Is the economic Pie FIXED in size..Democrats believe so...

[ilia25]

If I bake a pie, the pie is mine, and the pie is a product of my creation. I didn't plant the wheat, or the fruit trees, but I paid those who did. I didn't mill the wheat, milk the cow, or raise the chickens that laid the eggs, but I paid those that did. I didn't build the oven, or the pie tin, but I paid those that did. I didn't create the electricity I used, but I paid for it.

And why do you think that what you have paid is a fair compensation to the society, which makes your labor so productive and allows you to enjoy the fruits of it?



LOL, tell it to IRS

We all pay for roads, bridges, schools, police and fire protection, etc., and we all have a right to use that infrastructure. And since we all have access to the same public background, we all start out equal, and we progress at our own pace.

Infrastructure and public services is only a small part of what society gives to you. The biggest benefit is that you get to realize your potential, that is to be productive and creative and benefit form it.

If you were living alone in the wilderness, you'd be poor as a church mouse, and you'd be glad to die young. See the things in perspective now?

I will take your last statement first. Wealth is relative, and that means that a society of one is neither rich, nor poor. since there would be no one else to compare against. Consequently, your perspective is nonsense.

I though it was obvious that I was comparing the society of yourself in the woods with the society we are currently living in.

Was that so hard to get, or, forgive me my asking, you are just playing dumb, like your other rightwing friends?

Society is a non entity that is simply a collective term for individuals living together in harmony. Society gives me nothing but companionship.

Bullshit -- if you were living alone you would be poor and begging to end your miserable life no matter how hardworking, resourceful and creative you are.

Please, stop disputing the obvious.

I, like most Americans, pay taxes to support public schools to educate our children. All of the people involved in that endeavor are well paid to carry out their responsibilities, and consequently, I owe them nothing for doing the job they are paid to do. The same applies to the people who fix the roads and bridges, provide police and fire protection, etc. They are all paid by us to provide those services. I owe them nothing.

If you accept that paying taxes is fair, you must accept that there is some optimal level of taxation.

There must be some criteria that would let you claim that the present level of taxation is optimal, or not. I have explained my stance -- the taxes should create just enough inequality to motivate hard work and creativity.

I am not sure what level you think is optimal because the way you argue your point, that level is zero. Otherwise you cannot argue that whatever taxes you happen to pay is enough simply because you have paid them.

BTW, the IRS is only interested in my pie if I sell it.

Sure, that works fine.

 

[ilia25]

Adding value to any product increases wealth, and all who share in that endeavor share in that wealth. No one else is entitled to any portion of it.

Debatable. Your very ability to create wealth for yourself efficiently is only possible because you are a part of our society. You wouldn't be able to do that if you were living alone, or if you were living in some other form of social structure.

So it is only fair if you share your success with other members.

So if I fail at a business and lose my investment...should I send you the bill for "your" part of that loss?

Read up, I already answered that question.

I've started a few businesses and the people that were there early mornings and late evenings working WITH me are the only people who deserved to share in the success of the business we built.

And I already explained why you are wrong on that.

 

[Oldstyle]

Debatable. Your very ability to create wealth for yourself efficiently is only possible because you are a part of our society. You wouldn't be able to do that if you were living alone, or if you were living in some other form of social structure.

So it is only fair if you share your success with other members.

So if I fail at a business and lose my investment...should I send you the bill for "your" part of that loss?

Read up, I already answered that question.

I've started a few businesses and the people that were there early mornings and late evenings working WITH me are the only people who deserved to share in the success of the business we built.

And I already explained why you are wrong on that.

And I've responded why I think you are wrong thinking that people DO deserve part of someone else's hard work when they themselves haven't done anything to earn it. You obviously never read Animal Farm in school...

 

[ilia25]

And I've responded why I think you are wrong thinking that people DO deserve part of someone else's hard work when they themselves haven't done anything to earn it.

Did you? I somehow missed that -- care to repeat WHY you think I am wrong?

 

[Oldstyle]

Did you? I somehow missed that -- care to repeat WHY you think I am wrong?

Why I think you're wrong that individuals owe everything they create to "society"? Well, let's start by using your wilderness analogy...

One of the endearing things about Americans IS our long history of going out into the wilderness and creating something out of nothing. We have always valued individualism in this country because individualism is what built this country. We didn't wait for a transcontinental railroad to be built with tax dollars before we settled vast tracts of land, the mountain men pushed west on foot...settlers followed in covered wagons...then private industry built railroads to carry even more. It wasn't done with government money...it wasn't done by "society"...it was done by individuals striving to better their lot in life.

What you advocate is an emasculated America...one that can't survive without government handouts...one that doesn't get off the couch and make discoveries but instead waits for something to be handed to them for free.

The reason I ask if you read Animal Farm is the lesson behind the book. There will always be those who work to make things better and there will always be those who sit on their asses and live off those who DO work. You are naive enough to think that you can take from those who do work and give to those who don't...and still have people get up in the cold, dark of early morning and trudge off to work long hours trying to succeed with their own business. Experience tells you that "society" breaks down when too many people are given things and too few people work to produce things. A tipping point is always reached and when it does, society tears itself apart. You want an example? Watch what is happening in Greece now.

 

[ilia25]

You are naive enough to think that you can take from those who do work and give to those who don't...and still have people get up in the cold, dark of early morning and trudge off to work long hours trying to succeed with their own business.

So you are not aware of the fact, that in every single developed country they take from those who do work and give to those who don't -- and yet they still have people get up in the cold, dark of early morning... I hope you get the point, don't you?

You obviously have a very distorted view of the real world (and Greece in particular). And the model you are advocating is directly contradicting what happens in reality.

Wealth redistribution can be beneficial and you must be completely out of touch to argue otherwise.

What you can argue, is that we have too much of redistribution, or too little. But I never hear that from right-wingers. Instead, they attack the very idea -- and that is completely crazy.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

"It's this belief that the economy is some fixed pie," said Ryan.
"That there's only so much money in America, it's fixed and that the job of the government is to redistribute the slices of the pie.
That's not true.

The job of government is to set the conditions for economic growth so we can grow the pie and everybody can get a bigger slice of the American pie."

Paul Ryan resurrects Obama¿s greatest hits (the Republican version) - Los Angeles Times


But is that TRUE? Let's look at the history of the USA and the gross domestic product. GDP as just ONE illustration of the "FIXED PIE FALLACY".
First the source of these FACTS.. Measuring Worth - Measures of worth, inflation rates, saving calculator, relative value, worth of a dollar, worth of a pound, purchasing power, gold prices, GDP, history of wages, average wage

Consider what the gross domestic product for this illustration the "PIE" of the USA was in 1790 $187 million.
The GDP (or PIE) in 2011 $15.94 TRILLION.

The PIE grew over 221 years by $15.093 TRILLION - an increase of 80,715% over 221 years!


So the next point of comparison is what does this relate to per person/ (capita)?

In 1790 there were 3.929 million people. The GDP per person was $1,024 (in 2005 dollars - inflation)

In 2011 there were 312.041 million people. The GDP per person was $42,671 (adjusted for inflation 2005 dollars)

This increase from 1790 to 2011 in per person GDP was over 221 years of 87,473% (adjusted for inflation).

So IF the PIE is FIXED and ONLY the government can re-distribute... HOW do we explain the growth of the PIE???

OK so you anti-growth, anti-capitalists say "YEA but all that is owned by as our current Prez says.."millionaires and billionaires"!!!

How many millionaires in 1790 in the USA? Don't know but in 1892 there were 4,047 Millionaires.
GDP in 1892 was $16.352 billion and per person adjusted for inflation was $5,147.
Again 2011 GDP $15,940 billion and per person $42,671.

Most people who become millionaires have confidence in their own abilities. They do not spend time worrying about whether or not their parents were wealthy. They do not believe that one must be born wealthy. Conversely, people of modest backgrounds who believe that only the wealthy produce millionaires are predetermined to remain non-affluent. Have you always thought that most millionaires are born with silver spoons in their mouths? If so, consider the following facts that our research uncovered about American millionaires:

* Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.

* Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.

* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.

* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.

* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.

* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.

* Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.

America continues to hold great prospects for those who wish to accumulate wealth in one generation. In fact, America has always been a land of opportunity for those who believe in the fluid nature of our nation's social system and economy.

More than one hundred years ago the same was true. In The American Economy, Stanley Lebergott reviews a study conducted in 1892 of the 4,047 American millionaires. He reports that 84 percent "were nouveau riche, having reached the top without the benefit of inherited wealth."
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

In 2010 the U.S. had 3,100,000 millionaires in 2010
In 1892 total millionaires - 4,047
Growth of 3,098,108 millionaires or an increase over the 118 years from 1892 of 648%.

So regardless.. the GDP as a "PIE" doesn't look fixed from the perspective of the individual person.
Granted there are fewer agrarians (farmers- today ) then in 1790 so self sufficiency is not the case.
But when liberals/progressives/anti-capitalists talked about the "FIXED PIE".... there is NOT one at least compared to the GDP!

Dems are wrong, the economic pie is infinite. Last year GDP was infinite. Next it it will be, too. We also have infinite resources. Total supply of oil in ground = infinity. Also infinite labor is available.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It came at expense of my share of GDP, which (presuming my income has not changed) is now half of what is used to be. But that is a simple arithmetic.

I think what you are trying to imply though, is that halving my share of the pie has not made me consume less in absolute terms -- and you are correct, it has not. Hence, as your reasoning goes, it is perfectly OK that my share of the pie was reduced as long as my real consumption has not suffered in the process. Well, I do not agree -- it is NOT OK.

You have not created your 15.6 trillion product in an empty space. You owe a lot to the society, which allowed you to get great upbringing, good education, and which gave you opportunity to innovate and profit from those innovations. So it would be deeply unfair if you pocket all this new wealth, leaving everyone else far behind.

Think of it -- what would this country look like if majority of people had the same living standards as 200 years ago because all new wealth created since then would go to a few creative individuals? Would you want to live in a country like that?

High levels of inequality are bad for everyone. And I do not believe that any creative person would go John Galt on the society because his efforts are rewarded by 20 times the average salary instead of 200 times or 2000 times (unless it is a matter of principle for him, in which case he is a misanthropic loser and we will be better without him anyway).

"You have not created your 15.6 trillion product in an empty space. You owe a lot to the society, which allowed you to get great upbringing, good education, and which gave you opportunity to innovate and profit from those innovations. So it would be deeply unfair if you pocket all this new wealth, leaving everyone else far behind."

This progressive "notion" that profits realized by hard working individuals in the Private Sector rightfully "belongs to society" is fundamentally misguided. If profits belong to society then why isn't society accepting their share of the loss when a small business owner has a bad year?

Why do you think it isn't? When some business has "a bad year" we all pay a price -- in lost income. Think about it -- would not we have much higher living standards if businesses were more efficient, if their owners would not make mistakes, or if they were not suffering from natural disasters, etc?

People already pay for a great upbringing...people pay for education...people pay for infrastructure.

Rich people have not paid enough -- that is the point. Imagine that some people pay a fixed price for a ride, but most get to rent a bike, while some lucky get a transatlantic flight in a business jet. Would that be fair?

Think about it -- would not we have much higher living standards if businesses were more efficient, if their owners would not make mistakes, or if they were not suffering from natural disasters, etc?

Or how we'd have much higher standards of living if government wasn't such a bunch of useless hacks.