Wealth Redistribution

[Oddball]

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.

They're the same fools who believe that the Soviet Union failed because the right commies weren't in charge.

 

[Publius1787]

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

oh man. Its late and so little time to explain. Will you take a raincheck and visit this thread later? You really dont understand the fundamentals of liberty do you? In fact, the description of your view reminds me of the words to the soviet national anthem the "internationale." Trust me they fit. I will give you a break down of negative liberties and how our country was founded on them along with the whole history of cicero, locke, jefferson, madison, natural law, the declaration of independence, etc tomarrow. You game?

 

[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

oh man. Its late and so little time to explain. Will you take a raincheck and visit this thread later? You really dont understand the fundamentals of liberty do you? In fact, the description of your view reminds me of the words to the soviet national anthem the "internationale." Trust me they fit. I will give you a break down of negative liberties and how our country was founded on them along with the whole history of cicero, locke, jefferson, madison, natural law, the declaration of independence, etc tomarrow. You game?

Good luck on that.

 

[expat_panama]

...at times I am quite dense.

You and me both --my problem is trying to type, think, and stay up late all at the same time. So a beautiful morning to you!!

 

[expat_panama]

...the recent bailout swindle orchestrated by the FED and TREAURY under both the Bush II administration and Obama administrion...

The idea that there's no difference between the '08 TARP and the massive tax'n'spending since is lazy thinking. The first was pursuant to Art. I Section 8 of the US Constitution, and it ended with the targeted businesses bailing-out the taxpayer more than the other way around. The second is doing more harm every day.

 

[dblack]

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

I don't think it does. But it depends on what you mean by 'equality' and how you intend to achieve it. Equal application of laws (regardless of wealth, social status, etc ...) tends to increase freedom. Where we've gone astray is in neglecting that principle in favor of a kind of remedial approach to equality that seeks to address unequal outcomes rather than promote equal opportunity.

I understand the latter has a tremendous appeal for those interested in social justice, but we need to understand that it is fundamentally in conflict with the former, and does sacrifice freedom.

"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

I've never seen this quote before, but it's fascinating. I really like the ambiguity built into it. Depending on how you define freedom and equality it can be read in very different ways.

 

[Oddball]

....But freedom is too broad an abstraction....

Yet, somehow or another, "society" isn't too broad an abstraction, when you seek to destroy individual liberty and rationalize stealing from people.

 

[editec]

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.

So is it YOUR position that ALL taxes are immoral?

Because that appears to be what you're saying, FF

 

[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.

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.

Surely you don't expect ME to take umbrage with the above, do you?

YES, undoubtably the FED is the primary TOOL with which the INSIDERS have eroded the power of the people (that is to say) with which the INSIDERS have gains control over this democratic republic.

THE FED ought to be FEDERAL, not private.

On THAT I suspect you and I are in agreement.

 

[Oddball]

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.

So is it YOUR position that ALL taxes are immoral?

Because that appears to be what you're saying, FF

That's not what's being said at all.

Taxes like the fuel tax to pay for roads are in place to provide a public good, which is equally available to everyone, rather than as a tool for social engineering and/or rewarding favored constituencies and punishing the unfavored.

 

[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.

Surely you don't expect ME to take umbrage with the above, do you?

YES, undoubtably the FED is the primary TOOL with which the INSIDERS have eroded the power of the people (that is to say) with which the INSIDERS have gains control over this democratic republic.

THE FED ought to be FEDERAL, not private.

On THAT I suspect you and I are in agreement.

Were the FED federal, it would be unconstitutional as an irredeemable fiat currency would violate Article 1, Section 8.

 

[editec]

...the recent bailout swindle orchestrated by the FED and TREAURY under both the Bush II administration and Obama administrion...

The idea that there's no difference between the '08 TARP and the massive tax'n'spending since is lazy thinking. The first was pursuant to Art. I Section 8 of the US Constitution, and it ended with the targeted businesses bailing-out the taxpayer more than the other way around. The second is doing more harm every day.

You'll need to amplify that response a bit, EXPAT.

Be specific.

I fail to see what "tax'n'spending" really means in relation to my post.

The treaury and FED response under BUSH II mostly saved some banks some bond holders and some stockholders.

The treaury and FED response under Obama really does much the same thing.

Why for example, didn't AIG go into recievership instead of being bailed out?

Why for example, didn't the US government get FULL value when it purchased 80% of GM stocks to save that company from bankruptsy?

I am ALL for saving the national finance system from meltdown.

But the way it was done (under both admins) is to reward the villians, at the expense of the taxpayers.

You want to get specific, let's talk DETAILS.

Why did we promise to back up banks and financial corporations that were NOT part of a FDIC system?

Both admins have done this.

WHY?

 

[editec]

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.

So is it YOUR position that ALL taxes are immoral?

Because that appears to be what you're saying, FF

That's not what's being said at all.

Taxes like the fuel tax to pay for roads are in place to provide a public good, which is equally available to everyone, rather than as a tool for social engineering and/or rewarding favored constituencies and punishing the unfavored.

So we ARE on the same page...

Taxes are a necessary fact of living in society with government.

If government is good, taxes serve good purposes to maintain a just and civil society.

If government is corrupt, then they don't do that very well.

How does one determine who is the victim of bad governance?

Well, part of the way one does that is to FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Who is benefitting directly from bad govenment policy and who is not?

Do you agree with that method of evaluating government, or not?

 

[Oddball]

You can follow the money in the inherently corrupt Internal Revenue Code, which is exactly the kind of tool of political corruption the framers sought to eschew when they created apportionment for direct taxation.

 

[editec]

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.

Surely you don't expect ME to take umbrage with the above, do you?

YES, undoubtably the FED is the primary TOOL with which the INSIDERS have eroded the power of the people (that is to say) with which the INSIDERS have gains control over this democratic republic.

THE FED ought to be FEDERAL, not private.

On THAT I suspect you and I are in agreement.

Were the FED federal, it would be unconstitutional as an irredeemable fiat currency would violate Article 1, Section 8.

I don't think I understand that POV.

Perhaps you can explain it to me.

Unless you mean that you believe that it is unconstutional to issue currency that is not metal based or something.

Then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[editec]

You can follow the money in the inherently corrupt Internal Revenue Code, which is exactly the kind of tool of political corruption the framers sought to eschew when they created apportionment for direct taxation.

Yes they did not have any personal taxes.

Now, where mostly did the FEDs get the money to run government, for the first century of this nation's existence, Oddball?

Do you actually know?

Well I'll tell you..from TARIFFS on imported goods.

Would you like us to go back to that system?

 

[Oddball]

No, they weren't tariffs.

Duties, imposts and excises on goods are specific one-time charges to pay for specific de jure government functions, not as trade barriers which are --strictly defined-- what tariffs are.

BTW, that system of duties, imposts and excises is still in place and functioning.

 

[expat_panama]

...the recent bailout swindle orchestrated by the FED and TREAURY under both the Bush II administration and Obama administrion...

The idea that there's no difference between the '08 TARP and the massive tax'n'spending since is lazy thinking. The first was pursuant to Art. I Section 8 of the US Constitution, and it ended with the targeted businesses bailing-out the taxpayer more than the other way around. The second is doing more harm every day.

You'll need to amplify that response a bit, EXPAT. Be specific. I fail to see what "tax'n'spending" really means in relation to my post...

Sorry but I know my limits and I really don't think I can help you out here. Somehow it seems to me that anyone willing to put in a bit of effort could make a long list of the differences between TARP and the tax'n'spending that came later. A list of specifics could even include what I'd mentioned. Without that effort though, it's just (like I meantioned) lazy thinking that guarantees the kind of failure you're dealing with.

Maybe someone else here can work it out for you better than me.

 

[midcan5]

I have not read the latest posts; I will later. There are in America certain truths, I want to outline them as succinctly as possible to set out my position in this thread before replying again. If you think them untrue, support your position with references.

There is not a single recent statistic that does not point to growing inequality in America.

A society that is more equal functions better than one in which only a few possess wealth.

No one on the left is claiming we should all be equal.

Wealth can only be created in a society of citizens with a recognized and respected government.

The goal of taxation is both to manage the country and to make sure the wealth of the nation supports the infrastructure and its people.

The best periods in America history were when taxes were highest for the rich.

Reducing taxes for the wealthy does not create jobs.

The proof of any policy is in its accomplishments. The pudding still counts.

Republican policies of supporting the wealthy have failed for nearly 100 years.

Coolidge/Hoover, Reagan/Bush, and Bush Jr all required massive government intervention to prevent economic chaos.

Welfare does not equate to wealth. There never was a Cadillac Mom. Welfare, when needed, is the moral and religious thing to do.

Trickle down economics does not work.

No conservative / libertarian / republican has countered these points nor can.

 

[dblack]

There is not a single recent statistic that does not point to growing inequality in America.

We should take a hard look at the basic structures regarding corporate law and the inherent limited liability of that setup. If, for one, think there are serious issues with it. If we find problems with the system that make it unfair we should address them. But I don't think we should give in to unfairness and set government up as the decider for who wins and loses in a market setting. That's corporatism and it's incompatible with freedom and democracy.

The goal of taxation is both to manage the country and to make sure the wealth of the nation supports the infrastructure and its people.

Well said. We've fallen into the habit of abusing the power of taxation. Not only is it used for remedial wealth redistribution, but loopholes and incentives are implemented as defacto mandates that expand the power far beyond it's intent. Taxes are for financing government, not manipulating society.

No conservative / libertarian / republican has countered these points nor can.

If your conviction is that your points simply can't be countered, then I'm wondering why you've bothered to invite discussion. Why not just declare your arguments infallible and move on?