking they are. "We will cut taxes for those taking in less than 32,000 dollars a year by 12% while at the same time giving the upper 5% who control more than 80% of our nation's wealth tax increases of 5%. Those 40 million Americans living in poverty, more than 13% of our population, with take huge tax cuts, allowing them to spend upwards of 20% more. This lower and middle class spending with lead of GDP to grow by an additional 1.2% per year over the next 10 years. Don't forget the mass unemployment in this country. More than 7% of Americans are going without a job. If we keep going down this path of the rich getting richer, unemployment will undeniably soon reach 10%, then 15%, and then 20%. Where does this end?" lol. Overboard, but just proving the point. I can't stand stat-whoring. In order to have a winning candidate, we will have to pull together real statistics to counter the statist b/s and just throw them out every chance we get.

[Paulitician]

Well, part of the reason is state intervention... but part of it isn't. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the top 10% were part of the banking establishment or other monetary institutions, or get their wealth from the government in some way. I don't see how someone could defend such inequality, especially considering the corrupt system we have.

[BillyDkid]

In fact there is a great disparity in wealth and a disappearing middle class and it is precisely because government serves the interests of the powerful that it got so out of whack. The richest counties in the country are right around DC - do these people produce anything? No, they are lobbiests and other leeches feeding at the public trough. I am all for people getting as rich as they possibly can. I have problem with people becoming rich through their collusion with government and the formation of government enforced monopolies. Many people have gotten rich through their own hard work or brilliance, but many more have gotten rich because the comprise the ruling class, the owners of this country. If we had a genuine free market and we had real capitalism that would be one thing. What we have is a ruling class who thrive at the expense of the rest of us because the system is set up for them to thrive. That was the driving force behind the formation of the federal reserve. Central bankers got rich because of they have cornered the market on money. The people who own Blackwater have gotten rich as war profiteers. The Kennedys got rich as bootleggers. As long as government has the power to do so it will serve the interests of the powerful.