Unequal distribution of wealth

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

[California Girl]

Because Obama says so. Of course, Obama just says what he's told to say.

 

[Revere]

The friction of the uneven dsitribution of wealth is the only incentive for self-actualization.

 

[Avatar4321]

The friction of the uneven dsitribution of wealth is the only incentive for self-actualization.

You may have to translate for some people here

 

[syrenn]

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.

Greed is the primes. Wanting what is NOT yours is the standard of the day.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Greed is the primes. Wanting what is NOT yours is the standard of the day.

Yes, but taking what isn't yours with the use of force is Robbery. Doesn't that bother anyone?

 

[WillowTree]

They got them a bad case of the "gimmmie gimmie's"

 

[syrenn]

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.

Greed is the primes. Wanting what is NOT yours is the standard of the day.

Yes, but taking what isn't yours with the use of force is Robbery. Doesn't that bother anyone?

It bothers the shit out of me, mainly because its my pockets they are reaching into...and im not part of the 1%

There is a romanticized notion of "robin hood" going on. Take from the rich and give to the poor.

 

[Avatar4321]

Greed is the primes. Wanting what is NOT yours is the standard of the day.

Yes, but taking what isn't yours with the use of force is Robbery. Doesn't that bother anyone?

It bothers the shit out of me, mainly because its my pockets they are reaching into...and im not part of the 1%

There is a romanticized notion of "robin hood" going on. Take from the rich and give to the poor.

I agree, but like many other things, the Left doesn't understand the story of Robin Hood.

 

[antagon]

depending on the circumstances of those on the low-end of an extremely polar wealth spread, it could be an indicator of the effectiveness and development of an economy. this caveat is the lacuna in arguments which try to cast the US in the light of impoverished nations with similar spreads. the 'poor' in the US are lower middle class. i think in the US, extremes of wealth create the spread instead of extremes of poverty. it indicates the extent of access afforded a few participants in our economy to international investment or commerce, with virtually all of those with massive wealth having this international significance.

 

[JBeukema]

If one monkey has 100 bananas, it matters not to him if his neighbor has 10,000 bananas, if his 100 is more than he or anyone else will ever need and none are in want.

However, if one barely has enough to get buy- let alone if one is starving- while another sits atop bananas he can never eat and giving a monkey in a black gown a few extra bananas to see to it that one is not allowed to get in the way of the rich monkey's banana harvest,,,

 

[Avatar4321]

depending on the circumstances of those on the low-end of an extremely polar wealth spread, it could be an indicator of the effectiveness and development of an economy. this caveat is the lacuna in arguments which try to cast the US in the light of impoverished nations with similar spreads. the 'poor' in the US are lower middle class. i think in the US, extremes of wealth create the spread instead of extremes of poverty. it indicates the extent of access afforded a few participants in our economy to international investment or commerce, with virtually all of those with massive wealth having this international significance.

I have to ask, what are the extremes of poverty? And why are they more extreme if other people have more money?

 

[Avatar4321]

If one monkey has 100 bananas, it matters not to him if his neighbor has 10,000 bananas, if his 100 is more than he or anyone else will ever need and none are in want.

However, if one barely has enough to get buy- let alone if one is starving- while another sits atop bananas he can never eat and giving a monkey in a black gown a few extra bananas to see to it that one is not allowed to get in the way of the rich monkey's banana harvest,,,

Interesting hypothetical. Problem is. It is a hypothetical.

Tell me, who is paying a judge to keep monkey number 1 from eating?

What is keeping monkey number 1 from doing work for monkey number 2?

More importantly, what is to stop monkey number 1 from going and earning 10,000 bananas the following day? or from Monkey number 2 from using all his bananas?

What is stopping Monkey 1's family from supporting him until he can get some new bananas? What is stopping Monkey 2 from voluntarily giving away his bananas to those who deems needs them of his own accord?

Problem with your hypotheical is it doesn't address reality or really answer why the unequal distribution of wealth is bad.

 

[antagon]

depending on the circumstances of those on the low-end of an extremely polar wealth spread, it could be an indicator of the effectiveness and development of an economy. this caveat is the lacuna in arguments which try to cast the US in the light of impoverished nations with similar spreads. the 'poor' in the US are lower middle class. i think in the US, extremes of wealth create the spread instead of extremes of poverty. it indicates the extent of access afforded a few participants in our economy to international investment or commerce, with virtually all of those with massive wealth having this international significance.

I have to ask, what are the extremes of poverty? And why are they more extreme if other people have more money?

extremes of poverty are assessable independent of wealth. starvation and disease, homelessness... do you really have no clue what that is?

extremes of wealth can only be assessed from a study of income spread. it would be the tip of the high end of the scale.

 

[Big Black Dog]

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.

Greed is the primes. Wanting what is NOT yours is the standard of the day.

Bingo! We have a winner. This is the exact reason for all the yelling and screaming about the equal distribution of wealth.

 

[The Rabbi]

depending on the circumstances of those on the low-end of an extremely polar wealth spread, it could be an indicator of the effectiveness and development of an economy. this caveat is the lacuna in arguments which try to cast the US in the light of impoverished nations with similar spreads. the 'poor' in the US are lower middle class. i think in the US, extremes of wealth create the spread instead of extremes of poverty. it indicates the extent of access afforded a few participants in our economy to international investment or commerce, with virtually all of those with massive wealth having this international significance.

I have to ask, what are the extremes of poverty? And why are they more extreme if other people have more money?

extremes of poverty are assessable independent of wealth. starvation and disease, homelessness... do you really have no clue what that is?

extremes of wealth can only be assessed from a study of income spread. it would be the tip of the high end of the scale.

OK.
The poor in this country live better than most middle class people in about 75% of the rest of the world.
So the problem is not poverty.
JBPukema's Monkeys give an interesting insight: There is no discussion as to how one monkey had many more bananas than the other. Similarly there is no discussion as to how some people became wealthy. To the Left wealth simply IS. Like some people are born with musical talent, others are born with money. Even if they earned it, they somehow had it already. So an uneven distribution ipso facto means some people are putting one over on other people.
This is how the Left thinks. Wealth is a zero sum game. I can only become wealthy if I "take" money from you. You are poor because someone took your money from you.
The idea that I become wealthy by trading with you, and you do as well, is alien. This is why we see so many calls for tariffs on this board. It is nothing other than envy and ignorance.

 

[JBeukema]

If one monkey has 100 bananas, it matters not to him if his neighbor has 10,000 bananas, if his 100 is more than he or anyone else will ever need and none are in want.

However, if one barely has enough to get buy- let alone if one is starving- while another sits atop bananas he can never eat and giving a monkey in a black gown a few extra bananas to see to it that one is not allowed to get in the way of the rich monkey's banana harvest,,,

Interesting hypothetical. Problem is. It is a hypothetical.

Tell me, who is paying a judge to keep monkey number 1 from eating?

First, you tell me where anyone posited any such thing as you're positing?

What is keeping monkey number 1 from doing work for monkey number 2?

If M^2 cannot exploit M^1 for M^2's gain, how is M^1 to get M^2 to hire him?

More importantly, what is to stop monkey number 1 from going and earning 10,000 bananas the following day?

Are you willing to pay M^1 10,000 bananas for something? You know someone in desperate need of a good or service that they'll offer 10,000 bananas for?

or from Monkey number 2 from using all his bananas?

I assure you, he's found every way of wasting them

What is stopping Monkey 1's family from supporting him until he can get some new bananas?

His parents and only child died of starvation last winter. His sister survives thanks to the United Christian Children's Fund.

What is stopping Monkey 2 from voluntarily giving away his bananas to those who deems needs them of his own accord?

Yes, if only monkey nature weren't in the way of Christian Socialism/Heaven..

Problem with your hypotheical is it doesn't address reality or really answer why the unequal distribution of wealth is bad.

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.

 

[antagon]

I have to ask, what are the extremes of poverty? And why are they more extreme if other people have more money?

extremes of poverty are assessable independent of wealth. starvation and disease, homelessness... do you really have no clue what that is?

extremes of wealth can only be assessed from a study of income spread. it would be the tip of the high end of the scale.

OK.
The poor in this country live better than most middle class people in about 75% of the rest of the world.
So the problem is not poverty.
JBPukema's Monkeys give an interesting insight: There is no discussion as to how one monkey had many more bananas than the other. Similarly there is no discussion as to how some people became wealthy. To the Left wealth simply IS. Like some people are born with musical talent, others are born with money. Even if they earned it, they somehow had it already. So an uneven distribution ipso facto means some people are putting one over on other people.
This is how the Left thinks. Wealth is a zero sum game. I can only become wealthy if I "take" money from you. You are poor because someone took your money from you.
The idea that I become wealthy by trading with you, and you do as well, is alien. This is why we see so many calls for tariffs on this board. It is nothing other than envy and ignorance.

how does this have anything to do with what i've posted?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

 

[JBeukema]

I have to ask, what are the extremes of poverty? And why are they more extreme if other people have more money?

extremes of poverty are assessable independent of wealth. starvation and disease, homelessness... do you really have no clue what that is?

extremes of wealth can only be assessed from a study of income spread. it would be the tip of the high end of the scale.

OK.
The poor in this country live better than most middle class people in about 75% of the rest of the world.
So the problem is not poverty.

Define: poverty

Also, some people don't only care about people on the 'correct' sign of an imaginary line in the dirt.

JBPukema's Monkeys give an interesting insight: There is no discussion as to how one monkey had many more bananas than the other

When I beat you with a stick, does it matter any longer from whence I got the stick?

Like some people are born with musical talent, others are born with money

you mean inheritance?

This is how the Left thinks. Wealth is a zero sum game. I can only become wealthy if I "take" money from you. You are poor because someone took your money from you.

Only you have posited any such thing here

The idea that I become wealthy by trading with you, and you do as well, is alien

Hence my innumerable comments regarding the subjective theory of value and my links to mises.org

But don't let facts and reality be of any trouble to you, my dear slumlord- you never have before.

. This is why we see so many calls for tariffs on this board. It is nothing other than envy and ignorance.[/quote]