Wealth Redistribution

[ThePainefulTruth]

Socialists use compassion (a religious concept) as the reason to forcibly redistribute wealth. But I think that's more politics than compassion. If we're going to be uniform in our compassion, that redistribution would have to take place world wide. Is there anyone in the US, other than the voluntarily poor (drop outs) who wouldn't be giving up a major portion of their incomes to others outside the US.

The average income in the US is $27K*, which does not include government aid in the form of: housing, furniture, appliances, utilities, transportation, healthcare and food stamps, which could easily bump that up to $30K.

The average global income, $3K, does NOT usually include any of the above US benefits. So the average American would be redistributing in cash and benefits $27K, raising the global average to what, guessing $3.5K...OK $4K.

So now what, put it to a vote? Keep in mind that the vote must necessarily be worldwide. Democracy would truly be compassionate then, don't you think?

Wouldn't it be better to promote economic freedom (capitalism with legal oversight) around the world, which rising tide would raise all boats.

* Av. income for US by race:
Whites $31K
Asians $30K
Blacks $18K
Hispanics $15K[/code]

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 59 by bluethread]

bluethread: "Equality of opportunity is that the subsistence farmer in sub-Saharan Africa has freedom of movement and equal access to the markets."

So, this farmer can go to the market, he just can't afford to buy anything, whether it be healthcare or education for his children. But he has equal access?

Yes, he has access to as much healthcare and education as he is willing to obtain in exchange for his resources.

bluethread: "Not that he has the right to demand that someone else take him to a particular market, but that no one refuses him access when he enters the market."

Unless, of course, there is an entry fee at the market gate. If you can't offer the bri... er... campaign contribution, you aren't going to get a foot in the door at the market where your local politician sells favors. It's the the farmer's own fault he isn't a house servant and not a field hand. And the house servant will look down his nose and strut proudly. (You wouldn't do that, of course.)

Yes, that is how governments interefers with the market. I am apposed to that.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 61 by bluethread]

bluethread" "Yes, he has access to as much healthcare and education as he is willing to obtain in exchange for his resources."

And when he has exhausted all his resources, he and his family should just die somewhere out of sight, so other folks can have two BMW's and four 60" TV's and not be bothered.

bluethread" "Yes, that is how governments interefers with the market. I am apposed to that."

All markets are regulated whether it be by government or by cartels. The FDA, for instance, helps regulate what can be sold. Once a concoction called Save the Baby used to be sold to quiet colicky babies. It was a tincture of opium in alcohol. How dare the government interfere with the free market? Once there were laws against monopolies and cartels, but now all the corporations own each other and pretty much everything, and because no one is responsible the artificial persons are running our lives and our government unhindered.
Well, as long as we are allowed to pick the undigested seeds out of the horse manure, i'm guessing we won't be at all in favor of redistributing the grain.

[2ndRateMind]

That first, is indeed the way statisticians calculate productivity. However, the is not what I asked. I asked, 'How does it make society better?" To follow the definition you presented. What good are happy healthy workers, if there is no work being done? That might be enjoyable in the short run, but someone is going to have to invest resources, or we all starve. Those who do invest get a return and become wealthy and those who do not invest become poor, and shortly we are back to square one.

How does it make society better? Surely it is better to have a society composed of happy, healthy individuals, than maladjusted, malignly orientated discontents? But I do not disagree that individuals should work for their pay. Firstly, they should work to fulfill their biological needs, and secondly they should work to satisfy their reasonable desires. The problem arises when there is no work, or the work available does not pay enough to fulfill those biological needs.

As for investing, then yes, sensible people will invest. And foolish people will not. But the state of the world as of now is not that the poor are poor through their own fault, because they have not invested, simply that they have been, and continue to be, exploited for their cheap labour by the rich. And, I have yet to have it answered on this forum, though I have previously asked, why it is better that one individual should own $1,000,000 in shares in an enterprise, than 1,000 people should own $1,000 each in such shares.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 61 by bluethread]

bluethread" "Yes, he has access to as much healthcare and education as he is willing to obtain in exchange for his resources."

And when he has exhausted all his resources, he and his family should just die somewhere out of sight, so other folks can have two BMW's and four 60" TV's and not be bothered.

Who said he should die? He should do what he can for himself and his family, and that includes seeking assistance from others. Are you saying that we should outlaw BMWs and 60" TVs, because some people do not have what you would consider adequate healthcare and education?

bluethread" "Yes, that is how governments interefer with the market. I am opposed to that."

All markets are regulated whether it be by government or by cartels. The FDA, for instance, helps regulate what can be sold. Once a concoction called Save the Baby used to be sold to quiet colicky babies. It was a tincture of opium in alcohol. How dare the government interfere with the free market? Once there were laws against monopolies and cartels, but now all the corporations own each other and pretty much everything, and because no one is responsible the artificial persons are running our lives and our government unhindered.
Well, as long as we are allowed to pick the undigested seeds out of the horse manure, i'm guessing we won't be at all in favor of redistributing the grain.

Hold it. First, you say criticize politicians for interfering with market access. Then you jump all over me when I agree with you that governments often do just that. Remember, I did not say that there should be no government. How is it that you thing the economy should work?

[bluethread]

How does it make society better? Surely it is better to have a society composed of happy, healthy individuals, than maladjusted, malignly orientated discontents. But I do not disagree that individuals should work for their pay. Firstly, they should work to fulfill their biological needs, secondly they should work to satisfy their reasonable desires. The problem arises when there is no work, or the work available does not pay enough to fulfill those biological needs.

Good, yes, a society of happy, healthy individuals is better. The question is how do we get there. You agree that peole should work to fulfill their biological needs and then their reasonable desires. It has been said that needs are just wants (or desires) with varying degrees of urgency. So, for the sake of brevity, can we set "reasonable desires" to one side for the moment, and establish a list of what one would consider "biological needs"? We can then look at what constitutes work and what makes it available.

As for investing, then yes, sensible people will invest. And foolish people will not. But the state of the world as of now is not that the poor are poor through their own fault, because they have not invested, simply that they have been, and continue to be, exploited for their cheap labour by the rich. And, I have yet to have it answered on this forum, though I have previously asked, why it is better that one individual should own $1,000,000 in shares in an enterprise, than 1,000 people should own $1,000 each in such shares.

I am not speaking to fault. I am simply trying to clarify how economies work and the effects on those economies, if a given policy is implimented. Ownership concentration is an interesting topic. However, it is not quite as simple as you are making it out to be. There are advantages and disadvantages to both consolidated and diversified ownership. Quite frankly, consolidated ownership is most common in small business, while large businesses are more widely diversified, due to the innovation of incorporation. Most large corporations are owned by a large number of small investors. If one were to take all of those shares and redistribute them equally, many people of modest means, who do invest, would be greatly harmed, by the disruption of the markets, if nothing else. Also, if everyone knew that their shares could be seized and redistributed, no one would invest. Then, as I pointed out, if no on invests, we all starve.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 64 by bluethread]


bluethread: "Who said he should die?"

That seems to be your position. He is dying. His children are dying.

bluethread: "He should do what he can for himself and his family, and that includes seeking assistance from others."

That is the system in place now. People starve and die from preventable diseases.

bluethread: "Are you saying that we should outlaw BMWs and 60" TVs, because some people do not have what you would consider adequate healthcare and education?"

No one needs a BMW, which wastes valuable resource to feed vanity.

bluethread: "Hold it. First, you say criticize politicians for interfering with market access. Then you jump all over me when I agree with you that governments often do just that."

We shouldn't be thinking of "markets". We should be thinking of distributing the fruits of production. Markets are a symptom of scarcity. We have enough. the scarcities are artificial means of gathering more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands. With automation and AI we could feed everyone and meet all their need even if most people just sat watched fusball, soap operas, cop shows and porn.

Governments must work to stabilize. That is necessary. But when government is used to de-stabilize by concentrating wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands, the governed society will collapse into anarchy, disorder and revolution.

bluethread: "Remember, I did not say that there should be no government. How is it that you thing the economy should work?"

I think everyone should eat before anyone gets seconds. I think everyone should have decent housing, medical care and as much publicly funded education as they want as long as they live. Everyone who wants extra, every one who wants a job should be supplied with one. Whatever the form of government that is the objective to which it must set as a goal. We have all the means necessary to provide these things except human decency.

We have world wide problems, climate, resources, and pollution... We can't deal with these if we continue the present "capitalist" system with its built in instabilities that inevitably lead to war, famine and plague, and the extinction of the human species.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 64 by bluethread]


bluethread: "Who said he should die?"

That seems to be your position. He is dying. His children are dying.

We are all dying. It is just a matter of how many resources we are willing to expend to keep ourselves alive for how long.

bluethread: "He should do what he can for himself and his family, and that includes seeking assistance from others."

That is the system in place now. People starve and die from preventable diseases.

How does the centralized redistribution of resources change that. The only thing it does is permit a small group of people to decide who will starve and suffer. The reason many diseases are preventable is because individuals have had the freedom to employ their resources in those areas.

bluethread: "Are you saying that we should outlaw BMWs and 60" TVs, because some people do not have what you would consider adequate healthcare and education?"

No one needs a BMW, which wastes valuable resource to feed vanity.

OK, so what automobiles should be legal? What about the Mercedes Sprinter van?

bluethread: "Hold it. First, you say criticize politicians for interfering with market access. Then you jump all over me when I agree with you that governments often do just that."

We shouldn't be thinking of "markets". We should be thinking of distributing the fruits of production. Markets are a symptom of scarcity. We have enough. the scarcities are artificial means of gathering more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands. With automation and AI we could feed everyone and meet all their need even if most people just sat watched fusball, soap operas, cop shows and porn.

Governments must work to stabilize. That is necessary. But when government is used to de-stabilize by concentrating wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands, the governed society will collapse into anarchy, disorder and revolution.

However, that is what governments do. They set up bureaucracies and laws that consolidate resources, production and distribution. Markets permit the free flow of resources, production and distribution. Each person is free to use resources in production or distribute them as he sees fit.

bluethread: "Remember, I did not say that there should be no government. How is it that you thing the economy should work?"

I think everyone should eat before anyone gets seconds. I think everyone should have decent housing, medical care and as much publicly funded education as they want as long as they live. Everyone who wants extra, every one who wants a job should be supplied with one. Whatever the form of government that is the objective to which it must set as a goal. We have all the means necessary to provide these things except human decency.

We have world wide problems, climate, resources, and pollution... We can't deal with these if we continue the present "capitalist" system with its built in instabilities that inevitably lead to war, famine and plague, and the extinction of the human species.

Hold it. If everyone gets feed before anyone gets seconds, why do people get as much publically funded education as they want. Why aren't we making sure that everyone is taught arithmatic before anyone learns mathematics? Why aren't we making sure that everyone is taught a trade, before anyone is taught about Marxism?

You are aware that war, famine and plague existed before capitalism. In fact, this is the most peaceful, well feed, plague free generation in history. This is primarily due to innovations and competition in free markets, and as those concepts spread into the third world, they are beginning to prosper.

[2ndRateMind]

On climate change: I am content to go with the scientific consensus; that the Earth is warming, and warming due to human activity. Here's a link.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 67 by bluethread]

bluethread: "We are all dying. It is just a matter of how many resources we are willing to expend to keep ourselves alive for how long."

OK. Tell us how much are you willing to expend. Keep it simple. State it in dollars. How much are you willing to spend to keep yourself alive, how much to keep your children and grandchildren alive, how much are you willing to spend to keep alive a starving child in sub-Saharan Africa? Show us where you stand. Should we depend on private good will, as we do now, and which just can't seem to feed everyone, or should we as a society intervene in the cycle of destructive, miserly greed, and make sure it does not continue?

bluethread: "How does the centralized redistribution of resources change that. The only thing it does is permit a small group of people to decide who will starve and suffer. "

The point is that nobody has to starve. And if those who are in charge of distribution aren't trying to maximize their own ability to hoard and waste there is enough to go around.

bluethread: "The reason many diseases are preventable is because individuals have had the freedom to employ their resources in those areas."

Yes, indeed, Robert Koch isolated the causes of tuberculosis, cholera and anthrax on his kitchen table. Salk, however, required some government funding to develop his vaccine.

bluethread: "OK, so what automobiles should be legal? What about the Mercedes Sprinter van?"

How about if only emergency and logistical vehicles were permitted? Personal needs and wants would be met by non-polluting and universally available public transportation.

bluethread: "However, that is what governments do. They set up bureaucracies and laws that consolidate resources, production and distribution."

Regulation of commerce is part of what governments do.

bluethread: "Markets permit the free flow of resources, production and distribution."

No, markets restrict the free flow of resources, production and distribution in order to maximize profits for individuals, rather than the economic health of the whole society.

bluethread: " Each person is free to use resources in production or distribute them as he sees fit."

And this system produces starvation, plague, ignorance and war. You're arguing for the status quo, and all we have to do is look around to see how that works.

bluethread: "Hold it. If everyone gets feed before anyone gets seconds, why do people get as much publically funded education as they want. Why aren't we making sure that everyone is taught arithmatic before anyone learns mathematics?"

Because it is wise to educate those who can benefit most from education to the extent that they can benefit. This means that society as a whole benefits. A potential Einstein or Dirac doesn't languish because there is no free education. By the way, arithmetic is actually part of mathematics. Some can grasp not even that much. And some could benefit by more attention to spelling instruction, or at least, instruction into how to use a spelling checker.

bluethread: "Why aren't we making sure that everyone is taught a trade, before anyone is taught about Marxism?"

Trades are ephemeral. Wheelwrights and steel puddlers are no longer much in demand. Certainly modern education should include life-long retraining as necessary. Automation and AI, however, may render most existing trades useless. Economics, which includes Marxist economic theory, should be taught starting in kindergarten or even pre-school.

bluethread: "You are aware that war, famine and plague existed before capitalism. In fact, this is the most peaceful, well feed, plague free generation in history."

So, we should just ignore the fact that there is still progress to be made? There is no magic wand. We can't make a perfect society, but we can make a better society, a society that can sustain itself.

bluethread: "This is primarily due to innovations and competition in free markets, and as those concepts spread into the third world, they are beginning to prosper."

The "American way of life" could not be maintained by the world even if it were restricted only to Americans. China's air is becoming unbreathable, as is the air here in California, and the rest of the world. The "Great Pacific Trash Vortex" is growing at an exponential rate, and it is almost impossible to find any specimen of the the vanishing fish population that doesn't contain carcinogenic particles of plastic. The forests that aren't being clear-cut for lumber and pulp are burning at ever increasing rates because of climate change.

Look around. It's happening now. The present system is killing us all. And it is just so that more and more unrenewable resources can be wasted in the quest for private profits. Capitalism is killing us, and it will be a miserable way to die.

[2ndRateMind]

...The "American way of life" could not be maintained by the world...

Indeed. According to google, if everyone lived the way Americans do, we would need 5 planet earths to provide the resources and dissipate the wastes. Clearly we do not have 5 planet earths, only one, and it makes sense (to me, anyway) to distribute the carrying capacity of the one Earth we do have along egalitarian lines. This might require some restraint among Americans, which is why I think they are not too keen on the idea of a 'fair' distribution of the world's wealth, aka God's providence.

Best wishes, 2RM.