Unequal distribution of wealth

[JBeukema]

Unequal distribution as it exists is only bad if you think oligarchy, oppressive caste systems, and starving children are bad things.

Guess I'm not surprised you have no problems with any of it.

OK, I thought MikeK had the dumbest post of the day on another thread. But you truly take the cake here.
So unequal distribution of wealth and income only occurs because one class oppresses the other and causes children to starve? I guess pointing out that people have different abilities would be futile. Yes, of course it would.
Your worldview cannot imagine a fat man standing next to a thin man without thinking that the fat man got that way by taking something from the other person.

Fail. What my worldview cannot do is say THIS:

is okay.

 

[LiberalNut]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing.

There's a difference between an unequal distribution of wealth and a mal distribution of wealth. An unequal distribution of wealth is inevitable and indeed, desireable. A mal distribution of wealth is a bad thing.

One has to recognize that people don't all spend the same percentage of their income. The richer you are, the more you save on a percentage basis. So, as income/wealth becomes more and more concentrated at the top, less overall spending takes place. This has two effects.

1. The masses don't consume to the output capacity of industry and hence industry cuts production. This leads to unemployment and the dreaded recessionary cycle.

2. The money saved by the rich folks doesn't get invested in new productive capacity. Rich people gamble with the money, creating a bubble of capital that roves to various sectors of the financial markets, causing ruin (boom/bust cycles) as it goes.

A proper, though unequal distribution of wealth would be one where the masses consume to the output capacity of industry and the rich folks invest in productive capacity rather than creating bubbles in the financial markets.

In short, capitalism works but if left to itself, it will eat itself. Therefore the government has to SAVE capitalism by managing the macro-economy. One of the things that government has to do is counter the tendency for capitalism to lead to a mal distribution of wealth. It must use the tax code to redistribute wealth.

 

[Intense]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

It is a perversion of Truth and Justice. A Corruption of Spirit, a sickness, a disease. Larceny.

Symptoms, Envy, Jealousy, Bitterness, Covetousness, Hate, Never Satisfied, Never at peace, alway's wanting.

 

[Intense]

Unequal distribution as it exists is only bad if you think oligarchy, oppressive caste systems, and starving children are bad things.

Guess I'm not surprised you have no problems with any of it.

OK, I thought MikeK had the dumbest post of the day on another thread. But you truly take the cake here.
So unequal distribution of wealth and income only occurs because one class oppresses the other and causes children to starve? I guess pointing out that people have different abilities would be futile. Yes, of course it would.
Your worldview cannot imagine a fat man standing next to a thin man without thinking that the fat man got that way by taking something from the other person.

Fail. What my worldview cannot do is say THIS:

is okay.

That, is not about us, it is about the Totalitarian Regimes that have no respect for the lives of their own citizens.

 

[Revere]

In other words, confiscation of wealth government deems excessive to do with as government dictates.

 

[JBeukema]

OK, I thought MikeK had the dumbest post of the day on another thread. But you truly take the cake here.
So unequal distribution of wealth and income only occurs because one class oppresses the other and causes children to starve? I guess pointing out that people have different abilities would be futile. Yes, of course it would.
Your worldview cannot imagine a fat man standing next to a thin man without thinking that the fat man got that way by taking something from the other person.

Fail. What my worldview cannot do is say THIS:

is okay.

That, is not about us, it is about the Totalitarian Regimes that have no respect for the lives of their own citizens.

We all live in the same world, my friend.

Some would argue that they who do nothing stand beside those who do evil.

 

[JBeukema]

In other words, confiscation of wealth government deems excessive to do with as government dictates.

I support socio-economic and socio-political systems which seek to ensure none starve while those who flourish as a result of their efforts are free to enjoy the spoils they have earned for themselves.

Whether you happen to recognize any such system or its active participants as a 'State' in your eye is of no matter.

 

[Avatar4321]

Unequal distribution as it exists is only bad if you think oligarchy, oppressive caste systems, and starving children are bad things.

Guess I'm not surprised you have no problems with any of it.

OK, I thought MikeK had the dumbest post of the day on another thread. But you truly take the cake here.
So unequal distribution of wealth and income only occurs because one class oppresses the other and causes children to starve? I guess pointing out that people have different abilities would be futile. Yes, of course it would.
Your worldview cannot imagine a fat man standing next to a thin man without thinking that the fat man got that way by taking something from the other person.

Fail. What my worldview cannot do is say THIS:

is okay.

That has nothing to do with the unequal distribution of wealth and everything with the unequal distribution of Individual liberty.

That comes about because some governments have too much power. Not because they have not enough.

 

[JBeukema]

OK, I thought MikeK had the dumbest post of the day on another thread. But you truly take the cake here.
So unequal distribution of wealth and income only occurs because one class oppresses the other and causes children to starve? I guess pointing out that people have different abilities would be futile. Yes, of course it would.
Your worldview cannot imagine a fat man standing next to a thin man without thinking that the fat man got that way by taking something from the other person.

Fail. What my worldview cannot do is say THIS:

is okay.

That has nothing to do with the unequal distribution of wealth and everything with the unequal distribution of Individual liberty.

Yes... it's 'liberty', not food, that they need to keep from starving. WE SHOULD INVADE! LIBERATE THE THIRD WORLD!

Ah, the language of the new empire...

 

[syrenn]

Fail. What my worldview cannot do is say THIS:

is okay.

I was under the assumption we were talking about the distribution of wealth in this country. We have welfare so your example of this child doesn't really apply.

As for "world wide" wealth distribution...steal it from the oil countries, they seem to be the ones with the ostentatious personal wealth.

 

[LiberalNut]

In other words, confiscation of wealth government deems excessive to do with as government dictates.

And here we have a case study in wingnuttery. Notice how the wingnut does not take issue with anything that was actually said. Notice how he attempts to fit what was said into his spoon fed dogma. Now, one could take his strawman at face value, that I am advocating economy by governemnt dictate or one could actually think a little.

How about some examples of this eeeeevil spending done by "dictate of government. A road. I mean, what could possibly be more evil than a road? I've got it! Clearly sewer systems are more evil than roads. Even more evil still? How about schools. OOOOooo, eeeevil.

But, the wingnut would just retreat in to secondary dogma regarding the relative eeeevilness of national as opposed to local government. Again, one could take the dogma at face value or one could actually think a little.

What monstrous eeeeevil does the federal government do by dictate? Hmmm, they form a military. They make things like rural electrification and the interstate highway system. They provide wildly popular social programs like Social Security and Medicare.

EEEeeeeevil.

So, not only does the wingnuts strawman not address the real world problems with the mal distribution of wealth, the rhetoric isn't even remotely reminiscent of the real world.

I guess that's why we call them wingnuts.

 

[Revere]

I take issue. It's contrary to private property rights.

Your defect is that you believe government can set a maximum wage or maximum wealth level and deal with the excess better than the wage earner or owner of that wealth.

You're in the wrong fucking country, pal.

 

[Revere]

And, predictably, the jackass can only defend roads, schools, and sewers as the need for the ever expanding largesse of government.

And rural electrification and interstate highways, which were completed decades ago.

 

[LiberalNut]

It's contrary to private property rights.

No recognized right is taken away by taxing and spending of course. Indeed, the very Constitution that the wingnut claims to be advocating for but wouldn't know if it bit him on the ass specifically states that the federal government will have this power to tax and spend. Not only that, but the wingnut's own hero, Thomas Jefferson, deliberately changed the Lockean phrase "Life, Liberty and Property" to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" because he did not regard private property as an inalienable right. So, once again, the wingnut's rhetoric has nothing to do with the real world.

Your defect is that you believe government can set a maximum wage or maximum wealth level

Of course I never said any such thing. Here we have more classic wingnuttery. Don't address what was actually said, make up your own thing to argue against! Much easier to argue with yourself than to argue with me, isn't it wingnut?

You're in the wrong fucking country, pal.

And here we have another bit of the wingnut playbook. While not addressing any substantive points, the wingnut seeks to simply label my ideas as foreign in the hope that the audience is rabidly nativist.

That's why we call them wingnuts.

 

[LiberalNut]

And, predictably, the jackass can only defend roads, schools, and sewers as the need for the ever expanding largesse of government.

Of course, in the real world, if you actually take the time to look at the budgets of local government, you'll find that these things listed comprise well over 90% of said budgets. But, again, the wingnut wants to do anything and everything to avoid the real world.

And rural electrification and interstate highways, which were completed decades ago.

And now, not only does the wingnut leave out major portions of what was said, he doesn't even address the reality that these things that he claims were finished decades ago need constant maintenence and upgrading. But let's look at what he left out. The military plus Social Security and Medicare is roughly 85% of federal spending. Why would the wingnut leave these things out? Because, obviously, the wingnut does not want to address or deal with the real world.

All the wingnut wants to do is endlessly repeat the spoon fed dogma in the hope that the audience will be swayed by repetition and the hate-filled nature of the rhetoric alone.

That's why we call them wingnuts.

 

[Revere]

What system of government provides the utopia you're convinced can be achieved, nutso?

 

[WillowTree]

And, predictably, the jackass can only defend roads, schools, and sewers as the need for the ever expanding largesse of government.

And rural electrification and interstate highways, which were completed decades ago.

And the public school system is the worst in the world which proves no matter how much money you throw at a problem the unions will fuck it up for you.

 

[Revere]

And, predictably, the jackass can only defend roads, schools, and sewers as the need for the ever expanding largesse of government.

And rural electrification and interstate highways, which were completed decades ago.

And the public school system is the worst in the world which proves no matter how much money you throw at a problem the unions will fuck it up for you.

50% high school dropout rates in urban areas of Blue States. There's a rat hole to throw more rich people's money down, boy.

 

[WillowTree]

And, predictably, the jackass can only defend roads, schools, and sewers as the need for the ever expanding largesse of government.

And rural electrification and interstate highways, which were completed decades ago.

And the public school system is the worst in the world which proves no matter how much money you throw at a problem the unions will fuck it up for you.

50% high school dropout rates in urban areas of Blue States. There's a rat hole to throw more rich people's money down, boy.

yep, they be good at pissing other people's money away.

 

[Revere]

Nutso collects his pension no matter how many of his students failed.