5 ms·

It is an actual issue. Distribution of wealth affects the strength of the economy. The more wealth you spread out amongst the many, the faster your economy is l

It is an actual issue. Distribution of wealth affects the strength of the economy. The more wealth you spread out amongst the many, the faster your economy is likely to grow. It's the working class and middle class that are the major driving force in an economy (including job creation), not the rich.

randyrand 9y ago
You've been lied to. Growth comes primarily from investment in science, technology, and other areas of innovation. The wealthy are much more likely to invest in these than the middle class because they have money to spare. The middle class is primarily a consumption class, not an investment class.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  > "Growth comes primarily from investment in science, technology, and other areas of innovation." No, it doesn't. It's quite simple, none of those advances in science and technology mean a damn to the economy if there's no consumers buying new products. A working class person is much more likely to spend £1000 into the economy faster than a rich person, mainly because their needs are more immediate. Spreading wealth around leads to a broader base of consumers and a healthier economy. Also, it's quite clear that the opposite (trickle-down economics) has been a dismal failure.
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    Ok, so now we have a bunch of companies selling soda to end consumers, instead of risky startup in unproven fields which may lead to large changes in our world.
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      Consumer tech is still a thing. You're almost certainly using a consumer tech device right now. As for R&D, there's little evidence that suggests the wealthiest amongst us are the biggest risk takers. One of the reasons people like Elon Musk get a lot of media coverage is because he breaks the mould, he's a wealthy individual taking big risks to better our world. There aren't that many people like him around. Even venture capital investors, who are (by reputation) open to risk, tend to stick to the safe bets.
  - clarkmoody 9y ago
    > new products Research & innovation create new product categories. No amount of consumer spending invents new products. I disagree with you that consumer spending boosts the economy. Look at the actions of central banks easing monetary conditions to try and boost spending. All they do is succeed in inflating bubbles that later produce busts. Economic growth is a subject not completely understood by economists. Is is savings or investment? How does regulatory burden come into play? What about property rights and government corruption?
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      > "Research & innovation create new product categories. No amount of consumer spending invents new products." Potential consumer spending does create the space for new products. Take VR as an example. The recent resurgence in VR has been made possible by the disposable income of gamers, especially PC gamers. Look at the high amounts of money being spent by gamers. If that disposable income did not exist, the resurgence of VR would look very different, and products like the Vive and the Rift are unlikely to have emerged. As for whether consumer spending drives scientific research, depends on what you class as consumer spending. For example, do you class student loans as consumer spending? Do you class government taxes as consumer spending? I'd suggest that funding from a diverse group of people is more reliable than hoping a handful of rich people do the right thing.
- albertgoeswoof 9y ago
  This makes no sense. You're saying the rich invest their spare cash into science and tech? That's not at all true, the rich invest into areas that provide returns on their investments, that's how they got rich and how they stay rich.
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    ...which has heavily included science and technology. At least for the past 40 years.
    - albertgoeswoof 9y ago
      ...along with thousands of other categories
- otakucode 9y ago
  Luckily we don't have to guess about this. We aggressively cut taxes on the richest in the US for all of the 80s and 90s. They did not invest in science, technology, or any area of innovation. They did not create more jobs. They invested solely in the financial services sector, and the money remains locked up in there still.
- CyberDildonics 9y ago
  Are you sure it isn't getting at the low hanging fruit in education and health care?
chrisco255 9y ago
Is it hard to believe that economic growth is a really complex topic? That distribution of wealth does not necessarily inhibit nor stimulate economic growth? That a lot depends on a lot of factors and it's impossible to run controlled experiments on economies because no two economies, cultures, and governments are the same?
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  On one level all models are wrong, but not all models are equally wrong. Let's use a hypothetical example. Imagine I'm a car salesman, and I move to a new town with 10,000 people. Am I likely to be better off if 1% of that population can afford to buy a car or 10% of that population can afford to buy a car?
  - ddxxdd 9y ago
    10%, sure. But are you any worse off if, out of those 10%, 1% can afford a private jet?

randyrand 9y ago

You've been lied to. Growth comes primarily from investment in science, technology, and other areas of innovation. The wealthy are much more likely to invest in these than the middle class because they have money to spare. The middle class is primarily a consumption class, not an investment class.

ZenoArrow 9y ago
> "Growth comes primarily from investment in science, technology, and other areas of innovation." No, it doesn't. It's quite simple, none of those advances in science and technology mean a damn to the economy if there's no consumers buying new products. A working class person is much more likely to spend £1000 into the economy faster than a rich person, mainly because their needs are more immediate. Spreading wealth around leads to a broader base of consumers and a healthier economy. Also, it's quite clear that the opposite (trickle-down economics) has been a dismal failure.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Ok, so now we have a bunch of companies selling soda to end consumers, instead of risky startup in unproven fields which may lead to large changes in our world.
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    Consumer tech is still a thing. You're almost certainly using a consumer tech device right now. As for R&D, there's little evidence that suggests the wealthiest amongst us are the biggest risk takers. One of the reasons people like Elon Musk get a lot of media coverage is because he breaks the mould, he's a wealthy individual taking big risks to better our world. There aren't that many people like him around. Even venture capital investors, who are (by reputation) open to risk, tend to stick to the safe bets.
- clarkmoody 9y ago
  > new products Research & innovation create new product categories. No amount of consumer spending invents new products. I disagree with you that consumer spending boosts the economy. Look at the actions of central banks easing monetary conditions to try and boost spending. All they do is succeed in inflating bubbles that later produce busts. Economic growth is a subject not completely understood by economists. Is is savings or investment? How does regulatory burden come into play? What about property rights and government corruption?
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    > "Research & innovation create new product categories. No amount of consumer spending invents new products." Potential consumer spending does create the space for new products. Take VR as an example. The recent resurgence in VR has been made possible by the disposable income of gamers, especially PC gamers. Look at the high amounts of money being spent by gamers. If that disposable income did not exist, the resurgence of VR would look very different, and products like the Vive and the Rift are unlikely to have emerged. As for whether consumer spending drives scientific research, depends on what you class as consumer spending. For example, do you class student loans as consumer spending? Do you class government taxes as consumer spending? I'd suggest that funding from a diverse group of people is more reliable than hoping a handful of rich people do the right thing.
albertgoeswoof 9y ago
This makes no sense. You're saying the rich invest their spare cash into science and tech? That's not at all true, the rich invest into areas that provide returns on their investments, that's how they got rich and how they stay rich.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  ...which has heavily included science and technology. At least for the past 40 years.
  - albertgoeswoof 9y ago
    ...along with thousands of other categories
otakucode 9y ago
Luckily we don't have to guess about this. We aggressively cut taxes on the richest in the US for all of the 80s and 90s. They did not invest in science, technology, or any area of innovation. They did not create more jobs. They invested solely in the financial services sector, and the money remains locked up in there still.
CyberDildonics 9y ago
Are you sure it isn't getting at the low hanging fruit in education and health care?

chrisco255 9y ago

Is it hard to believe that economic growth is a really complex topic? That distribution of wealth does not necessarily inhibit nor stimulate economic growth? That a lot depends on a lot of factors and it's impossible to run controlled experiments on economies because no two economies, cultures, and governments are the same?

ZenoArrow 9y ago
On one level all models are wrong, but not all models are equally wrong. Let's use a hypothetical example. Imagine I'm a car salesman, and I move to a new town with 10,000 people. Am I likely to be better off if 1% of that population can afford to buy a car or 10% of that population can afford to buy a car?
- ddxxdd 9y ago
  10%, sure. But are you any worse off if, out of those 10%, 1% can afford a private jet?