The Fallacy of Redistribution

Discussion in 'Economy' started by PoliticalChic, Sep 20, 2012.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,784
    Thanks Received:
    15,651
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,955
    1. "The Fallacy of Redistribution
    Obama is proposing policies that have failed repeatedly around the world.
    Thomas Sowell

    2. The recently discovered tape on which Barack Obama said back in 1998 that he believes in redistribution is not really news. He said the same thing to Joe the Plumber four years ago. ...[think] about what the consequences of redistribution are.

    3. The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The Communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.

    4. In 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.

    5. ...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 have kept tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

    6. 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.

    7. 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....Those who are targeted for confiscation can see the handwriting on the wall, and act accordingly.

    8. Among the most valuable assets in any nation are the knowledge, skills, and productive experience that economists call “human capital.” When successful people with much human capital leave the country, either voluntarily or because of hostile governments or hostile mobs whipped up by demagogues exploiting envy, lasting damage can be done to the economy they leave behind.

    9. If the redistributionists were serious, what they would want to distribute is the ability to fish, or to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one of the few things that can be distributed to people without reducing the amount held by others.

    10. That would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interests of politicians who want to exercise power, and to get the votes of people who are dependent on them....to many people who cannot be bothered to stop and think, redistribution sounds good."
    The Fallacy of Redistribution - Thomas Sowell - National Review Online
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. edthecynic
    Offline

    edthecynic Censored for Cynicism

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    26,598
    Thanks Received:
    3,080
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,699
    Don't you ever get tired of mindlessly parroting other people's lies making a fool of yourself???

    Obama said nothing about redistribution of WEALTH in that 1998 video!!! He's talking about a decentralized infrastructure to facilitate delivery of resources to the producers/innovators and the marketplace.

    OBAMA: “I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot. How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities?”
     
  3. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,683
    You're right Ed he wasn't talking about WEALTH, he was talking about Cotton Candy! It's all so clear now!
     
  4. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,564
    Thanks Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,053
    Barry is a communist who had two communist parents. Communists believe 100% in redistribution you sorry fool! He said to Joe the plumber, " share the wealth", -remember?? He voted to the left of Bernie Sanders who very very openly wants to share the wealth as all communists do.

    Barry just spent 4 years villifying the rich about sharing the wealth, even as the top 1% pay 40% of federal taxes. OMG!!!did you think that was about non redistribution????

    See why we are positive a liberal will be very very slow????
     
  5. Wiseacre
    Offline

    Wiseacre Retired USAF Chief Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,025
    Thanks Received:
    1,192
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Why should I get a job when the gov't will give me everything I need for free?

    Why should I bust my ass trying to create or expand a business if the gov't takes most of the profits? Add up the federal, state, and local tax rates, in a lot of places it's already over half. I take the risks of failure, I bust my ass, and you want half or more? Fuck you.

    If I'm a big corp CEO, why should I keep my company here instead of moving it offshore where I can pay less taxes, among other things?

    When Sweden raised the marginal tax rate back in the 80s you know what the rich swedes did? They left, Bjorn Borg, ABBA, Ingmar Bergman, etc., they took their money and left.

    What do you think the rich frenchfolk are doing these days, after Hollande announced he wanted to raise taxes up to 75%? That's right, they're leaving. We've already got rich Americans leaving too, not in big numbers yet maybe, but these guys want a good return on their money and higher tax rates cut into that return. So, they don't invest here, not in the kind of things that create jobs. It's crazy, libdems think they can raise taxes with no consequences. Not true, it may have worked in the 50s and in the 90s under Clinton, but it ain't gong to work now.
     
  6. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,564
    Thanks Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,053
    exactly right!! in the 50's we had the only economy in the world, under Clinton the government was tiny compared to now and internationl competition was tiny compared to now.

    Today, just for starters, we have China, India, and Brazil with 10 times our population competing equally with us for jobs. Yet, even socialist Sweden has seen fit to lower its corporate tax rate to 10% below ours while our stupid and hateful liberals want to raise taxes to punish the rich!!
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2012

Share This Page