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]

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 49 by TSGracchus]

The Constitution doesn't provide freedoms. It is just words on paper. It wasn't the first piece of paper to "guarantee" rights and not the first or last to be ignored.

Yes, the Constitution is a piece of paper that establishes a rule of law. But the ultimate guarantor of that framework is the electorate, who can either hold the elected officials feet to the fire, or trade their freedom for some temporary security, which will be very temporary. As Franklin said after the Constitution was agreed upon, "You have a republic, madam, if you can keep it."

In 2016, the people decided to bring it back from the brink and keep it. I now believe that the corrupt establishment has been more damaged than is readily apparent, and that the republic will at least continue to recover beyond my lifetime. Only the most calloused liberal can ignore the completely damaging Strozk-Page texts, which say that there's nothing there, which indicates total corruption at the top in their effort to get rid of Trump.

[2ndRateMind]

That is all well and good, but we are talking about forced redistribution by the government.

You may be. I consider any redistribution I can get as a result, though I would much prefer it voluntary. However, when 1% of the world's population owns as much as the remaining 99% put together (Oxfam), resulting in widespread hunger, something has gone seriously awry.

Well, I do not think simply having a lot of resources is a good thing. It is having those resources invested in productive activity that is honorable. Hording resources can be immoral. However, simply taking resources from all who have such resources, removes productive assets from the economy and creates a greater number of poorer people. Most of what Yeshua speaks to is hording, not productive investment.

I do not notice, in the Gospels, where Jesus ever made this distinction. Perhaps you will oblige by providing book, chapter and verse where He does. In my opinion, feeding a malnourished child, or several, or many, malnourished children, will always be morally preferable to 'productive investment' if that is understood simply to mean profit returning activity. Indeed, all things considered and taking a global perspective, I cannot imagine any more productive investment than happy, healthy children.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[bluethread]

That is all well and good, but we are talking about forced redistribution by the government.

You may be. I consider any redistribution I can get as a result, though I would much prefer it voluntary. However, when 1% of the world's population owns as much as the remaining 99% put together (Oxfam), resulting in widespread hunger, something has gone seriously awry.

Your statement implies that this concentrated control of resources is the sole cause of hunger around the world. I suggest that the world is more complicated than that. The problem of political control and the lack of innovation are much greater factors. There is great growth in the third world, yet, the ratio you point to has not significantly changed. This is primarily due to the proliferation of innovation from the first world to the third world. Had the first world merely periodically equalized resources, this innovation would never have occurred. It is precisely the free flow of assets in open markets that created industrial and information revolutions, not the equal distribution of resources.

I do not notice, in the Gospels, where Jesus ever made this distinction. Perhaps you will oblige by providing book, chapter and verse where He does. In my opinion, feeding a malnourished child, or several, or many, malnourished children, will always be morally preferable to 'productive investment' if that is understood simply to mean profit returning activity. Indeed, all things considered and taking a global perspective, I cannot imagine any more productive investment than happy, healthy children.

Well, Yeshua does not speak to global economics at all. He speaks to personal micro economics. In that, it is the parable of the talents that sticks out. Those who invested were rewarded and the one who horded was penalized. Regarding the investment in happy, healthy children, let me ask you, how you see that as productive. How does it make society better? I'm not saying it doesn't. I just want to see how you view productivity.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 53 by bluethread]

Replying to 2RateMind, bluethread wrote: "Your statement implies that this concentrated control of resources is the sole cause of hunger around the world."

It implied nothing of the kind. It seems that bluethread merely inferred it. What 2ndRateMind pointed out was the huge inequality between the tiny minority of the very wealthy and the great majority of the not so wealthy. It has been the fact, for almost a century, if not more, that the resources are sufficient to provide food, clothing, shelter, education and healthcare for everyone, but the resources are diverted into armaments, borders, bribes, walls and minefields, dedicated to the protection of the horded wealth of the very richest folks.

bluethread: "I suggest that the world is more complicated than that. The problem of political control and the lack of innovation are much greater factors."

Indeed, it is the lack of negative feedbacks in government that allow the wealthy to gather more and more wealth and political power into fewer and fewer hands.

bluethread: "There is great growth in the third world, yet, the ratio you point to has not significantly changed. This is primarily due to the proliferation of innovation from the first world to the third world."

I'm guessing that when bluethread writes "innovation" it refers only to technological innovation. Changing conditions also require political and economic innovation.

bluethread: " Had the first world merely periodically equalized resources, this innovation would never have occurred."

That is an unsupported assertion, but a venerable one, since it was also advanced for the justification of chattel slavery.

bluethread: "It is precisely the free flow of assets in open markets that created industrial and information revolutions, not the equal distribution of resources.'

How is the concentration of wealth the "free flow of assets"? How is the formation of cartels, and multinational monopolies "open markets"? Perhaps it is Newspeak where "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

bluethread: "Well, Yeshua does not speak to global economics at all. He speaks to personal micro economics."

Indeed: "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, 'Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.--- Matthew 19:21-23 King James Version (KJV)

That is certainly a statement of personal micro-economic advice.

But most folks don't want to hear that, they turn and walk away; and it seems bluethread hasn't heard it or just didn't let it sink in, or maybe he just turned and walked. Well, he is in that respect, just like most Christians, who know that it is better to do what they want and depend on forgiveness. Of course, maybe Jesus was wrong and Ayn Rand was right.

bluethread: "In that, the is the parable of the talents that sticks out. Those who invested were rewarded and the one who horded was penalized."

You know, I never really considered that parable to be economic advice. I always thought it was about trying to leave the world better than you found it, because the man also was reported to have said: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." -- Matthew 6:19-21 King James Version (KJV)

For most "Christians" their hearts seem to be in their wallets, or for the very rich, in their portfolios. One must be practical. Don't give your heart away, it has "IN GOD WE TRUST" printed on it.

bluethread: "Regarding the investment in happy, healthy children, let me ask you, how you see that as productive. How doe it make society better? I'm not saying it doesn't. I just want to see how you view productivity."

And finally, a red herring dragged across the trail, to derail the discussion and shift from the subject and the disagreements into sophist woo.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 53 by bluethread]

Your statement implies that this concentrated control of resources is the sole cause of hunger around the world. I suggest that the world is more complicated than that.

I'm not saying the concentration of more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands is the cause of widespread hunger, just that there is a significant correlation. If all the world's wealth were equally distributed, there would be no hunger, because everyone would be able to support themselves and their families. But, of course the world is more complicated than that. Some of these complications are best addressed by the activities of well-motivated individuals, some by the subtle and not-so-subtle machinations of governments.

Had the first world merely periodically equalized resources, this innovation would never have occurred.

As for innovation; whether we have (for example) a fifth generation of mobile technology, and hunger, or a fourth generation, and no hunger, should be a reasonably easy moral calculus to compute.

In that, it is the parable of the talents that sticks out. Those who invested were rewarded and the one who horded was penalized.

Yes, I thought that parable might be your counter-contention. But, Jesus' parables are invariably multi-faceted and multi-layered. 'tis my belief that Jesus here was not talking about money at all, but our skills and aptitudes, abilities, and, yes, talents. Those who develop these capacities truly are rewarded, those who don't, who bury them, are wasting their God-given character and failing Him in His purpose for their lives.

Regarding the investment in happy, healthy children, let me ask you, how you see that as productive. How does it make society better? I'm not saying it doesn't. I just want to see how you view productivity.

So, in economic terms, productivity is $output per worker per day. This is a crass way to measure the worth of any man or woman. Nevertheless, I would tend to conjecture that happy, healthy children grow up to be happy, healthy workers, and that they are considerably more productive than unhappy, unhealthy workers.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[bluethread]

No, I am including political and economic innovation. The introduction of first world policies supporting secure free markets is being applied to great effect.

bluethread: " Had the first world merely periodically equalized resources, this innovation would never have occurred."

That is an unsupported assertion, but a venerable one, since it was also advanced for the justification of chattel slavery.

People can use principles in support of all kinds of things. However, that does not make the basic principle wrong. Nuclear science brought us the bomb, but it also brought us nuclear power and life saving medical procedures.

bluethread: "It is precisely the free flow of assets in open markets that created industrial and information revolutions, not the equal distribution of resources.'

How is the concentration of wealth the "free flow of assets"? How is the formation of cartels, and multinational monopolies "open markets"? Perhaps it is Newspeak where "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

I did not say that the concentration of wealth is the "free flow of assets". They are different concepts. The assertion of the OP is that wealth redistribution is the solution. This hinders the free flow of assets and therefore hinders economic growth. Cartels and monopolies are the result of command and control economies and are indeed antithetical to open markets.

bluethread: "Well, Yeshua does not speak to global economics at all. He speaks to personal micro economics."

Indeed: "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, 'Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.--- Matthew 19:21-23 King James Version (KJV)

That is certainly a statement of personal micro-economic advice.

But most folks don't want to hear that, they turn and walk away; and it seems bluethread hasn't heard it or just didn't let it sink in, or maybe he just turned and walked. Well, he is in that respect, just like most Christians, who know that it is better to do what they want and depend on forgiveness. Of course, maybe Jesus was wrong and Ayn Rand was right.

I have definitely heard of that passage. However, I was not asked about micro economics, but principles regarding the economic use of assets in "a global perspective". That said, that passage is not a response to an economic question, but to the question, "what lack I yet"( to have eternal life). He was being invited to join Yeshua's shul, and he declined the offer. Yeshua was criticizing wealth, but speaking of letting riches get in the way of one's righteous desires.

bluethread: "In that, the is the parable of the talents that sticks out. Those who invested were rewarded and the one who horded was penalized."

You know, I never really considered that parable to be economic advice. I always thought it was about trying to leave the world better than you found it, because the man also was reported to have said: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." -- Matthew 6:19-21 King James Version (KJV)

For most "Christians" their hearts seem to be in their wallets, or for the very rich, in their portfolios. One must be practical. Don't give your heart away, it has "IN GOD WE TRUST" printed on it.

Of course it is economic advise. It is about using ones resources to greatest effect. That is economics. Now the passage you pivoted to, again speaks of hording. We are not to lay up riches here on earth, but invest our resources in productive activities that help others, thus providing riches of another kind. Yes, the very rich do focus on their portfolios. However, the wealthy focus on providing more and better goods and services to the public.

bluethread: "Regarding the investment in happy, healthy children, let me ask you, how you see that as productive. How does it make society better? I'm not saying it doesn't. I just want to see how you view productivity."

And finally, a red herring dragged across the trail, to derail the discussion and shift from the subject and the disagreements into sophist woo.

He is the one who stated that "I cannot imagine any more productive investment than happy, healthy children." I just want to know what he means by that.

Since we are now playing tag team. I'll let you tag out, while I addres the post from the one to whom I was originally responding.

[bluethread]

I'm not saying the concentration of more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands is the cause of widespread hunger, just that there is a significant correlation. If all the world's wealth were equally distributed, there would be no hunger, because everyone would be able to support themselves and their families. But, of course the world is more complicated than that. Some of these complications are best addressed by the activities of well-motivated individuals, some by the subtle and not-so-subtle machinations of governments.

I also, believe there is a role for government. However, I believe that role is to assure equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. To be clear, I also do not mean equality of resources, but a free and open market, when I say equality of opportunity.

Had the first world merely periodically equalized resources, this innovation would never have occurred.

As for innovation; whether we have (for example) a fifth generation of mobile technology, and hunger, or a fourth generation, and no hunger, should be a reasonably easy moral calculus to compute.

Again, you are stating economics as a moral imperative. The Ludites advanced the same argument during the industrial revolution. It may be easy moralizing, but the calculus is not so easy. Though an economist on this site might say that the calculus does not favor you position, I personally do not put such faith in statistical analysis. I prefer to argue that economics is a social science and, therefore, an art, requiring an understanding of group psychology. Either way, one can not simply apply the breaks and expect the economy to slow down so that the poor can catch up.

In that, it is the parable of the talents that sticks out. Those who invested were rewarded and the one who horded was penalized.

Yes, I thought that parable might be your counter-contention. But, Jesus' parables are invariably multi-faceted and multi-layered. 'tis my belief that Jesus here was not talking about money at all, but our skills and aptitudes, abilities, and, yes, talents. Those who develop these capacities truly are rewarded, those who don't, who bury them, are wasting their God-given character and failing Him in His purpose for their lives.

Nor, was I talking about money, i.e. a means of exchange. I was talking about resources and ones abilities are prime resources. Economics is not about the movements of small green pieces of paper, but the ways in which people exchange goods and services.

So, in economic terms, productivity is $output per worker per day. This is a crass way to measure the worth of any man or woman. Nevertheless, I would tend to conjecture that happy, healthy children grow up to be happy, healthy workers, and that they are considerably more productive than unhappy, unhealthy workers.

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.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 57 by bluethread]

Hmmm. I am not sure you can have equality of opportunity without a certain degree of equality of outcome. Unless you think the free market bestows on the son of a subsistence farmer in sub-saharan Africa the same opportunities as it does the son of a North American billionaire. Reality is, if you have money, the free market will work very well for you. If you don't, it won't work at all.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 57 by bluethread]

Hmmm. I am not sure you can have equality of opportunity without a certain degree of equality of outcome. Unless you think the free market bestows on the son of a subsistence farmer in sub-saharan Africa the same opportunities as it does the son of a North American billionaire. Reality is, if you have money, the free market will work very well for you. If you don't, it won't work at all.

Best wishes, 2RM.

No, that is equality of resources. I do not believe in that. Equality of opportunity is that the subsistence farmer in sub-Saharan Africa has freedom of movement and equal access to the markets. 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.

[TSGracchus]

[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?

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.)