The "Inequality" Racket

[DGS49]

As the True Leftists (Socialists) take over the Democrat Party we hear more and more about "fighting inequality."

It is disturbing in the extreme that so much of the Media, Academe, and the political class allow this nonsense to be perpetuated without objection.

There is nothing "wrong" with economic inequality, or the inevitable fact that economic inequality is constantly increasing.

Inequality increases in EVERYTHING. The difference between those at the bottom (whose level is generally static) and those at the top, who are improving over time, will always increase, whether you are talking about asset accumulation, skill at sports or arts, extent of learning, or what have you.

In economics, our technology advances enhance the ability of entrepreneurs, investors, and managing executives to maximize their earnings. Hence the earnings (and asset accumulation) of those at the top is always increasing. So what? What perverse manipulator would want to stop that natural phenomenon from occurring, or even slow it down?

And in our economy, money is made and wealth is accumulated according to VOLUNTARY TRANSACTIONS, in which both parties see a benefit in the exchange. It costs Microsoft next to nothing to produce yet another copy of Microsoft Office software, but huge numbers of customers are willing to plunk down a couple hundred of their hard-earned dollars to buy it. When Donald Trump builds a luxury resort, he doesn't force people to pay $500 a night to stay there; they do so voluntarily.

UNLESS WEALTH OR EARNINGS ARE ACCUMULATED BY THEFT, then there is nothing wrong with it, and there is no point in discouraging it or fretting over it.

POVERTY IS A REAL PROBLEM, and all sides of the political spectrum could agree that it is a problem, and try to fight it. There are huge differences in politics over the best way to fight poverty, but everyone agrees that it is something to be fought against. The political "Right" believes that increasing prosperity is the way to fight poverty. Encourage entrepreneurship, support research & development, promote economically-valuable education, implement tax policies that encourage investment in new factories, service centers, and so on. The political "Left" seems to believe that Government should step in directly to alleviate poverty (provide money, shelter, food, health care through government programs), and pay for these initiatives by taxing those who are economically successful. For Constitutional, logical, and economic reasons, I disagree, but that's not the point. We ALL agree that minimizing poverty (however it is defined) is something to be worked on.

The very idea that "inequality" - or increasing inequality - is a problem is insidious. It implies that some people make TOO MUCH or that the have TOO MUCH. Again, we have laws against theft, fraud, and all manner of evil confiscation of money and wealth, but to simply say that some people have too much is just nonsense. And to be specific, it is Socialist nonsense, which has been proven economic folly for more than a hundred years. Where are the "successful" socialist countries? The places where Government ensures that no one is living in poverty? They are on the ash-heap of history. The Soviet Union. North Korea. East Germany. Cuba. And now Venezuela, where we can see it happening before our eyes, in Real Time.

Politicians and political activists who rail on about "inequality" are either stupid, mis-informed, or dishonest.

 

[william the wie]

It is hard to loot without bribing everyone in sight just look at Pelosi; Clinton; Obama and the deep state generally. Also committed idiots like believers in the truthfulness of the MSM are needed. Storm troopers like the ironically named anti-fas are quite useful too. Cut-outs like Bernie Sanders wife are also helpful. There is a whole left wing eco-system of repression.

 

[Econ4Every1]

As the True Leftists (Socialists) take over the Democrat Party we hear more and more about "fighting inequality."

Not quite sure how you'd define "socialist" (maybe you'd be kind enough to define it for me?), but I find that there is an economic socialism and a nationalist or political socialism. Some might simply define socialism as a system where the government controls the means of production. If that's what you mean when you say socialism, that's not a system that I would defend, thus I doubt I'm a "True Leftist™".

However, because I don't think that socialism, or better yet, socialist policies can be defined in black and white terms, allow me to respond.

In my experience when talking about the criticisms of socialism, political and economic socialism one are often conflated with each other. Frankly, I think there are versions of economic socialist policy that could work, but there are those that fear it and intentionally conflate political socialism with economic socialism in order to avoid it.

The other problem when talking about socialism is that socialists regimes can be run by a single person or a very small group that holds nearly absolute power and then there are so-called democratic socialists where the people still maintain control via legitimate representative government.

I'm not a supporter of nationalist or what I'd call political socialism. Any time socialism is run by rulers like Mao, Lenin, Chavez et. al, these systems will inexorably fail, usually because the regimes in question will stifle information in the interest of protecting the regime rather than serving the people. An example of this is the Soviet famine of the 1930's was the result of the rejection of science-based information in favor of politicization of agriculture. This particular event was the result of something known today as
Lysenkoism. Trofim Lysenko was a supporter of Lenin and an agrobiologist. Lysenko's political success was mostly due to his appeal to the Communist party and Soviet ideology.

In other words, his rise was a failure of Nationalist Socialism. Lysenko rejected Darwinist theories of genes and worse fired or jailed anyone working in those fields and this set the Soviet Union back half a century in terms of scientific research. Ironically, the Republican Party has flirted with this same kind of science rejection as can be seen here as Palin plays to the Republican base. Nationalist Populism will destroy any legitimate economic or social system, on the right or on the left.

It is disturbing in the extreme that so much of the Media, Academe, and the political class allow this nonsense to be perpetuated without objection.

I agree that calls for "equality" are misplaced. Any system that promotes "equality" will have to reject facts and information to achieve it and it's no better than the results achieved by Lenin's regime in the 1930's or Chaves' results and the problems we see today in Venezuela. All failures of policy.

There is nothing "wrong" with economic inequality or the inevitable fact that economic inequality is constantly increasing.

Objectively, no, but then, without context, there's nothing wrong with rape or murder either. It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. However, if you value a stable free society with a high standard of living that has the capability to protect itself from its global rivals, then yes, high levels of inequality will result in a society that fails to live up to it's potential, just like Soviet Russia.

Inequality increases in EVERYTHING. The difference between those at the bottom (whose level is generally static) and those at the top, who are improving over time, will always increase, whether you are talking about asset accumulation, skill at sports or arts, the extent of learning, or what have you.

It's not the fact that people progress that's the problem. It's the fact that people get so far ahead that they can use their wealth to create advantages for themselves at the expense of others making it increasingly difficult to reach our individual potential.

In economics, our technology advances enhance the ability of entrepreneurs, investors, and managing executives to maximize their earnings. Hence the earnings (and asset accumulation) of those at the top is always increasing. So what? What perverse manipulator would want to stop that natural phenomenon from occurring, or even slow it down?

What a ridiculous statement, appealing to the "nature fallacy". Economics is an artificial human construct. There is NOTHING "natural" about it.

And in our economy, money is made and wealth is accumulated according to VOLUNTARY TRANSACTIONS, in which both parties see a benefit in the exchange. It costs Microsoft next to nothing to produce yet another copy of Microsoft Office software, but huge numbers of customers are willing to plunk down a couple hundred of their hard-earned dollars to buy it. When Donald Trump builds a luxury resort, he doesn't force people to pay $500 a night to stay there; they do so voluntarily.

UNLESS WEALTH OR EARNINGS ARE ACCUMULATED BY THEFT, then there is nothing wrong with it, and there is no point in discouraging it or fretting over it.

Here's the flaw in the Objectivist worldview. THere is a big difference between needs and wants.

I've been fortunate in my life and today I'm quite comfortable. Jeff Bezos, the wealthiest man alive, walked into my house, there is NOTHING he can offer me that I need. Therefore and transaction that takes place between he and I will be based on acquiring what I want.

However, if I meet a person who is hungry, cold, or sick and they need something that changes my leverage. People will do more for needs than wants.

For example. Let's say I own a 2-mile long bridge that is the only road to a reasonably large island where 1000 people live. I charge people $5 to cross my bridge and use $4 of it to maintain the bridge and $1 as my profit. Now let's say there is a massive deadly hurricane headed toward the island and the weather is such that helicopters can't fly and the ocean is to rough for boats. This hurricane is the worst ever seen and people want (need) to leave the island out of fear for their lives. If I raise the price to use my bridge to $10,000 per person, you can't say there is anything wrong with that. I'm not forcing people to pay me. They have a choice. They should have bought boats or funded another bridge, but alas there short-sightedness has provided me an opportunity.

See, there is a difference between needs and wants and those with massive wealth have incentives to create needs with their excess wealth (that wouldn't otherwise exist) so they have increasing leverage.

So if I support anything, it's a system where, in as much as practical, people are assisted in acquiring their needs so that those with massive amounts of wealth can't use economic coercion to steal from them. No, not "at the point of a gun", no, it's much more insidious than that. It's that you can't see unless you understand it. The idea that stealing can only come "at the point of a gun" is a fallacy promoted by those with the means to apply economic coercion.

POVERTY IS A REAL PROBLEM, and all sides of the political spectrum could agree that it is a problem, and try to fight it. There are huge differences in politics over the best way to fight poverty, but everyone agrees that it is something to be fought against. The political "Right" believes that increasing prosperity is the way to fight poverty. Encourage entrepreneurship, support research & development, promote economically-valuable education, implement tax policies that encourage investment in new factories, service centers, and so on.

I agree with most of that, you just don't seem to understand that increasing economic disparity leads to large-scale decreases in demand for the kinds of things that companies would conduct research for, that entrepreneurs can take advantage of and that would create the need for investors to expand production.

The political "Left" seems to believe that Government should step in directly to alleviate poverty (provide money, shelter, food, health care through government programs), and pay for these initiatives by taxing those who are economically successful. For Constitutional, logical, and economic reasons, I disagree, but that's not the point. We ALL agree that minimizing poverty (however it is defined) is something to be worked on.

I would agree that this is largely the position of those on the left and it's unfortunate. The idea that the federal government needs to tax people in order to provide services is at the heart of this failure, but that is another discussion altogether.

If we decide to tax the wealthy it should be for entirely different reasons which Beadsly Ruml enumerated pretty well in 1946:

1. As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar;
2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;
3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups;
4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security.

However, don't get thrown to much by number 2. When this was written it was necessary to tax in order for the government to create new money, today, with fiat, that constraint no longer exists. Taxing the wealthy is more about trying to prevent the kinds of disparity of income, especially multi-generational income, that result in increasing the political and social power that results in wealth being used to create need so that economic leverage can be applied and more work can be had for less money.

The very idea that "inequality" - or increasing inequality - is a problem is insidious. It implies that some people make TOO MUCH or that the have TOO MUCH. Again, we have laws against theft, fraud, and all manner of evil confiscation of money and wealth, but to simply say that some people have too much is just nonsense. And to be specific, it is Socialist nonsense, which has been proven economic folly for more than a hundred years. Where are the "successful" socialist countries? The places where Government ensures that no one is living in poverty? They are on the ash-heap of history. The Soviet Union. North Korea. East Germany. Cuba. And now Venezuela, where we can see it happening before our eyes, in Real Time.

Politicians and political activists who rail on about "inequality" are either stupid, mis-informed, or dishonest.

I agree that the aguing for decreased "inequality" can be misguided. I would not advocate for "equality". I accept that Donald Trump and Jeff Bezos' kids will have it better than my kids and I see no social benefit in trying to drag their kids down or boost my kids up so they are "equal". Besides the economic absurdity of something like that, we have to come to terms with the idea that we're different and some people have a greater propensity to succeed.

I embrace equity, which is just that each person should be provided the opportunity to succeed. Thier could be a child born today into a poor family that might be the kid who would have discovered the key to unlock fusion as an energy source, or finds a cure for cancer or whatever. What a shame it is that people go wasted because of the society we live in doesn't provide minimums of opportunity (not "equality").

Having said that, there is a whole other long conversation about how people don't understand the money system we have now and the false assumption that people make on how to achive the goals I've just laid out.

 

[Manonthestreet]

The Homeless Hole That Ate Los Angeles

 

[Econ4Every1]

The Homeless Hole That Ate Los Angeles

This is an example of what I talked about in my last post. This is the result of increasing disparity and the social costs that come with it. You pay on the front end or you pay on the back end.

Of course, taxing $1.2 billion to house the homeless is a backward way to "solve" the problem at it treats the symptom and not the cause (i.e. paying for it on the backend). But this is the result of individualist mindset that proclaims that people should be left to fend for themselves and no one should have to pay taxes against their will.

Well, these people are fending for themselves and now we have reporters complaining about it. Can't you guys see that this is the result of failing to provide opportunity and that this will only get worse as income disparity increases if the government decreases it spending?

It's like you want it both ways. Not to spend any money and to have streets free of stinky homeless people.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Homeless Hole That Ate Los Angeles

This is an example of what I talked about in my last post. This is the result of increasing disparity and the social costs that come with it. You pay on the front end or you pay on the back end.

Of course, taxing $1.2 billion to house the homeless is a backward way to "solve" the problem at it treats the symptom and not the cause (i.e. paying for it on the backend). But this is the result of individualist mindset that proclaims that people should be left to fend for themselves and no one should have to pay taxes against their will.

Well, these people are fending for themselves and now we have reporters complaining about it. Can't you guys see that this is the result of failing to provide opportunity and that this will only get worse as income disparity increases if the government decreases it spending?

It's like you want it both ways. Not to spend any money and to have streets free of stinky homeless people.

This is the result of increasing disparity and the social costs that come with it.

If everyone above the median doubles their income and everyone below the median makes 10% more, what would be the social costs that come with it?

 

[Econ4Every1]

If everyone above the median doubles their income and everyone below the median makes 10% more, what would be the social costs that come with it?

That depends on the effects on prices.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If everyone above the median doubles their income and everyone below the median makes 10% more, what would be the social costs that come with it?

That depends on the effects on prices.

If everyone above the median doubles their [real] income and everyone below the median makes 10% more [real income], what would be the social costs that come with it?

 

[Econ4Every1]

If everyone above the median doubles their income and everyone below the median makes 10% more, what would be the social costs that come with it?

That depends on the effects on prices.

If everyone above the median doubles their [real] income and everyone below the median makes 10% more [real income], what would be the social costs that come with it?

The "Inequality" Racket

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If everyone above the median doubles their income and everyone below the median makes 10% more, what would be the social costs that come with it?

That depends on the effects on prices.

If everyone above the median doubles their [real] income and everyone below the median makes 10% more [real income], what would be the social costs that come with it?

The "Inequality" Racket

Ummmm….real income means adjusted for inflation...….DURR.

 

[Moonglow]

There is nothing "wrong" with economic inequality, or the inevitable fact that economic inequality is constantly increasing.

Just depends which end of the stick you get stuck with.

 

[Econ4Every1]

If everyone above the median doubles their income and everyone below the median makes 10% more, what would be the social costs that come with it?

That depends on the effects on prices.

If everyone above the median doubles their [real] income and everyone below the median makes 10% more [real income], what would be the social costs that come with it?

The "Inequality" Racket

Ummmm….real income means adjusted for inflation...….DURR.

As I said, there is an incentive for those at the top to use fiscal resources to create needs in order to increase leverage and get more work for a lower price. That's market manipulation and it decreases the standard of living for those at the bottom.

As to your hypothetical, I'm not sure the value of it. Is there a situation where you think that might happen? How does it apply to anything I've said?

 

[Manonthestreet]

The Homeless Hole That Ate Los Angeles

This is an example of what I talked about in my last post. This is the result of increasing disparity and the social costs that come with it. You pay on the front end or you pay on the back end.

Of course, taxing $1.2 billion to house the homeless is a backward way to "solve" the problem at it treats the symptom and not the cause (i.e. paying for it on the backend). But this is the result of individualist mindset that proclaims that people should be left to fend for themselves and no one should have to pay taxes against their will.

Well, these people are fending for themselves and now we have reporters complaining about it. Can't you guys see that this is the result of failing to provide opportunity and that this will only get worse as income disparity increases if the government decreases it spending?

It's like you want it both ways. Not to spend any money and to have streets free of stinky homeless people.

Govt helps create the disparity,,,there is opportunity galore.....

 

[Econ4Every1]

The Homeless Hole That Ate Los Angeles

This is an example of what I talked about in my last post. This is the result of increasing disparity and the social costs that come with it. You pay on the front end or you pay on the back end.

Of course, taxing $1.2 billion to house the homeless is a backward way to "solve" the problem at it treats the symptom and not the cause (i.e. paying for it on the backend). But this is the result of individualist mindset that proclaims that people should be left to fend for themselves and no one should have to pay taxes against their will.

Well, these people are fending for themselves and now we have reporters complaining about it. Can't you guys see that this is the result of failing to provide opportunity and that this will only get worse as income disparity increases if the government decreases it spending?

It's like you want it both ways. Not to spend any money and to have streets free of stinky homeless people.

Govt helps create the disparity,there is opportunity galore.....

People just don't want to provide for their needs, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If everyone above the median doubles their income and everyone below the median makes 10% more, what would be the social costs that come with it?

That depends on the effects on prices.

If everyone above the median doubles their [real] income and everyone below the median makes 10% more [real income], what would be the social costs that come with it?

The "Inequality" Racket

Ummmm….real income means adjusted for inflation...….DURR.

As I said, there is an incentive for those at the top to use fiscal resources to create needs in order to increase leverage and get more work for a lower price. That's market manipulation and it decreases the standard of living for those at the bottom.

As to your hypothetical, I'm not sure the value of it. Is there a situation where you think that might happen? How does it apply to anything I've said?

As I said, there is an incentive for those at the top to use fiscal resources to create needs in order to increase leverage and get more work for a lower price.

Rich people create, for instance, iPhones, to increase leverage? And that gets them more work for a lower price?

Or perhaps you could give your own example to better illustrate your claim?

That's market manipulation and it decreases the standard of living for those at the bottom.

Huh?

As to your hypothetical, I'm not sure the value of it.

You seem to be claiming, hard to tell for sure, that the mere existence of disparity creates social costs.
My hypothetical involves everyone increasing their real incomes, with those at the top increasing their real income more than those at the bottom. That seems, to me at least, to benefit all.

If you think it doesn't or if you think the benefit is overwhelmed by the "increased social costs" perhaps you could explain why?

Or, if you can't explain these social costs, perhaps you'd like to rethink your claim?

 

[Manonthestreet]

The Homeless Hole That Ate Los Angeles

This is an example of what I talked about in my last post. This is the result of increasing disparity and the social costs that come with it. You pay on the front end or you pay on the back end.

Of course, taxing $1.2 billion to house the homeless is a backward way to "solve" the problem at it treats the symptom and not the cause (i.e. paying for it on the backend). But this is the result of individualist mindset that proclaims that people should be left to fend for themselves and no one should have to pay taxes against their will.

Well, these people are fending for themselves and now we have reporters complaining about it. Can't you guys see that this is the result of failing to provide opportunity and that this will only get worse as income disparity increases if the government decreases it spending?

It's like you want it both ways. Not to spend any money and to have streets free of stinky homeless people.

Govt helps create the disparity,there is opportunity galore.....

People just don't want to provide for their needs, right?

There are people like that …..When entire industries are understaffed......dont tell me there isn't opportunity

 

[DGS49]

(A) just because one person gets "more" doesn't necessarily mean that someone else gets "less." The money supply is, for all practical purposes, infinitely flexible.

(B) The Constitution prohibits taking money from one person in order to give it to another. It is no legitimate government function to confiscate money from "high" earners in order to artificially bring their income down closer to the median.

(C) The fact that there are measurable differences in income & wealth between demographic groups, is not, by itself, proof of "injustice," oppression, discrimination, or malice. Honest people look at other measurable factors, which invariably explain the differences.

A "white" child of a single mother is three times more likely to be living in poverty than a "black" child in an intact family. Good-bye, white privilege.

 

[Econ4Every1]

(A) just because one person gets "more" doesn't necessarily mean that someone else gets "less." The money supply is, for all practical purposes, infinitely flexible.

Ever argue that the government "crowds out" private business? If the economy is "infinitely flexible" crowding out couldn't occur...?

So do you beleive that the government cannot crowd out?

(B) The Constitution prohibits taking money from one person in order to give it to another. It is no legitimate government function to confiscate money from "high" earners in order to artificially bring their income down closer to the median.

Well, that's good, because the government doesn't take peoples money and give it to others. It takes peoples money, destroys it and creates new money when it needs more.

Money is, in your words "infinitely flexible" yet here you are arguing that the government has to take money from some people in order to give it to others. This is like believing that you have to put water down the kitchen sink before you can get more out of the faucet. The two aren't connected and neither is taxing and spending at the federal level.

(C) The fact that there are measurable differences in income & wealth between demographic groups, is not, by itself, proof of "injustice," oppression, discrimination, or malice.

Agree completely.

Honest people look at other measurable factors, which invariably explain the differences.

A "white" child of a single mother is three times more likely to be living in poverty than a "black" child in an intact family. Good-bye, white privilege.

That was an apple to oceans comparison....

 

[Zorro!]

As the True Leftists (Socialists) take over the Democrat Party we hear more and more about "fighting inequality."

Not quite sure how you'd define "socialist" (maybe you'd be kind enough to define it for me?), but I find that there is an economic socialism and a nationalist or political socialism. Some might simply define socialism as a system where the government controls the means of production. If that's what you mean when you say socialism, that's not a system that I would defend, thus I doubt I'm a "True Leftist™".

However, because I don't think that socialism, or better yet, socialist policies can be defined in black and white terms, allow me to respond.

In my experience when talking about the criticisms of socialism, political and economic socialism one are often conflated with each other. Frankly, I think there are versions of economic socialist policy that could work, but there are those that fear it and intentionally conflate political socialism with economic socialism in order to avoid it.

The other problem when talking about socialism is that socialists regimes can be run by a single person or a very small group that holds nearly absolute power and then there are so-called democratic socialists where the people still maintain control via legitimate representative government.

I'm not a supporter of nationalist or what I'd call political socialism. Any time socialism is run by rulers like Mao, Lenin, Chavez et. al, these systems will inexorably fail, usually because the regimes in question will stifle information in the interest of protecting the regime rather than serving the people. An example of this is the Soviet famine of the 1930's was the result of the rejection of science-based information in favor of politicization of agriculture. This particular event was the result of something known today as
Lysenkoism. Trofim Lysenko was a supporter of Lenin and an agrobiologist. Lysenko's political success was mostly due to his appeal to the Communist party and Soviet ideology.

In other words, his rise was a failure of Nationalist Socialism. Lysenko rejected Darwinist theories of genes and worse fired or jailed anyone working in those fields and this set the Soviet Union back half a century in terms of scientific research. Ironically, the Republican Party has flirted with this same kind of science rejection as can be seen here as Palin plays to the Republican base. Nationalist Populism will destroy any legitimate economic or social system, on the right or on the left.

It is disturbing in the extreme that so much of the Media, Academe, and the political class allow this nonsense to be perpetuated without objection.

I agree that calls for "equality" are misplaced. Any system that promotes "equality" will have to reject facts and information to achieve it and it's no better than the results achieved by Lenin's regime in the 1930's or Chaves' results and the problems we see today in Venezuela. All failures of policy.

There is nothing "wrong" with economic inequality or the inevitable fact that economic inequality is constantly increasing.

Objectively, no, but then, without context, there's nothing wrong with rape or murder either. It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. However, if you value a stable free society with a high standard of living that has the capability to protect itself from its global rivals, then yes, high levels of inequality will result in a society that fails to live up to it's potential, just like Soviet Russia.

Inequality increases in EVERYTHING. The difference between those at the bottom (whose level is generally static) and those at the top, who are improving over time, will always increase, whether you are talking about asset accumulation, skill at sports or arts, the extent of learning, or what have you.

It's not the fact that people progress that's the problem. It's the fact that people get so far ahead that they can use their wealth to create advantages for themselves at the expense of others making it increasingly difficult to reach our individual potential.

In economics, our technology advances enhance the ability of entrepreneurs, investors, and managing executives to maximize their earnings. Hence the earnings (and asset accumulation) of those at the top is always increasing. So what? What perverse manipulator would want to stop that natural phenomenon from occurring, or even slow it down?

What a ridiculous statement, appealing to the "nature fallacy". Economics is an artificial human construct. There is NOTHING "natural" about it.

And in our economy, money is made and wealth is accumulated according to VOLUNTARY TRANSACTIONS, in which both parties see a benefit in the exchange. It costs Microsoft next to nothing to produce yet another copy of Microsoft Office software, but huge numbers of customers are willing to plunk down a couple hundred of their hard-earned dollars to buy it. When Donald Trump builds a luxury resort, he doesn't force people to pay $500 a night to stay there; they do so voluntarily.

UNLESS WEALTH OR EARNINGS ARE ACCUMULATED BY THEFT, then there is nothing wrong with it, and there is no point in discouraging it or fretting over it.

Here's the flaw in the Objectivist worldview. THere is a big difference between needs and wants.

I've been fortunate in my life and today I'm quite comfortable. Jeff Bezos, the wealthiest man alive, walked into my house, there is NOTHING he can offer me that I need. Therefore and transaction that takes place between he and I will be based on acquiring what I want.

However, if I meet a person who is hungry, cold, or sick and they need something that changes my leverage. People will do more for needs than wants.

For example. Let's say I own a 2-mile long bridge that is the only road to a reasonably large island where 1000 people live. I charge people $5 to cross my bridge and use $4 of it to maintain the bridge and $1 as my profit. Now let's say there is a massive deadly hurricane headed toward the island and the weather is such that helicopters can't fly and the ocean is to rough for boats. This hurricane is the worst ever seen and people want (need) to leave the island out of fear for their lives. If I raise the price to use my bridge to $10,000 per person, you can't say there is anything wrong with that. I'm not forcing people to pay me. They have a choice. They should have bought boats or funded another bridge, but alas there short-sightedness has provided me an opportunity.

See, there is a difference between needs and wants and those with massive wealth have incentives to create needs with their excess wealth (that wouldn't otherwise exist) so they have increasing leverage.

So if I support anything, it's a system where, in as much as practical, people are assisted in acquiring their needs so that those with massive amounts of wealth can't use economic coercion to steal from them. No, not "at the point of a gun", no, it's much more insidious than that. It's that you can't see unless you understand it. The idea that stealing can only come "at the point of a gun" is a fallacy promoted by those with the means to apply economic coercion.

POVERTY IS A REAL PROBLEM, and all sides of the political spectrum could agree that it is a problem, and try to fight it. There are huge differences in politics over the best way to fight poverty, but everyone agrees that it is something to be fought against. The political "Right" believes that increasing prosperity is the way to fight poverty. Encourage entrepreneurship, support research & development, promote economically-valuable education, implement tax policies that encourage investment in new factories, service centers, and so on.

I agree with most of that, you just don't seem to understand that increasing economic disparity leads to large-scale decreases in demand for the kinds of things that companies would conduct research for, that entrepreneurs can take advantage of and that would create the need for investors to expand production.

The political "Left" seems to believe that Government should step in directly to alleviate poverty (provide money, shelter, food, health care through government programs), and pay for these initiatives by taxing those who are economically successful. For Constitutional, logical, and economic reasons, I disagree, but that's not the point. We ALL agree that minimizing poverty (however it is defined) is something to be worked on.

I would agree that this is largely the position of those on the left and it's unfortunate. The idea that the federal government needs to tax people in order to provide services is at the heart of this failure, but that is another discussion altogether.

If we decide to tax the wealthy it should be for entirely different reasons which Beadsly Ruml enumerated pretty well in 1946:

1. As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar;
2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;
3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups;
4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security.

However, don't get thrown to much by number 2. When this was written it was necessary to tax in order for the government to create new money, today, with fiat, that constraint no longer exists. Taxing the wealthy is more about trying to prevent the kinds of disparity of income, especially multi-generational income, that result in increasing the political and social power that results in wealth being used to create need so that economic leverage can be applied and more work can be had for less money.

The very idea that "inequality" - or increasing inequality - is a problem is insidious. It implies that some people make TOO MUCH or that the have TOO MUCH. Again, we have laws against theft, fraud, and all manner of evil confiscation of money and wealth, but to simply say that some people have too much is just nonsense. And to be specific, it is Socialist nonsense, which has been proven economic folly for more than a hundred years. Where are the "successful" socialist countries? The places where Government ensures that no one is living in poverty? They are on the ash-heap of history. The Soviet Union. North Korea. East Germany. Cuba. And now Venezuela, where we can see it happening before our eyes, in Real Time.

Politicians and political activists who rail on about "inequality" are either stupid, mis-informed, or dishonest.

I agree that the aguing for decreased "inequality" can be misguided. I would not advocate for "equality". I accept that Donald Trump and Jeff Bezos' kids will have it better than my kids and I see no social benefit in trying to drag their kids down or boost my kids up so they are "equal". Besides the economic absurdity of something like that, we have to come to terms with the idea that we're different and some people have a greater propensity to succeed.

I embrace equity, which is just that each person should be provided the opportunity to succeed. Thier could be a child born today into a poor family that might be the kid who would have discovered the key to unlock fusion as an energy source, or finds a cure for cancer or whatever. What a shame it is that people go wasted because of the society we live in doesn't provide minimums of opportunity (not "equality").

Having said that, there is a whole other long conversation about how people don't understand the money system we have now and the false assumption that people make on how to achive the goals I've just laid out.

Child Rape is always evil.

Wages Soar Fastest among Those with the Least.

“Never mind the liberal lies. Hard data reveal this reality. The Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank’s monthly Wage Growth Tracker shows that Americans are making more money, particularly those who have been forgotten for decades. Between November 2018 and November 2019, overall median wage growth climbed 3.6 percent, a healthy pace that should lift spirits, too. Those in the bottom 25 percent saw wages advance 4.5 percent, while the top 25 percent lagged, with pay rising just 2.9 percent. This is the 180-degree exact opposite of what Democrats relentlessly bellow. They have equal access to the Atlanta Fed’s website. This confirms their rank dishonesty.”​