Obama and Wall Street [Economics forum version]

[tomcat]

So I watched Barry Obama's speech today on Wall Street, and it got me thinkng (uh oh!). Wealth inequality is the real issue in this discussion, it seems. But redistributing someone's money they now own is a STICKY SITUATION.

Perhaps a good way to "redistribute" wealth (fair wealth?) is to require more philanthropy from the rich. Like a philanthropy tax. You must give up some of your wealth, but you get some choice as to where it should go. Key word is "some." You can't fund things the government is not allowed to fund according to the constitution. Like religious institutions.

What do yall think?







FYI: I donated to the Paul campaign back in '08, but I have modified my political opinions since then. As you should be able to tell, I do not ascribe to pure market capitalism. I had a brief flirtation with considering myself libertarian, but I have core disagreements with many people who go by that label. I am not a democrat, with a capital D, nor am I a Republican. I consider myself a liberal in the traditional sense, not the moral sense: "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties." I am also a pragmatist, and I do believe government (in a modern context) is a necessity, albeit a temporary one. I am a skeptic as well, and believe that every modern-day government of any nation is terribly inefficient by the Information Age's standards.

[Bruno]

So, force people to give up their hard-earned money, but they get to choose where it goes? Gee, thanks. :rolleyes:

"Require more philanthropy" does not compute.

[jclay2]

Sounds like legislating morality and completely against the foundations of freedom.

[hugolp]

You really are confused by the rethoric. All the people that talk about redistribution of wealth and say that the rich has too much, do not want to help the poor. They want more control over the rich money for themselves.

You are a good person and are falling for their lies thinking that you can really use the guns of the goverment for "good". At some point of the process you will realize that you have been fooled.

[fj45lvr]

listen to this guy on Max Keiser's show.....

YouTube - Economic Elite vs The American People- Interview With Max Keiser and David Degraw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gOcREYEbJ4&feature=player_embedded#%21)!

now if this is the "truth" about the top 1% controlling 70% of assets it makes you wonder how that is going to change.

[tomcat]

So, force people to give up their hard-earned money, but they get to choose where it goes? Gee, thanks. :rolleyes:


You're welcome. I think it's a good idea too. But I'm not sure what the :rolleyes: is about. Could you help me with that?



"Require more philanthropy" does not compute.

Can you send me your logic system's error report? :rolleyes:

[tomcat]

Sounds like legislating morality and completely against the foundations of freedom.

Are there no moral absolutes? Or do you consider yourself a relativist? I believe there are real answers to moral questions, that indeed can and should be legislated [EDIT: I think a better word is "enforced," not legislated. That was just the convenient word of the moment I wrote that]


"Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life."

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

[tomcat]

You really are confused by the rethoric. All the people that talk about redistribution of wealth and say that the rich has too much, do not want to help the poor.

So, do you mean that people who want redistribution of wealth are in fact not poor, but rich? Reality doesn't seem to match that assessment. Are you poor?



They want more control over the rich money for themselves.

I'm not arguing that those who would "lose" if my idea were to come to fruition didn't earn their money. I'm just wondering if they didn't earn it "fair and square," whatever that is supposed to mean. I guess that means that I'm wondering if some people who earned money didn't really deserve it.


You are a good person and are falling for their lies

Can you name some names as to who is fooling me? Any specific people?


thinking that you can really use the guns of the goverment for "good".

I assume you mean to use "guns" in this case metaphorically, but that scares me. I don't mean to scare you with these ideas, and I personally would NEVER advocate using guns to "convince" you to give up your money. That's not convincing. That's despotic.


At some point of the process you will realize that you have been fooled.

I'm willing to go through the process, if it will make me wiser

[tomcat]

now if this is the "truth" about the top 1% controlling 70% of assets it makes you wonder how that is going to change.

I'm done wondering. I'm planning to change it. What's your plan?

I didn't watch the videos. You didn't convince me enough to help me see if it would be worth it. But thanks for embedding them

[spudea]

I'm just wondering if they didn't earn it "fair and square," whatever that is supposed to mean. I guess that means that I'm wondering if some people who earned money didn't really deserve it.

And you think government deserves it? When more is wasted than what gets redistributed.

[Mahkato]

Bill Gates does a lot more good for society by running a software company than he does by whatever he's trying to do philanthropically. He should do what he does best and let other people do the rest.

What if Sam Walton had decided back in the 70s that he wasn't being charitable enough?

Also, go watch the Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.jonathangullible.com/philosophy-of-liberty).

[fj45lvr]

I'm done wondering. I'm planning to change it. What's your plan?

I didn't watch the videos. You didn't convince me enough to help me see if it would be worth it. But thanks for embedding them


I don't have a "plan" I guess.


There are many ways that a person can interpret the sentence: "I'm planning to change it." It sounds potentially like a challenge to also just try to grab the brass ring??

try to "toss" the establishment's racket in some way politically or otherwise??

Line "them" up and shoot them (communist method)??


though the top 1% control a large majority and own the government and rigged machinations that are sanctioned by the "state" I guess there still is a slim chance they could "lose it" (though not likely)....2 popular methods are either through superior force or a majority vote (the tools of the "state"). The criticism of what exists is easy, the plans to get away from it are scarce and vague. That's something that Lew/Mises/Ron should try to vocalize more.

[tomcat]

And you think government deserves it? When more is wasted than what gets redistributed.

The government has no needs. We can pretend it does if we belief "government" really means "people who run things"