2 ms·

> And I'm amused at the idea of loosening regulations on financial services industries ever has any effect other than a massive transfer of wealth from the lowe

> And I'm amused at the idea of loosening regulations on financial services industries ever has any effect other than a massive transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the wealthy. Fair and that's the fundamental difference in our political ideology. I subscribe that the role of US government is not to transfer wealth or interfere with the free market. If I am in a room with another person and I have five dollars in my pocket and the other person has one dollar, am I suppose to give the other person two dollars to make everybody whole? The writer of this article and bill might think so.

jfk13 8y ago
> I subscribe that the role of US government is not to transfer wealth or interfere with the free market That may not directly be its role, but if it isn't at -- least to some degree -- an outcome of the government's activity, then I think we're in trouble. To a first approximation, wealth = power; and human nature being what it is, those who have wealth (and therefore power) will tend, in the absence of control/restraint from government, to use that wealth and power to gather more wealth and power for themselves, without regard for any impact (often negative) on those who have less. Governments (in my opinion) have a responsibility to protect and help those who, for all kinds of reasons, do not have the wealth or power to adequately take care of themselves. That doesn't mean arbitrary handouts. But it does mean that a relatively larger share of centrally-managed resources should be directed towards helping those who need it most. And so I'd expect one of the results of a well-run government to be a tendency to reverse some of the flow of wealth towards those who already have it.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  Since wealth and power can be freely converted from one to the other, in order to maintain some semblance of a society where power is roughly equally distributed among the people, it is necessary to ensure that wealth is also roughly evenly shared among the people.

jfk13 8y ago

> I subscribe that the role of US government is not to transfer wealth or interfere with the free market That may not directly be its role, but if it isn't at -- least to some degree -- an outcome of the government's activity, then I think we're in trouble. To a first approximation, wealth = power; and human nature being what it is, those who have wealth (and therefore power) will tend, in the absence of control/restraint from government, to use that wealth and power to gather more wealth and power for themselves, without regard for any impact (often negative) on those who have less. Governments (in my opinion) have a responsibility to protect and help those who, for all kinds of reasons, do not have the wealth or power to adequately take care of themselves. That doesn't mean arbitrary handouts. But it does mean that a relatively larger share of centrally-managed resources should be directed towards helping those who need it most. And so I'd expect one of the results of a well-run government to be a tendency to reverse some of the flow of wealth towards those who already have it.

ryandrake 8y ago
Since wealth and power can be freely converted from one to the other, in order to maintain some semblance of a society where power is roughly equally distributed among the people, it is necessary to ensure that wealth is also roughly evenly shared among the people.