CDZ redistribution of wealth

[there4eyeM]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down is wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

Sorry, you're not making a lick of sense. You sound like a typical Progressive xxxxx who believe that buying an iPhone 6 is wrong because it makes the buyer poorer and the Seller richer

 

[there4eyeM]

(sorry, I forgot to take out an 'is'; the post is now edited.)

I thought this was the clean debate zone, free of immediately knee jerk reinterpretation of words and personal invective.
Would anyone else care to contribute something objective to an objective question?

 

[Geaux4it]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

Because socialism always fails which is the top down model.

-Geaux

 

[JoeMoma]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

By social institutions, do yo mean government? Or are you including the free market in your so called institutions? It is part of the American Dream for someone to create a better mouse trap and to prosper by providing that mousetrap to the consumers. On the other hand, many people maintain their wealth through crony capitalism, which I consider wrong.

 

[dblack]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

Both instances are wrong. The latter is obviously more egregious, but an inevitable outcome of endorsing the former.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yes, everyone remember this is CDZ. Thanks

 

[Geaux4it]

Yes, everyone remember this is CDZ. Thanks

Indeed. Nothing to fear here yet. I do dig the pro-active nature though

-Geaux

 

[Cassandro]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

Care to give an example to illustrate your "objective question?"

 

[Freemason9]

I don't know about the tiresome "socialism vs. capitalism" standbys, but it seems apparent that production (laborers) have created a vast amount of wealth that is inappropriately confiscated by firms. Wages should increase so that the source of the profits (laborers) are equitably compensated for their success and productivity.

Workers are everything and the source of all capital.

 

[dblack]

I don't know about the tiresome "socialism vs. capitalism" standbys, but it seems apparent that production (laborers) have created a vast amount of wealth that is inappropriately confiscated by firms. Wages should increase so that the source of the profits (laborers) are equitably compensated for their success and productivity.

Workers are everything and the source of all capital.

You don't know know about tiresome "socialism vs. capitalism" standbys?? Coulda fooled me. You sure seem to have them down pat.

 

[Cassandro]

I don't know about the tiresome "socialism vs. capitalism" standbys, but it seems apparent that production (laborers) have created a vast amount of wealth that is inappropriately confiscated by firms. Wages should increase so that the source of the profits (laborers) are equitably compensated for their success and productivity.

Workers are everything and the source of all capital.

Tell that to Bill Gates. He (and his employees) obviously needs your valuable insight.

 

[Andylusion]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

Wealth is not "distributed". Wealth is created and destroyed. But it is not "distributed".

When you forcibly "redistribute" wealth, that involves stealing the wealth that someone has rightfully earned, and giving it to someone who has not earned it. Yes, that is wrong. If I come to your home and steal your stuff, you would call the police, arguably because you think your wealth being redistributed to me, is wrong.

Bottom up wealth redistribution, doesn't exist. Poor people learning a skill, and working a higher paying job, is not 'redistribution'. It is simply people creating more wealth, and thus earning more, thus having more.

Yes, that's ok. In fact, I encourage it.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't know about the tiresome "socialism vs. capitalism" standbys, but it seems apparent that production (laborers) have created a vast amount of wealth that is inappropriately confiscated by firms. Wages should increase so that the source of the profits (laborers) are equitably compensated for their success and productivity.

Workers are everything and the source of all capital.

That's not true.

If workers are everything and source of all capital, prove it by starting your own auto factory, by yourselves. Good luck with that.

 

[regent]

Do all nations have a system for redistributing the wealth of their nation?

 

[Freemason9]

I don't know about the tiresome "socialism vs. capitalism" standbys, but it seems apparent that production (laborers) have created a vast amount of wealth that is inappropriately confiscated by firms. Wages should increase so that the source of the profits (laborers) are equitably compensated for their success and productivity.

Workers are everything and the source of all capital.

That's not true.

If workers are everything and source of all capital, prove it by starting your own auto factory, by yourselves. Good luck with that.

Sure. Build a car, sell it, make the money. The difference between the cost of the material and the selling price is the value created by LABOR.

I didn't realize that was tough for people to understand.

I sort of get what you're saying, because you base value creation on the existence of capitalists to initiate activity. In fact, though, necessity and need initiate activity, and labor responds. That has always been the law of economics.

 

[Picaro]

I don't know about the tiresome "socialism vs. capitalism" standbys, but it seems apparent that production (laborers) have created a vast amount of wealth that is inappropriately confiscated by firms. Wages should increase so that the source of the profits (laborers) are equitably compensated for their success and productivity.

Workers are everything and the source of all capital.

Tell that to Bill Gates. He (and his employees) obviously needs your valuable insight.

Bill gates counts as a 'worker' when he actually added value to something; he long since ceased being one, and turn to financial piracy instead to maintain a market monopoly over a set of technical innovations invented by others. In any case, without the American government paying for the expenses of research and development, he would never had an industry to play in in the first place.

Gates is fond of suing and/or intimidating smaller firms with 'patent suits' and the like, knowing new firms can't afford toe legal expenses, regardless of the merits of the suits. He's not alone in this tactic. A large reason why the motherboard industry and other computer related industries off-shored was because of the Intel-MS cartel doing this. Apple is no prize either; Jobs and co. did, and still do, the exact same type of harassment and legal extortions.

 

[Picaro]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

Wealth is not "distributed". Wealth is created and destroyed. But it is not "distributed".

When you forcibly "redistribute" wealth, that involves stealing the wealth that someone has rightfully earned, and giving it to someone who has not earned it. Yes, that is wrong. If I come to your home and steal your stuff, you would call the police, arguably because you think your wealth being redistributed to me, is wrong.

Bottom up wealth redistribution, doesn't exist. Poor people learning a skill, and working a higher paying job, is not 'redistribution'. It is simply people creating more wealth, and thus earning more, thus having more.

Yes, that's ok. In fact, I encourage it.

The only kind of wealth distribution possible is 'bottom up' in most capitalist systems. This is why depressions like the current one happen; produced wealth is sucked up to the unproductive financial sector. The more productivity gains that get sucked up into the financial sector, the less income there is in the lower income brackets to spend on consumption of goods, which in turn invariably leads to less demand, which leads to laying off workers, which leads to less investment and cutbacks in capital spenidng, which in turn leads to less consumption, etc. It's a spiral, with everyone doing the 'rational' thing as individuals and companies, despite the macro-economic results. What is good for the individual, whether labor or business owner, isn't always good all the time on a macro-economic level. How many TV sets is Bill Gates going to buy, and is he going to buy one in every town on the planet and contribute to the local economy and sales tax revenue ? ...

 

[Andylusion]

Do all nations have a system for redistributing the wealth of their nation?

At some level, yes.

There is no black and white system as of yet. Even the Soviet Union was not 100% socialism. In fact, 1/3rd of all food produced in the Soivet Union was produced on for-profit private farms.

However, as a system moves more towards the socialistic left, the worse off the system works. The more towards the Capitalist right, the better off it does.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't know about the tiresome "socialism vs. capitalism" standbys, but it seems apparent that production (laborers) have created a vast amount of wealth that is inappropriately confiscated by firms. Wages should increase so that the source of the profits (laborers) are equitably compensated for their success and productivity.

Workers are everything and the source of all capital.

That's not true.

If workers are everything and source of all capital, prove it by starting your own auto factory, by yourselves. Good luck with that.

Sure. Build a car, sell it, make the money. The difference between the cost of the material and the selling price is the value created by LABOR.

I didn't realize that was tough for people to understand.

I sort of get what you're saying, because you base value creation on the existence of capitalists to initiate activity. In fact, though, necessity and need initiate activity, and labor responds. That has always been the law of economics.

Fail?

Let's try that again. If workers are everything and source of all capital, prove it by starting your own auto factory, by yourselves.

I want to see you actually live out your claim. Start with no capital. Build a auto factory, and produce and sell cars.

You and spew all the blaw blaw blaw blaw you want. But until I actually see you build an auto manufacturing plant with no capitalist backers.... it's all just words. blaw blaw blaw blaw blaw. Back up your words with verifiable action.

I want to see an auto manufacturing plant, built without any capitalists. Let's see you do it. Start with just the engine. How exactly are you planning to even DESIGN your cars engine without capital? Who pays the engineers? Fail?