Wealth distribution or ("trickle down economics")

[pochy1776]

Why is america's wealthy owning most of the wealth? Moreover, why are people so pissed off?

How do i counter the argument that the rich should pay m ore taxes because the top 10 percent own 80 percent of the wealth. This distribution argument is killing me.

[VBRonPaulFan]

this should probably be moved to the economics sub-forum.

[pochy1776]

this should probably be moved to the economics sub-forum.

how do i move it.

[oyarde]

Maybe , there should be no tax at all , and the Fed Govt could fund Article One , Section Eight in a different manner, and you could flush the rest.

[KCIndy]

Maybe , there should be no tax at all , and the Fed Govt could fund Article One , Section Eight in a different manner, and you could flush the rest.

I like this idea. Amazing, isn't it, what can be found in the Constitution!

[Xerographica]

It's so easy to counter...just explain to them the dollar voting concept. If you understand this concept then it should be obvious why the 99% vs the 1% is an absurd concept. It's the 99% who "elects" who the 1% should be...so if the 99% has any complaints they should blame themselves!

I'm a millionaire, I'm a multi-millionaire. I'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do. That's pretty good, isn't it? - Michael Moore

Wal-Mart can’t charge more; if it does, its customers will go elsewhere. The same is true of Target and Costco. In a sense, Wal-Mart is the elected representative of tens of millions of hard-bargaining shoppers, and, like any representative, it serves only at their pleasure. - James Surowiecki, The Customer is King

You might say, “That’s okay, Williams, if you have enough dollar votes. But what about poor people?” Poor people are far better served in the market arena than the political arena. Check this out. If you visit a poor neighborhood, you will see some nice clothing, some nice cars, some nice food, and maybe even some nice homes—no nice schools. Why not at least some nice schools? The explanation is simple. Clothing, cars, food, and houses are allocated through the market mechanism. Schools are allocated through the political mechanism. By the way, if you are a member of a minority, it is in your interest to minimize those decisions over your life made in the political arena, where the majority rules. - Walter Williams, Where Does Your Vote Really Count?

In other words, people will start buying something in large numbers if it solves a big problem for them. But most first-world problems—needing an easier way to record your favorite TV programs or keep track of what’s in your fridge—just aren’t that pressing. In developing countries, on the other hand, technology can transform lives. - Christopher Mims, How a $20 tablet from India could blindside PC makers, educate billions and transform computing as we know it

Here's a passage from what I consider to be the best technical explanation of how markets redistribute resources...

These economic facts have certain social consequences. As the critics of the market economy nowadays prefer to take their stand on “social” grounds, it may be not inappropriate here to elucidate the true social results of the market process. We have already spoken of it as a leveling process. More aptly, we may now describe these results as an instance of what Pareto called “the circulation of elites.” Wealth is unlikely to stay for long in the same hands. It passes from hand to hand as unforeseen change confers value, now on this, now on that specific resource, engendering capital gains and losses. The owners of wealth, we might say with Schumpeter, are like the guests at a hotel or the passengers in a train: They are always there but are never for long the same people. - Lachmann, The Market Economy and the Distribution of Wealth

[angelatc]

http://townhall.com/columnists/thoma...redistribution

The Fallacy Of Redistribution

n theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler's Holocaust in the 1940s.How can that be?

It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth -- and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

People in industry are not inert objects either. Moreover, unlike farmers, industrialists are not tied to the land in a particular country.

Russian aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky could take his expertise to America and produce his planes and helicopters thousands of miles away from his native land. Financiers are even less tied down, especially today, when vast sums of money can be dispatched electronically to any part of the world.

If confiscatory policies can produce counterproductive repercussions in a dictatorship, they are even harder to carry out in a democracy. A dictatorship can suddenly swoop down and grab whatever it wants. But a democracy must first have public discussions and debates. Those who are targeted for confiscation can see the handwriting on the wall, and act accordingly.

[angelatc]

http://www.american.com/archive/2007...ome-inequality

Making Sense Of Income Inequality (and why it doesn't matter)

[CUnknown]

Why is america's wealthy owning most of the wealth? Moreover, why are people so pissed off?

How do i counter the argument that the rich should pay m ore taxes because the top 10 percent own 80 percent of the wealth. This distribution argument is killing me.

The wealthy own most of the wealth because with money you get power and influence and ownership over the means of production. Once you have those things, you get more money. It has a snowball effect. There is no theoretical limit to the snowball, so it's possible that 1% or less could own just about 100% of the wealth and the rest could live as slaves.

Why are people pissed off? It's pretty obvious, isn't it??

So why not have government redistribute wealth from those who have more than their fair share to those who have little? Seems to make sense.

The major problem with that idea to me is that I have to ask, are we talking about the real world here or some imaginary place? In the real world, the government is redistributing wealth alright -- to the wealthy! It's not getting back to the average person, it's going to the Haliburtons, Goldman Sacs, and Monsantos of the world. You don't want the government redistributing wealth in this way. In fact it's gotten so bad that we might be better off if the government just stopped. Stopped doing anything. Just stop.

In an ideal world, sure, it's not such a bad idea if the government used it's influence to give us healthcare that the rich pay for, for example. However, we need to be careful, because this does amount to stealing, and even if it's for a good cause stealing seems wrong. Maybe there's some truth to the idea that the market will correct imbalances and people will get their fair shares again. I'm not sure. But either way this is ideal world imaginary talking.

In the real world, we've got to call the government out on their making the rich richer and have them stop that crap. We should either support the social safety net, or go after it last if you're really in a cutting mood. Don't go after it first. We need to get out in the street and smash the corporate globalist oligarchy that is destroying our country and world.

Once we've done these things, we can have the imaginary world bullcrap conversation / argument.

[oyarde]

The wealthy own most of the wealth because with money you get power and influence and ownership over the means of production. Once you have those things, you get more money. It has a snowball effect. There is no theoretical limit to the snowball, so it's possible that 1% or less could own just about 100% of the wealth and the rest could live as slaves.

Why are people pissed off? It's pretty obvious, isn't it??

So why not have government redistribute wealth from those who have more than their fair share to those who have little? Seems to make sense.

The major problem with that idea to me is that I have to ask, are we talking about the real world here or some imaginary place? In the real world, the government is redistributing wealth alright -- to the wealthy! It's not getting back to the average person, it's going to the Haliburtons, Goldman Sacs, and Monsantos of the world. You don't want the government redistributing wealth in this way. In fact it's gotten so bad that we might be better off if the government just stopped. Stopped doing anything. Just stop.

In an ideal world, sure, it's not such a bad idea if the government used it's influence to give us healthcare that the rich pay for, for example. However, we need to be careful, because this does amount to stealing, and even if it's for a good cause stealing seems wrong. Maybe there's some truth to the idea that the market will correct imbalances and people will get their fair shares again. I'm not sure. But either way this is ideal world imaginary talking.

In the real world, we've got to call the government out on their making the rich richer and have them stop that crap. We should either support the social safety net, or go after it last if you're really in a cutting mood. Don't go after it first. We need to get out in the street and smash the corporate globalist oligarchy that is destroying our country and world.

Once we've done these things, we can have the imaginary world bullcrap conversation / argument.

Oh yes , I want them to stop.