Unequal distribution of wealth

[JBeukema]

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.

Forcing me to work for somebody else is what the distribution of wealth is.

Distribution of wealth is Marxism.

Wealth is nothing more than ones labor, wealth is my labor in a tangible form I can trade for another person's labor.

That is why its bad, distribution of wealth is stealing, forced slavery, servitude, socialist/marxism.

Wealth is the physical representation of my labor, my work, my success, or my dumb luck.

Again, its the unequal distribution of intelligence that is the problem.

I have highlighted where your argument breaks down, comrade.

We can not know how much labour a worker we never met put into a chair, nor whether it was more or less than his fellow-worker beside him. Yet, when we see the chairs, we value them for ourselves- do I like them? Would I want one? What might I fairly trade for one? We do this subconsciously before we think of it and can assess whether we consider a fair exchange for the chair. Thus value is subjective, and labour invested is but one potential factor.

 

[Bleeding Heart]

Every economy in the history of the world that favored the wealthy and powerful has failed. In a government of the people and by the people our economy is built on a premise of sharing. As Americans we've shared everything we have with each other.

When one small group controls all of the wealth and power and refuses to share that prosperity revolts occur.

Is it the governments responsibility to avoid the threat of revolt by keeping those of our society who are less affluent appeased and thereby "controlled"? Or is it more appropriate for the government to stand back and allow the tools of revolt to be thrust upon our society?

 

[JBeukema]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4

he sounds... like the unwashed anarchists down by the tracks

 

[JBeukema]

Wealth is never to be re-distributed.
Wealth is earned.

If wealth is to hold things of value and value is subjective...

 

[JBeukema]

Because consumer spending drives the economy. When wealth is held by fewer consumers, there are fewer customers, therefore less spending.

When a CEO is paid 400, 500, 700 times what the average production employee is paid, it has to be due to exploitation. Are you defending exploitative economic practices? Where then should the exploitation stop? After wages? After health and safety? After environmental damage?

And again... someone's else's nest egg amount is your business why??

Do you not have the freedom to earn all the money you can and accumulate all the wealth you can??

You have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail... if you get 100X what you are worth, good for you.. if you get half of what you are worth, too bad too sad... either way it is up to you

You're defending the alleged "freedom" to exploit people for you own benefit. If such a freedom really existed, why not allow indentured servitude? You owe me a debt, like the company house my coal mine built. You must work the mine for the rent of that house. At the end of the day, if you haven't satisfied the rent, you must work it off until you do. If that means you get nothing in compensation for your work other than housing, tough. You have the "freedom" to crawl out of this village and starve until you find other work. A Conservative's wet dream.

You been talkin' to the ol' union boys down by the liquor shop?

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Because consumer spending drives the economy. When wealth is held by fewer consumers, there are fewer customers, therefore less spending.

When a CEO is paid 400, 500, 700 times what the average production employee is paid, it has to be due to exploitation. Are you defending exploitative economic practices? Where then should the exploitation stop? After wages? After health and safety? After environmental damage?

If they are being "exploited" because the CEO makes more then they do then THEY are free to leave and get a different job.

Though the capitalist is ultimately as dependent on the worker as the worker is upon the capitalist, he can suffer far longer their desperation before this dependency is felt.

Thus the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie have the power to feast long after the proletariat has begun to go hungry and, like a general surrendering along with the skeletons who were once his men, surrenders after a long siege, the proletariat is once again put down.

 

[JBeukema]

In spite of right wing rhetoric.....Nobody is looking to take away money or assets from the wealthy and give it to the poor.

Do any of their taxes go to pay for international aid?

 

[JBeukema]

In spite of right wing rhetoric.....Nobody is looking to take away money or assets from the wealthy and give it to the poor.

But there is no denying that we currently have an unequal distribution of available wealth that is only getting worse. What we are looking at is examining those policies and benefits available to the wealthy that contribute to them accumulating more wealth while not benefitting society as a whole.

We also need to look at policies and benefits available to working class Americans that impede their ability to acquire wealth. These include affordable healthcare, education and housing

The only thing that impedes your ability to acquire wealth is you...

And the law, should you happen to be an independent producer/distributor of new and second-option pharmaceuticals.

 

[JBeukema]

Ever live in a company town? A town where one employer dominates the economy? A steel mill, a coal mine, a factory upon which the entire town depends?

Sounds like fascism. Or china and the company is really the communist party.

 

[JBeukema]

When did saving what one has earned turned into exploiting other people?

What a sad, pea green with envy outlook.

"Earning". The concept under argument here.

Whether I get my money from back breaking labor, inventing a new product, winning the lottery, producing Amish midget porn, finding a gold meteorite, inherited it from my parent's efforts, or got it from my 2nd wish from a goddamn genie is of no consequence

Surely, such a liberal interpretation of the word 'earned' embraces suing, printing, legislating, voting, and the very crap you're complaining about...

 

[The Rabbi]

And why do you feel the need to deny involvement to something noone said you involved in? Guilty conscience?

Could I get an English translation for those sentences??

 

[The Rabbi]

The world is unfair.

No it isn't. The world is a chunk of rock orbiting a garden variety yellow star. It is not fair or unfair. It just is. The economy on the other hand is a man made thing. If the economy is unfair, that has nothing to do with market Gods, physics or any other natural laws. It has to do with people deciding to be unfair.

But of course, I made no argument regarding fairness. I made a simple statement of truth on what a mal distribution of wealth does. It makes capitalism eat itelf. Nobody made any substantive retort.

Life is not unfair. Life is eminently fair. Some people get more and some people get less based on a bunch of factors, including diligence and intelligence. That sounds pretty fair to me.

Tell it to a child born in Sudan yesterday.

Yes... eminently fair, only his own diligence and intelligence will determine whether he's the next Westinghouse or not...

A child born in Kenya grew up to be President of the United States.
Your point?

 

[JBeukema]

Distributed? Shouldn't wealth be earned?

Yes. That is the basic conflict.

Some of use believe people should be able to keep what they have earned or been voluntarily bequeathed.

Others would rather use unfettered government power to take away from some for their own benefit.

The moral systems upon which each side is based are Quite Different.

There is a third way...

 

[DiamondDave]

"Earning". The concept under argument here.

Whether I get my money from back breaking labor, inventing a new product, winning the lottery, producing Amish midget porn, finding a gold meteorite, inherited it from my parent's efforts, or got it from my 2nd wish from a goddamn genie is of no consequence

Surely, such a liberal interpretation of the word 'earned' embraces suing, printing, legislating, voting, and the very crap you're complaining about...

Suing, yes.. as you could be the recipient of a court awarded sum of money for someone else's negligence or criminal activity

Printing.... as in a printing business, yes... as in printing your own money, no because that is illegal

Legislation... yes, if you are earning money as a legislator.. no as in using legislation to distribute money to yourself

voting... no, as there is no compensation for voting

I am saying that I don't care how money is legally earned as income... the job or the source or the reason it happened or the amount is of no consequence... because no matter the source or amount each $ is taxed exactly the same for every last person.. no matter if you earn 10K or 10MIL

 

[The Rabbi]

Distributed? Shouldn't wealth be earned?

Yes. That is the basic conflict.

Some of use believe people should be able to keep what they have earned or been voluntarily bequeathed.

Others would rather use unfettered government power to take away from some for their own benefit.

The moral systems upon which each side is based are Quite Different.

There is a third way...

There is no third way. "Third way" is just Marxism by another name.

 

[JBeukema]

Distributed? Shouldn't wealth be earned?

Yes. That is the basic conflict.

Some of use believe people should be able to keep what they have earned or been voluntarily bequeathed.

Others would rather use unfettered government power to take away from some for their own benefit.

The moral systems upon which each side is based are Quite Different.

Then how about we use that model?

Take away more from the poor in this country..and give it to the poorer in other countries. Its the same principal. My guess the poor in this country would be pisses as hell if anything was taken away from them.

Are you familiar with the concept of marginal utility?

 

[JBeukema]

Yes. That is the basic conflict.

Some of use believe people should be able to keep what they have earned or been voluntarily bequeathed.

Others would rather use unfettered government power to take away from some for their own benefit.

The moral systems upon which each side is based are Quite Different.

There is a third way...

There is no third way. "Third way" is just Marxism by another name.

Really? There is no third way? There is only a totalitarian monarchy or Somalia?

 

[Bfgrn]

The only thing that impedes your ability to acquire wealth is you... You have the freedom to succeed that goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail... the same freedom every other citizen has... and it is ONLY that freedom that the government should ensure... It is not on government to give you a leg up at the expense of others for healthcare or education as an adult or a better house... nor should it be

No.... the only freedom the government should ensure is an even playing field. Right now the path to wealth accumulation is tilted towards those who already control most of it.

The working class does not expect to replace the super wealthy. All they want from life is time to be with their families, a modest home, a chance to see their children educated. The ability to reach that dream is slowly being eroded as wages are stagnant, colleges become more and more out of reach, a major illness or injury can take away everything you have saved.

Meanwhile the wealthy tell them they should be happy with their lot in life and they should really be blaming the poor for their plight......as they accumulate more and more wealth

No, winger... you are wrong... what you are calling for is for government to use power to sway the possible outcome... not an equal set of rules and the freedom to go where your decisions, efforts, choices, ideas, etc take you

What I or some wealthy person accumulates is of no worry to you in a free society.. nor should it be.... unless you are driven by envy and greed and wish to skew outcome by some warped and subjective view of 'fairness'

DDave...You are right: 'What I (you) or some wealthy person accumulates is of no worry to you (me) in a free society.. nor should it be'

But how you accumulate that wealth IS. If you make yourself rich, by making someone else poor, or harm someone either physically, monetarily or civilly, it is a worry to you, me and everyone in a free society..and it should it be'. Because that does not fit into any 'free market' principle. And, a "free market" doesn't exist. All markets are constructed.

 

[JBeukema]

Life is not unfair. Life is eminently fair. Some people get more and some people get less based on a bunch of factors, including diligence and intelligence. That sounds pretty fair to me.

Tell it to a child born in Sudan yesterday.

Yes... eminently fair, only his own diligence and intelligence will determine whether he's the next Westinghouse or not...

A child born in Kenya grew up to be President of the United States.
Your point?

 

[Intense]

We all live in the same world, my friend.

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

Maybe we should bring DDT back? What do you say? Should we send in the Marines? If we do, will we support them? Should we go back to Somalia? I'm with you. Some of us try to make a difference every day JB. There is much Evil to overcome.

Simply soaking everything- and everyone- in DDT over and again will not solve the problem.

Some regions simply can't support a population right now. I condemn as cruel anyone who brings a child into that. On the global scale, there are major population centers that can't be sustained, some regions that have no food and water, and some regions that, despite their bounty, or barely populated.

Of course, none of this would be an issue if humans would stop killing and hating eachother, but that's where religion enters the picture.

Within our own socialist sanctuary that we enjoy in this country, things might look alright and it might seem so grave to argue such petty things, but in the greater world around us, nothing has changed. Things are no done across the borders of nation-states and coupled with jingoism and a false sense of patriotism as they once were, but while the draperies have changed, what's going on behind the charade is the same. The rich exploit the poor and the greater stride across the corpses of the weak in imported designer shoes to buy a shiny new ipod built by a 10-year old who hasn't been allowed the factory premises in months lest he forfeit all the pay the still haven't given him.

And it's been going on since before they called it 'capitalism' and wrapping it up in red, white, and blue.

Never implied the answer was soaking everything in DDT, only that banning it's use has resulted in millions of deaths. We cannot operate where we are not welcome. Where we are welcome, we make a difference.

Want to make a difference? Check this out.

AmeriCares Disaster Relief and Humanitarian Aid Organization