Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Redistribution of wealth does work?

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 7:27:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What do you think?

Lets think.

No consumer class.
People want to invest but no one can buy.

If you believe in Social Darwinism then the cream will always rise to the top.

So why not reset the system.

Redistribution of wealth does reset the system to open up a consumer middle class.

We have consumers then everything is all good...
Think about it.....
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 7:53:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If I couldn't pass on wealth to my kids, I'd be a bum by age 40.

The short answer is that you piss people off when you take their money by force. It discourages their incentives to make money in the first place. So you are passing around a shrinking piece of pie, rather than getting a proportionately smaller piece of a growing pie (voluntary charity).

Actually regressions show that private charity decreases by a factor of 1-1.25 when government charity increases... needless to say, it is much more efficient.

Aside from the incentive arguments, there are pure-economic ones. A certain tax rate will render marginal projects uneconomic. Furthermore, what you REALLY want is not for people to have more money, but for them to buy more stuff. So you need to adjust the structure of production and distribution to get that... I can elaborate on that more if you like. I don't have the patience or energy to at the moment.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 7:57:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 7:53:54 PM, Sieben wrote:
If I couldn't pass on wealth to my kids, I'd be a bum by age 40.

The short answer is that you piss people off when you take their money by force. It discourages their incentives to make money in the first place. So you are passing around a shrinking piece of pie, rather than getting a proportionately smaller piece of a growing pie (voluntary charity).

Actually regressions show that private charity decreases by a factor of 1-1.25 when government charity increases... needless to say, it is much more efficient.

Aside from the incentive arguments, there are pure-economic ones. A certain tax rate will render marginal projects uneconomic. Furthermore, what you REALLY want is not for people to have more money, but for them to buy more stuff. So you need to adjust the structure of production and distribution to get that... I can elaborate on that more if you like. I don't have the patience or energy to at the moment.

Sbien!! Yuo write always your anarchist crap!!
Libertarianism doesn't work in the real world vcant you see that??
I dont' support coommunism like Mao, but he did ome good things for the chinese! That's all i'm saying.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:04:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
U trollin? This is a generic "why there shouldn't be 100% government" argument. I haven't talked about the "necessary evils" of minarchism.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:06:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 8:04:42 PM, Sieben wrote:
U trollin? This is a generic "why there shouldn't be 100% government" argument. I haven't talked about the "necessary evils" of minarchism.

I was trolling comon, obviously. I don't think minarchy requires any "necessary evils."
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:32:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
We'll have that discussion some other time :) But as ancaps are fond of saying "Minarchists think that a minimum amount of government is a "necessary evil". They are half right"
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:40:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 7:53:54 PM, Sieben wrote:
If I couldn't pass on wealth to my kids, I'd be a bum by age 40.

Are you suggesting that homosexuals are bums?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:43:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 8:32:50 PM, Sieben wrote:
We'll have that discussion some other time :) But as ancaps are fond of saying "Minarchists think that a minimum amount of government is a "necessary evil".
Only the fail ones. :P.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:45:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 8:40:58 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/20/2010 7:53:54 PM, Sieben wrote:
If I couldn't pass on wealth to my kids, I'd be a bum by age 40.

Are you suggesting that homosexuals are bums?

Given the "I", I'm pretty sure that's not what he's saying.

Also--are you suggesting that homosexuals can't have kids, or that adopted kids are somehow worth less to their adoptive parents than kids are worth to to their biological parents?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:56:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Libertarianism is a redistributive project. That's another way in which radical market anarchism is rightly seen as part of the socialist tradition." - Gary Chartier[1]

1 http://liberalaw.blogspot.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2010 10:17:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It is certainly possible to make everyone's wealth equal or nearly equal. North Korea, for example, has done it. The rich elite is perhaps 5000 of the 20 million population, a negligible factor. The way to make everyone equal is to make everyone poor. It works.

The error in leftist thinking is that the economy is not a zero sum game. Redistribution always destroys most of the total wealth. That's been demonstrated repeatedly.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:05:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 8:40:58 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/20/2010 7:53:54 PM, Sieben wrote:
If I couldn't pass on wealth to my kids, I'd be a bum by age 40.

Are you suggesting that homosexuals are bums?
Yes. Homos contribute nothing to society. They're like adolescents till the day they die.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 10:27:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Redistribution of wealth is impossible as things are right now.

Human beings are no longer the only entities that are capable of turning profit and earning capital.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 10:55:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:05:13 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/20/2010 8:40:58 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/20/2010 7:53:54 PM, Sieben wrote:
If I couldn't pass on wealth to my kids, I'd be a bum by age 40.

Are you suggesting that homosexuals are bums?
Yes. Homos contribute nothing to society. They're like adolescents till the day they die.

"In his lectures, Mr. Hoppe said that certain groups of people -- including small children, very old people, and homosexuals -- tend to prefer present-day consumption to long-term investment. Because homosexuals generally do not have children, Mr. Hoppe said, they feel less need to look toward the future. (In a recent talk at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which Mr. Hoppe says was similar to his classroom lecture, he declared, "Homosexuals have higher time preferences, because life ends with them.") [The student], Mr. Knight found that argument unwarranted and obnoxious, and he promptly filed a complaint with the university. In a telephone interview on Saturday, Mr. Knight said: "I was just shocked and appalled. I said to myself, Where the hell is he getting this information from? I was completely surprised, and that's why I went to the university about this."

Hoppe's comments triggered an academic investigation which resulted in a "nondisciplinary" letter being issued February 9, 2005 instructing him to "cease mischaracterizing opinion as objective fact."" - Wikipedia[1]

1 http://en.wikipedia.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 11:03:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 7:27:27 PM, comoncents wrote:
What do you think?


Lets think.

No consumer class.
People want to invest but no one can buy.

If you believe in Social Darwinism then the cream will always rise to the top.

So why not reset the system.

Redistribution of wealth does reset the system to open up a consumer middle class.

We have consumers then everything is all good...
Think about it.....:
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 11:15:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/21/2010 10:17:58 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
It is certainly possible to make everyone's wealth equal or nearly equal. North Korea, for example, has done it. The rich elite is perhaps 5000 of the 20 million population, a negligible factor. The way to make everyone equal is to make everyone poor. It works.

The error in leftist thinking is that the economy is not a zero sum game. Redistribution always destroys most of the total wealth. That's been demonstrated repeatedly.

So, are you trying to say that the economy is or is not zero-sum? The way you worded that sentence was really ambiguous.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 2:51:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 10:55:54 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:05:13 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/20/2010 8:40:58 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/20/2010 7:53:54 PM, Sieben wrote:
If I couldn't pass on wealth to my kids, I'd be a bum by age 40.

Are you suggesting that homosexuals are bums?
Yes. Homos contribute nothing to society. They're like adolescents till the day they die.

"In his lectures, Mr. Hoppe said that certain groups of people -- including small children, very old people, and homosexuals -- tend to prefer present-day consumption to long-term investment. Because homosexuals generally do not have children, Mr. Hoppe said, they feel less need to look toward the future. (In a recent talk at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which Mr. Hoppe says was similar to his classroom lecture, he declared, "Homosexuals have higher time preferences, because life ends with them.") [The student], Mr. Knight found that argument unwarranted and obnoxious, and he promptly filed a complaint with the university. In a telephone interview on Saturday, Mr. Knight said: "I was just shocked and appalled. I said to myself, Where the hell is he getting this information from? I was completely surprised, and that's why I went to the university about this."

Hoppe's comments triggered an academic investigation which resulted in a "nondisciplinary" letter being issued February 9, 2005 instructing him to "cease mischaracterizing opinion as objective fact."" - Wikipedia[1]

1 http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes a lot of people want to misunderstand Hoppe. He's using homos as an illustrative example, and saying no more than "if you want to have a catholic society, atheists will have to be uprooted".
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 3:10:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 2:51:40 PM, Sieben wrote:
Yes a lot of people want to misunderstand Hoppe. He's using homos as an illustrative example, and saying no more than "if you want to have a catholic society, atheists will have to be uprooted".

Hoppe wants to kill all atheists!!1!!1eleven!1!!!!
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 3:20:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 3:10:01 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/22/2010 2:51:40 PM, Sieben wrote:
Yes a lot of people want to misunderstand Hoppe. He's using homos as an illustrative example, and saying no more than "if you want to have a catholic society, atheists will have to be uprooted".

Hoppe wants to kill all atheists!!1!!1eleven!1!!!!
LOL!!1!!eleven!1!!1!
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 5:08:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 3:20:25 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/22/2010 3:10:01 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/22/2010 2:51:40 PM, Sieben wrote:
Yes a lot of people want to misunderstand Hoppe. He's using homos as an illustrative example, and saying no more than "if you want to have a catholic society, atheists will have to be uprooted".

Hoppe wants to kill all atheists!!1!!1eleven!1!!!!
LOL!!1!!eleven!1!!1!

Why do you hate America?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:12:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:04:26 PM, Sieben wrote:
Because it comes after "Anarchy" in the alphabet.

America is alphabetically prior to anarchy. Idiot. But then again, you are an anarchist so I guess that goes without saying.

I guess it doesn't even matter because once you bomb the hell out of everyone no one will even be able to remember the alphabet.

Go fudge off to Somalia.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
twsurber
Posts: 505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:49:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think that even if the wealth was redistributed, it would only be a short while before it would mostly sort itself back to the present haves and have nots.

The people who know how to manage money would continue to do so. The ones who are fiscally irresponsible would likely waste their shares.

Further, I think redistribution unfairly punishes the people who made their fortunes, and rewards those who did not. I'm not trying to stereotype the poor; however, I disagree with minimum wage for similar reasoning. Some employees' performances are simply not worth minimum wage, yet they are able to receive at least a certain amount without regard to their attitudes or abilities.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:53:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:12:12 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:04:26 PM, Sieben wrote:
Because it comes after "Anarchy" in the alphabet.

America is alphabetically prior to anarchy. Idiot. But then again, you are an anarchist so I guess that goes without saying.
Whatever, I don't use the statist alphabet. Its a conspiracy theory to get us to choose America over Anarchy. They switched M and N. You would know that if you weren't a f*cking shill working for the 1972 CIA.
I guess it doesn't even matter because once you bomb the hell out of everyone no one will even be able to remember the alphabet.

Go fudge off to Somalia.
They don't have fudge in Somalia. Only healthy nutritious carrot oatmeal cookies. http://recipes.wikia.com...

NOT FDA APPROVED
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:54:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:49:58 PM, twsurber wrote:
I think that even if the wealth was redistributed, it would only be a short while before it would mostly sort itself back to the present haves and have nots.

If you kept the present institutions in place, perhaps. It would be better for a period of time, though.

The people who know how to manage money would continue to do so. The ones who are fiscally irresponsible would likely waste their shares.

If you think this is what accounts for the vast disparity in wealth you are fooling yourself.

Further, I think redistribution unfairly punishes the people who made their fortunes, and rewards those who did not. I'm not trying to stereotype the poor; however, I disagree with minimum wage for similar reasoning. Some employees' performances are simply not worth minimum wage, yet they are able to receive at least a certain amount without regard to their attitudes or abilities.

That's an outrageous reason to dislike the minimum wage.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran