Wealth Redistribution

[Oddball]

Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.
Individuals can only create wealth in a group.


Some ideas are just so succinctly and correctly put that they're worth repeating.

Groups of unproductive parasites create no wealth at all, no matter how allegedly good their claimed intentions.

Some ideas are just so succinctly and correctly put that they're worth repeating....But I won't bore the folx by reiterating such a self-evident truth.

 

[expat_panama]

...In order to prosper we also need both a diversity of wealth and the elimination the extremes of wealth and poverty --because extremes polarize and restrict both freedom and wealth creation.

Why do we need to eliminate the extremes of wealth and poverty? If everyone has exactly the same amount of money, which is the only way to accomplish the elimination of the extremes, what benefit accrues to society as a whole?

Remember that it begins "In order to prosper we also need both a diversity of wealth and..." The way we keep diversity while eliminating extremes is by preventing aspects mentioned at the end of the sentence which "polarize and restrict both freedom and wealth creation." So the real question is 'what aspects?'

Diversity of wealth means we got poor people, rich people, middle class types, and everything in between. Polarized wealth means we got very rich, very poor, and no middle. It has extremes of wealth that happen when one part of the group grabs all the goodies leaving the rest in squalor. The examples that come to mind are slave/plantation economies and communist states but I repeat myself. The point is that if there's no middle there's no mobiliity from poor to rich, so the best way to eliminate the lumps at the ends is to fill the hole in the middle.

All this detailed explanation was left out earlier because usually long rants are boring, but please let me know if I covered it better this time.

 

[Oddball]

Diversity of wealth means we got poor people, rich people, middle class types, and everything in between. Polarized wealth means we got very rich, very poor, and no middle. It has extremes of wealth that happen when one part of the group grabs all the goodies leaving the rest in squalor. The examples that come to mind are slave/plantation economies and communist states but I repeat myself. The point is that if there's no middle there's no mobiliity from poor to rich, so the best way to eliminate the lumps at the ends is to fill the hole in the middle.

Gee....America has never had more bloated, bureaucratic, burdensome and costly gubmint, at all levels, and all we seem to hear from the pimps for that bloated, bureaucratic, burdensome and costly gubmint is how badly the wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

And their "solution" is?....Even more bloated, bureaucratic, burdensome and costly gubmint!!

 

[expat_panama]

...we seem to hear from the pimps for that bloated, bureaucratic, burdensome and costly gubmint is how badly the wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands....

--and they're lying. They're also lying when they try to tell us they're running everything. They aren't, we are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...In order to prosper we also need both a diversity of wealth and the elimination the extremes of wealth and poverty --because extremes polarize and restrict both freedom and wealth creation.

Why do we need to eliminate the extremes of wealth and poverty? If everyone has exactly the same amount of money, which is the only way to accomplish the elimination of the extremes, what benefit accrues to society as a whole?

Remember that it begins "In order to prosper we also need both a diversity of wealth and..." The way we keep diversity while eliminating extremes is by preventing aspects mentioned at the end of the sentence which "polarize and restrict both freedom and wealth creation." So the real question is 'what aspects?'

Diversity of wealth means we got poor people, rich people, middle class types, and everything in between. Polarized wealth means we got very rich, very poor, and no middle. It has extremes of wealth that happen when one part of the group grabs all the goodies leaving the rest in squalor. The examples that come to mind are slave/plantation economies and communist states but I repeat myself. The point is that if there's no middle there's no mobiliity from poor to rich, so the best way to eliminate the lumps at the ends is to fill the hole in the middle.

All this detailed explanation was left out earlier because usually long rants are boring, but please let me know if I covered it better this time.

I do not see a lack of diversity. A lack of diversity would be everyone having equal wealth, not some people having a lot and the rest having less. You can compare us to plantations all day long, it does not change the facts. If we were slaves Bill Gates would not now be one of the richest men in the world.

The middle class in America is not shrinking because the wealth are getting richer, it is shrinking because the middle class are moving up. Even the poor in America are rich in comparison to the middle class in some countries. Stop worrying about the extremes and start working on getting rich yourself.

 

[expat_panama]

...You can compare us to plantations all day long, it does not change the facts...

Hey Quant, I'm agreeing with you, what part of "yes" don't you understand? Like, you can say I'm comparing us to plantations all day long but it won't change the fact that I know it's stupid and that I said the communist states were slaveholders. Like Oddball pointed out, the leftist lie is--

...how badly the wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. And their "solution" is?....Even more bloated, bureaucratic, burdensome and costly gubmint!!

Raw data can appear to say America's income inequality is worsening, but the Heritage Foundation showed in a paper how after also correcting for inequalities in education, in hours worked, statistical lying by the Census Dept., and length of career that all the inequality of income disappears. They also showed how the US middle class hasn't shrunk from people moving up, it's expanded as the young moved in.

 

[Foxfyre]

...You can compare us to plantations all day long, it does not change the facts...

Hey Quant, I'm agreeing with you, what part of "yes" don't you understand? Like, you can say I'm comparing us to plantations all day long but it won't change the fact that I know it's stupid and that I said the communist states were slaveholders. Like Oddball pointed out, the leftist lie is--

...how badly the wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. And their "solution" is?....Even more bloated, bureaucratic, burdensome and costly gubmint!!

Raw data can appear to say America's income inequality is worsening, but the Heritage Foundation showed in a paper how after also correcting for inequalities in education, in hours worked, statistical lying by the Census Dept., and length of career that all the inequality of income disappears. They also showed how the US middle class hasn't shrunk from people moving up, it's expanded as the young moved in.

An objective student of history sees the track record of government manipulation of wealth and can't find much to commend in that. The dedicated leftist will often cherry pick whatever facts and figures support his/her ideology. The dedicated rightwinger will often do the same. Groups like CATO and The Heritage Foundation do wonderful research and generally tell it like it is with all the positives and negative included.

Bottom line. When government turns the people loose and gets out of the way, the people find a way to prosper and the more gifted and motivated will indeed prosper more than the less gifted and motivated. But those who move up the ladder more quickly leave opportunity for others in their wake.

When government rewards people for being poor or less gifted or less motivated and punishes people for moving up the ladder more quickly than others, the net results are generally less opportunity and prosperity for all.

 

[midcan5]

I think this is what your looking for.

YouTube - ‪Friedman and Sowell on Equality‬‏

Sowell's comments are so absurd they are incomprehensible. I wondered at his age and found him old enough to have seen life, so I guess it is true that we only see what we want to see, what we are programmed to see, what we are capable of seeing. But having lived through those times and having seen lots firsthand, I can only wonder what ingredients make people who they are?

Friedman's analogy is interesting even if off base, his argument actually supports my point that wealth is usually not earned but born into. We could say the same for the talented musicians. That is a deterministic a point of view, but a neat apology for anything that follows. I had no idea I had to pick musically talented parents? Who knew.

Back to Sowell for a minute, he claims equality reduces freedom, can anyone tell me how? If we only have a wealthy, class and everyone else, how would a move towards equality equal less freedom. But freedom is too broad an abstraction. Freedom can only mean opportunity and if you have none you are hardly free. I asked that question here and make the argument freedom isn't just a slogan." http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html "

Hoffer got this one right.

"Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority." Eric Hoffer

 

[midcan5]

Raw data can appear to say America's income inequality is worsening, but the Heritage Foundation showed in a paper how after also correcting for inequalities in education, in hours worked, statistical lying by the Census Dept., and length of career that all the inequality of income disappears. They also showed how the US middle class hasn't shrunk from people moving up, it's expanded as the young moved in.

The stats on food stamps and poverty contradict some of the more esoteric surveys. The piece below gives many interesting statistics on the economic gaps in America.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power


"The historical evidence is clear: welfare reduces poverty, and the lack of it increases it. In the 1920s, fully half of all Americans could not make ends meet. Roosevelt's New Deal programs had reduced poverty to about 20 percent in the 50s. Johnson's Great Society reduced this to 11.1 percent by 1973. Since the rise of the corporate special interest system in 1975, individual welfare benefits have been shrinking, and poverty has been steadily rising, to over 15 percent today." Welfare increases poverty

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...You can compare us to plantations all day long, it does not change the facts...

Hey Quant, I'm agreeing with you, what part of "yes" don't you understand? Like, you can say I'm comparing us to plantations all day long but it won't change the fact that I know it's stupid and that I said the communist states were slaveholders. Like Oddball pointed out, the leftist lie is--

...how badly the wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. And their "solution" is?....Even more bloated, bureaucratic, burdensome and costly gubmint!!

Raw data can appear to say America's income inequality is worsening, but the Heritage Foundation showed in a paper how after also correcting for inequalities in education, in hours worked, statistical lying by the Census Dept., and length of career that all the inequality of income disappears. They also showed how the US middle class hasn't shrunk from people moving up, it's expanded as the young moved in.

My apologies, I misunderstood what you were saying. In my defense, at times I am quite dense.

 

[boedicca]

Diversity of wealth means we got poor people, rich people, middle class types, and everything in between. Polarized wealth means we got very rich, very poor, and no middle. It has extremes of wealth that happen when one part of the group grabs all the goodies leaving the rest in squalor. The examples that come to mind are slave/plantation economies and communist states but I repeat myself. The point is that if there's no middle there's no mobiliity from poor to rich, so the best way to eliminate the lumps at the ends is to fill the hole in the middle.

Gee....America has never had more bloated, bureaucratic, burdensome and costly gubmint, at all levels, and all we seem to hear from the pimps for that bloated, bureaucratic, burdensome and costly gubmint is how badly the wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

And their "solution" is?....Even more bloated, bureaucratic, burdensome and costly gubmint!!

Indeed. And here is the level at which they are micro-managing us:

The bunny-selling business that John Dollarhite considered as harmless as a lemonade stand has led to an investigation by a federal agency and talk of a defense fund.

The Nixa man is facing a $90,643 penalty, based on accusations he sold rabbits and guinea pigs without a license from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

A proposed settlement agreement from the federal agency, which oversees the sale of animals, said Dollarhite sold 619 animals from April 3, 2008 to Dec. 21, 2009, despite being told several times that he needed a license. Dollarhite's business was called Dollarvalue Rabbitry. The business has been closed.

(snip)

Dollarhite said the business originally was his son's. That son is now 18, and Dollarhite hasn't sold any rabbits since early 2010, after a meeting with a USDA inspector.

"It was a child's business just like a lemonade stand," Dollarhite said.

He said the business made about $200 in profit from April 2008 to December 2009 from selling rabbits for $10 or $12 apiece.

Nixa man faces penalty of over $90,000 for rabbit sales | Springfield News-Leader | News-Leader.com


The full weight of the federal government applied to a kids raising some bunnies.

No wonder the economy is not creating any jobs.

"Now they say we owe $90,643," Dollarhite said. "It's a little bit crazy."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think this is what your looking for.

YouTube - ‪Friedman and Sowell on Equality‬‏

Sowell's comments are so absurd they are incomprehensible. I wondered at his age and found him old enough to have seen life, so I guess it is true that we only see what we want to see, what we are programmed to see, what we are capable of seeing. But having lived through those times and having seen lots firsthand, I can only wonder what ingredients make people who they are?

Friedman's analogy is interesting even if off base, his argument actually supports my point that wealth is usually not earned but born into. We could say the same for the talented musicians. That is a deterministic a point of view, but a neat apology for anything that follows. I had no idea I had to pick musically talented parents? Who knew.

Back to Sowell for a minute, he claims equality reduces freedom, can anyone tell me how? If we only have a wealthy, class and everyone else, how would a move towards equality equal less freedom. But freedom is too broad an abstraction. Freedom can only mean opportunity and if you have none you are hardly free. I asked that question here and make the argument freedom isn't just a slogan." http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html "

Hoffer got this one right.

"Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority." Eric Hoffer

You want to fix your perception that we are less free because some people are rich by making it impossible for anyone to get rich, and then wonder how anyone can think that makes us less free? Do you even see how absurd that position is, or are you absolutely incapable of seeing past the blather you have been spoon fed your entire life?

Stop relying on others to experience life and take a look around, the world is a wonderful place.

 

[boedicca]

I think this is what your looking for.

YouTube - ‪Friedman and Sowell on Equality‬‏

Sowell's comments are so absurd they are incomprehensible. I wondered at his age and found him old enough to have seen life, so I guess it is true that we only see what we want to see, what we are programmed to see, what we are capable of seeing. But having lived through those times and having seen lots firsthand, I can only wonder what ingredients make people who they are?

Friedman's analogy is interesting even if off base, his argument actually supports my point that wealth is usually not earned but born into. We could say the same for the talented musicians. That is a deterministic a point of view, but a neat apology for anything that follows. I had no idea I had to pick musically talented parents? Who knew.

Back to Sowell for a minute, he claims equality reduces freedom, can anyone tell me how? If we only have a wealthy, class and everyone else, how would a move towards equality equal less freedom. But freedom is too broad an abstraction. Freedom can only mean opportunity and if you have none you are hardly free. I asked that question here and make the argument freedom isn't just a slogan." http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html "

Hoffer got this one right.

"Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority." Eric Hoffer

You want to fix your perception that we are less free because some people are rich by making it impossible for anyone to get rich, and then wonder how anyone can think that makes us less free? Do you even see how absurd that position is, or are you absolutely incapable of seeing past the blather you have been spoon fed your entire life?

Stop relying on others to experience life and take a look around, the world is a wonderful place.

There's a fable about that:


It happened that a Fox caught its tail in a trap, and in struggling to release himself lost all of it but the stump. At first he was ashamed to show himself among his fellow foxes. But at last he determined to put a bolder face upon his misfortune, and summoned all the foxes to a general meeting to consider a proposal which he had to place before them. When they had assembled together the Fox proposed that they should all do away with their tails. He pointed out how inconvenient a tail was when
they were pursued by their enemies, the dogs; how much it was in the way when they desired to sit down and hold a friendly conversation with one another. He failed to see any advantage in carrying about such a useless encumbrance.

"That is all very well," said one of the older foxes; "but I do not think you would have recommended us to dispense with our chief ornament if you had not happened to lose it yourself."

The Fox Without a Tail an Aesop's Fable

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Diversity of wealth means we got poor people, rich people, middle class types, and everything in between. Polarized wealth means we got very rich, very poor, and no middle. It has extremes of wealth that happen when one part of the group grabs all the goodies leaving the rest in squalor. The examples that come to mind are slave/plantation economies and communist states but I repeat myself. The point is that if there's no middle there's no mobiliity from poor to rich, so the best way to eliminate the lumps at the ends is to fill the hole in the middle.

Gee....America has never had more bloated, bureaucratic, burdensome and costly gubmint, at all levels, and all we seem to hear from the pimps for that bloated, bureaucratic, burdensome and costly gubmint is how badly the wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

And their "solution" is?....Even more bloated, bureaucratic, burdensome and costly gubmint!!

Indeed. And here is the level at which they are micro-managing us:

The bunny-selling business that John Dollarhite considered as harmless as a lemonade stand has led to an investigation by a federal agency and talk of a defense fund.

The Nixa man is facing a $90,643 penalty, based on accusations he sold rabbits and guinea pigs without a license from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

A proposed settlement agreement from the federal agency, which oversees the sale of animals, said Dollarhite sold 619 animals from April 3, 2008 to Dec. 21, 2009, despite being told several times that he needed a license. Dollarhite's business was called Dollarvalue Rabbitry. The business has been closed.

(snip)

Dollarhite said the business originally was his son's. That son is now 18, and Dollarhite hasn't sold any rabbits since early 2010, after a meeting with a USDA inspector.

"It was a child's business just like a lemonade stand," Dollarhite said.

He said the business made about $200 in profit from April 2008 to December 2009 from selling rabbits for $10 or $12 apiece.

Nixa man faces penalty of over $90,000 for rabbit sales | Springfield News-Leader | News-Leader.com


The full weight of the federal government applied to a kids raising some bunnies.

No wonder the economy is not creating any jobs.

"Now they say we owe $90,643," Dollarhite said. "It's a little bit crazy."

I keep wondering where people that think regulations exist to protect us from big business leave their brains. Regulations in their current form exist to protect big business from competition.

 

[Wiseacre]

" Back to Sowell for a minute, he claims equality reduces freedom, can anyone tell me how? "


I think Sowell is talking about gov't programs and policies that are intended to redress inequalities, such as affirmative action, by focusing on outcomes rather than causes. He's saying (I think) that in so doing you are reducing somebody else's freedom, and that such ideas are essentially zero sum.

Speaking for myself, I'd rather see a more effective use of time and money in our education and training systems so that more people have a fair shot at whatever they define success to be. I don't know how to do that, but I do know that what we've doing so far ain't working. For starters, I think we need to get rid of the teacher's unions who are more interested in feathering their own beds rather than improving our kids' learning. I also think the federal gov't has no business interfering in this area, it should entirely be a state and local issue.

 

[Publius1787]

" Back to Sowell for a minute, he claims equality reduces freedom, can anyone tell me how? "


I think Sowell is talking about gov't programs and policies that are intended to redress inequalities, such as affirmative action, by focusing on outcomes rather than causes. He's saying (I think) that in so doing you are reducing somebody else's freedom, and that such ideas are essentially zero sum.

Speaking for myself, I'd rather see a more effective use of time and money in our education and training systems so that more people have a fair shot at whatever they define success to be. I don't know how to do that, but I do know that what we've doing so far ain't working. For starters, I think we need to get rid of the teacher's unions who are more interested in feathering their own beds rather than improving our kids' learning. I also think the federal gov't has no business interfering in this area, it should entirely be a state and local issue.

If you place equality before liberty you will have neither. If you place liberty before equality you will have a great deal of both.

 

[Foxfyre]

" Back to Sowell for a minute, he claims equality reduces freedom, can anyone tell me how? "


I think Sowell is talking about gov't programs and policies that are intended to redress inequalities, such as affirmative action, by focusing on outcomes rather than causes. He's saying (I think) that in so doing you are reducing somebody else's freedom, and that such ideas are essentially zero sum.

Speaking for myself, I'd rather see a more effective use of time and money in our education and training systems so that more people have a fair shot at whatever they define success to be. I don't know how to do that, but I do know that what we've doing so far ain't working. For starters, I think we need to get rid of the teacher's unions who are more interested in feathering their own beds rather than improving our kids' learning. I also think the federal gov't has no business interfering in this area, it should entirely be a state and local issue.

The quotation in context:

“Any process to ascribe any status to any group of people; equality, inferiority, superiority, must necessarily reduce freedom. Because whatever the government wishes to ascribe to any group, whatever place, to use the phrase that’s more common in the South—that Blacks should have their place—whatever place the government is going to assign to people, that place will not coincide with either what all those people are doing or with how others percieve all those people, because there’s too much diversity among human beings. To maintain any system of ascribed status from the top is going to mean reducing people’s freedom across the spectrum.”--Thomas Sowell PhD

In other words, whenever government or any group attempt to assign equality, they will of necessity be disallowing differences in ability, ambition, aspirations, or definitions of success that will exist among people regardless of any other criteria prescribed. Among the human race or any other species, some will be more 'equal' than others. It is sufficient to not discriminate on basis of race, gender, etc. But secure the unalienable rights of all and then get government out of it and allow people freedom to aspire and achieve as they are able or inclined to do.

 

[editec]

The greatest wealth distrubition in human history was the recent bailout swindle orchestrated by the FED and TREAURY under both the Bush II administration and Obama administrion.

Those of you who object to that, have my full support.

Call it socialism, call it cronnyism, call it totally screwed up economic policy or call it a crime.

Whatever you call it is was wealth distribution on a massive scale.

And most of the money went from the American taxpayers to a very select group of INSIDERS most of who deserved a prison sentence rather than bailout.

 

[Foxfyre]

The great wealth distrubitioon in human history was the recent bailout swindle orchestrated by the Bush II administration and Obama administrion.

Those of you who object to that, have my full support.

Call it socialism, call it cronnism, call it a crime.

Whatever you call it is was wealth distribution on a massive scale.

It was wealth RE-distribution. Wealth distribution, by my definition, would be me spending or contributing my own property or labor voluntarily either for agreed value received or out of the goodness of my heart.

Wealth distribution against my will is generally called theft.

Wealth RE-distribution involves a third party which in this case is the government. It is confiscation of my property without due compensation and/or without providing any benefit to me for the express purpose of enriching or benefitting another.

 

[Oddball]

The greatest wealth distrubition in human history was the recent bailout swindle orchestrated by the FED and TREAURY under both the Bush II administration and Obama administrion.

Those of you who object to that, have my full support.

Call it socialism, call it cronnyism, call it totally screwed up economic policy or call it a crime.

Whatever you call it is was wealth distribution on a massive scale.

And most of the money went from the American taxpayers to a very select group of INSIDERS most of who deserved a prison sentence rather than bailout.

The greatest wealth redistribution scam in human history has been the Fed itself, which has been the institution behind all the bailouts, from Lockheed, to NYC, to Cleveland, to Mexico, to TARP, to the current money laundering operation headquartered at 1600 Pennsylvania.

This scam has been going on for nearly a century, Bubba.