Unequal distribution of wealth

[JBeukema]

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

I am saying that I don't care how money is legally earned as income..

Legally? So if Der Staat ensured you could only work for one company because all others are illegal..?

 

[rightwinger]

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'

You are naive if you believe the government is not currently using its power to sway the possible outcome in favor of the wealthy. "He who has the gold makes the rules" is our form of commerce. The wealthy write the tax code, they influence laws that allow them to compete at an unfair advantage, they influence labor code, government subsidies and loans ....all to the advance ment of their further wealth.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Only according to you.
But everything is some difference of degree between those extremes.

 

[JBeukema]

Unequal wealth distribution is...an indicator of how all members of a society are doing.

Not by itself. For context, you'd have to look at how the lowest castes are doing.

 

[JBeukema]

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?

Only according to you.
But everything is some difference of degree between those extremes.

So there is a third way after all? And maybe even a fourth [international]


?

 

[JBeukema]

Did fitz just cite the price of oil and expect us to sympathize with the oil companies?


Their profits are protected by our ******* men in uniform.

 

[LiberalNut]

The Rabbi:A child born in Kenya grew up to be President of the United States.

So much for taking this ******* imbecile seriously.

 

[LiberalNut]

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'

PERSON being the operable word. When a SMALL CLASS OF PEOPLE accumulate too much of the national wealth, by whatever means, the results are as I stated. The masses can no longer consume to the output capacity of industry, causing recession and the small, rich class gambles with the money rather than putting it to productive use. Look around. Is this not what you see?

The basic failing of the rightist dogma is it's infatuation with the individual coupled with an inane "fairness" doctrine. Reasonable people need to look beyond the individual and the faux morality of the rich and look at SOCIETY. The argument for redistribution is UTILITARIAN.

When wealth is in mal distribution, the economy eats itself.

When there is a proper distribution of wealth, the economy works.

It's as simple as that. And, the truth of the matter is, a proper distribution of wealth WILL NOT BE EQUAL! It can't be. There have to be capitalists to invest in new productive capacity.

What is the value of this "proper" distribution of wealth one might ask. the answer is, we don't know exactly. We do however know when the economy is not working because of a mal distribution of wealth. What do we do? We redistribute tillthe economy starts working properly.

It's simple. It's reality. It's the truth.

But the wingnuts want no part of reality or the truth. They would personally benefit from what I am advocating, as would over 99% of the people but still they have no interest in reality or the truth.

That's why we call them wingnuts.

 

[Bfgrn]

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'

PERSON being the operable word. When a SMALL CLASS OF PEOPLE accumulate too much of the national wealth, by whatever means, the results are as I stated. The masses can no longer consume to the output capacity of industry, causing recession and the small, rich class gambles with the money rather than putting it to productive use. Look around. Is this not what you see?

The basic failing of the rightist dogma is it's infatuation with the individual coupled with an inane "fairness" doctrine. Reasonable people need to look beyond the individual and the faux morality of the rich and look at SOCIETY. The argument for redistribution is UTILITARIAN.

When wealth is in mal distribution, the economy eats itself.

When there is a proper distribution of wealth, the economy works.

It's as simple as that. And, the truth of the matter is, a proper distribution of wealth WILL NOT BE EQUAL! It can't be. There have to be capitalists to invest in new productive capacity.

What is the value of this "proper" distribution of wealth one might ask. the answer is, we don't know exactly. We do however know when the economy is not working because of a mal distribution of wealth. What do we do? We redistribute tillthe economy starts working properly.

It's simple. It's reality. It's the truth.

But the wingnuts want no part of reality or the truth. They would personally benefit from what I am advocating, as would over 99% of the people but still they have no interest in reality or the truth.

That's why we call them wingnuts.

You are welcome to reply to my posts. But I would appreciate if you wouldn't cut them up. That's what happened to Jeremiah Wright.

 

[JBeukema]

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'

PERSON being the operable word. When a SMALL CLASS OF PEOPLE accumulate too much of the national wealth, by whatever means, the results are as I stated

How can the class of people accumulate 'too much' without the persons who constitute that class accumulating 'too much'?

 

[LiberalNut]

I was responding to only one concept in that post.

Live with it.

 

[LiberalNut]

JBeukema Poat # 170: How can the class of people accumulate too much without the persons who constitute that class accumulating 'too much'?

::sigh::

If it was only Bill Gates, no problem. When it's essentially 500 families controling about 35% of the nation's wealth, big problem. It's not about the individuals. I'm not saying Bill Gates or any other individual rich person is doing anything wrong. Indeed, when looking at things from a purely individualistic viewpoint, they aren't doing anything wrong assuming that they are operating within the law. But we have to broaden our view. We have to look at what the mal distribution of wealth does to all the people in the society.

Clearly, i mean very clearly, what the mal distribution of wealth does is a bad thing.

 

[DiamondDave]

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'

PERSON being the operable word. When a SMALL CLASS OF PEOPLE accumulate too much of the national wealth, by whatever means, the results are as I stated

How can the class of people accumulate 'too much' without the persons who constitute that class accumulating 'too much'?

Precisely what I was thinking

Income tax is taken from the individual or individual family unit

Whether the single individual or a group of individuals you single out has whatever value, is of no consequence to you or to government

 

[boedicca]

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.

That is Static Pie thinking - i.e., the only way to get wealthy is to take someone else's slice of pie.

In reality, the Free Market / Liberty way to get wealthy is to provide something of value for which people are willing to pay. This includes the worker who sells his labor to the employer.

Unencumbered by parasitic thugs, it is most often the Win Win scenario, much more so by several orders of magnitude than the Government Choosing Winners & Losers Cronyism we see rampant in our society today.

 

[LiberalNut]

In the immortal words of Mr. Spock...

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

That someone can offer up the shrinking economy, with all the massive human suffering that that entails and attempt justification of that suffering based on some notion individual "fairness" is in a word...insanity. Especially when the person uttering this faux mrality of the rich isn't a member of that class and never will be.

Pain, that's what it's gonna take I suppose. More pain. When the wingnuts themselves feel the pain, then let's see if they argue for my liberty over their families nutrition.

 

[Revere]

What system of government guarantees no suffering?

 

[JBeukema]

How can the class of people accumulate too much without the persons who constitute that class accumulating 'too much'?

::sigh::

If it was only Bill Gates, no problem. When it's essentially 500 families controling about 35% of the nation's wealth, big problem. It's not about the individuals. I'm not saying Bill Gates or any other individual rich person is doing anything wrong. Indeed, when looking at things from a purely individualistic viewpoint, they aren't doing anything wrong assuming that they are operating within the law. But we have to broaden our view. We have to look at what the mal distribution of wealth does to all the people in the society.

Clearly, i mean very clearly, what the mal distribution of wealth does is a bad thing.

So you can't tell any of them you want to take their money. You have to say you want to take 'the class' money'. Except 'the class' doesn't pay income taxes- the people who constitute the group you call 'the class' do.

There's a word fro what you're trying to do. You're tying to devalue those you dislike, dehumanizing them. You want people to see them not as humans or persons but as something else. It's a common tactic among certain sorts... the Stalinists are big on that.

 

[LiberalNut]

In reality, the Free Market / Liberty way to get wealthy is to provide something of value for which people are willing to pay.

And if the capitalist is not investing in productive capacity, but rather gambling with the money, what is he/she providing of value?

You have to get your head around the fact that I am the supposed capitalist hero that you are advocating for. I do not labor. I produce nothing. I own.

 

[JBeukema]

What system of government guarantees no suffering?

Totalitarian Theocratic Monarchy


Didn't you read your bible?

Heaven sure as hell aint no democracy.

 

[LiberalNut]

So you can't tell any of them you want to take their money.

Private property is not an inalienable right. Just like you wouldn't let a lone individual with a fishing shed on the river stand in the way of Dam project that would benefit the many, you don't let the upper class ruin the economy based on idiotic notions of individual liberty.

Simple. Reality.