3 ms·

Are you saying that it is morally wrong to take money from relatively rich people to give to relatively poor, but not the other way around? I think any (Gover

Are you saying that it is morally wrong to take money from relatively rich people to give to relatively poor, but not the other way around? I think any (Government) wealth redistribution is morally wrong, but that's just my 2 cents!

mattmaroon 18y ago
Government cannot exist without redistributing wealth. You've been listening to too many Palin rallies. Every time a government changes tax rates, wealth gets redistributed. Every time it builds a school or a road, wealth is redistributed. Every economic policy redistributes wealth. I hope the I just redistributed your 2 cents :)
- astine 18y ago
  I think that he means explicit wealth redistribution. If government uses your tax money to to finance the police system, sure it is moving wealth around, but a healthy police is necessary for a free society and functioning economy, so in the end, everyone benefits. This is different from just taking from one group and giving to another.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Well, if the government takes some tax money and uses that to prop up an industry that directly or indirectly employs 6 million people, that too helps everyone. Those people while employed buy things, pay taxes, don't create an oversupply of workers that lowers wages for everyone, etc. It's not as cut and dry as some Robinhoodesque vision of taking taxes from some and giving to another, which McCain and Palin wanted you to believe. It's quite possible that the $25 billion loaned will not only return the taxpayers more than $25 billion directly, but also create a net positive economic impact of more than that.
    - astine 18y ago
      that too helps everyone - no it doesn't; not in the long run. I honestly don't know what McCain & Palin have been saying about this (nor do I care) but corporate welfare undermines accountability at the corporate level. Accountability is absolutely essential to functioning of the market and handouts such as these have been undermining the US auto industry since the fifties. This is a very large part of the reason that they are in trouble today. If we are concerned about the employees, we should just give them the money directly, but giving the money to the corporate execs is essentially rewarding bad behavior and staving off the inevitable. Corporate handouts are like stimulants for the economy; they provide a short-term high, but they will be followed by a corresponding low and the longer you prolong treatment, the longer and more powerful the low. BTW a labor surplus isn't necessarily so bad a thing; employment for the sake of employment is almost as bad an economic policy as corporate welfare (It's one of the more obvious failures of the New Deal.) and if the big three are no longer profitable, that is what this bailout amounts to.
- ensignavenger 18y ago
  The government could just print the money that they need to operate, thus there would be no redistribution! But that probably isn't a great idea! I meant the explicit redistribution where the government takes money from one group, and then gives it to another, versus the government taxing in a fair a simple way (See the Fair Tax) and then spends the money the way the Constitution intended. In other words, they spend money on 1) Paying Debts of the United States, 2) Provide for the Common Defense, 3) Promote the General Welfare (General meaning that it does not promote the welfare of individuals, or corporations, but promotes the welfare of the entire nation; also notice the word, 'promote', not 'provide') Article 1, Section 8. As Jefferson said, it is "...the most sacred of the duties of a government, to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens. To this a single observation shall yet be added. To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it." (Note in Political Economy , p. 464-66)
astine 18y ago
I'd say that it's less wrong, to redistribute in this fashion as it is at least under the guise of charity.

mattmaroon 18y ago

Government cannot exist without redistributing wealth. You've been listening to too many Palin rallies. Every time a government changes tax rates, wealth gets redistributed. Every time it builds a school or a road, wealth is redistributed. Every economic policy redistributes wealth. I hope the I just redistributed your 2 cents :)

astine 18y ago
I think that he means explicit wealth redistribution. If government uses your tax money to to finance the police system, sure it is moving wealth around, but a healthy police is necessary for a free society and functioning economy, so in the end, everyone benefits. This is different from just taking from one group and giving to another.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Well, if the government takes some tax money and uses that to prop up an industry that directly or indirectly employs 6 million people, that too helps everyone. Those people while employed buy things, pay taxes, don't create an oversupply of workers that lowers wages for everyone, etc. It's not as cut and dry as some Robinhoodesque vision of taking taxes from some and giving to another, which McCain and Palin wanted you to believe. It's quite possible that the $25 billion loaned will not only return the taxpayers more than $25 billion directly, but also create a net positive economic impact of more than that.
  - astine 18y ago
    that too helps everyone - no it doesn't; not in the long run. I honestly don't know what McCain & Palin have been saying about this (nor do I care) but corporate welfare undermines accountability at the corporate level. Accountability is absolutely essential to functioning of the market and handouts such as these have been undermining the US auto industry since the fifties. This is a very large part of the reason that they are in trouble today. If we are concerned about the employees, we should just give them the money directly, but giving the money to the corporate execs is essentially rewarding bad behavior and staving off the inevitable. Corporate handouts are like stimulants for the economy; they provide a short-term high, but they will be followed by a corresponding low and the longer you prolong treatment, the longer and more powerful the low. BTW a labor surplus isn't necessarily so bad a thing; employment for the sake of employment is almost as bad an economic policy as corporate welfare (It's one of the more obvious failures of the New Deal.) and if the big three are no longer profitable, that is what this bailout amounts to.
ensignavenger 18y ago
The government could just print the money that they need to operate, thus there would be no redistribution! But that probably isn't a great idea! I meant the explicit redistribution where the government takes money from one group, and then gives it to another, versus the government taxing in a fair a simple way (See the Fair Tax) and then spends the money the way the Constitution intended. In other words, they spend money on 1) Paying Debts of the United States, 2) Provide for the Common Defense, 3) Promote the General Welfare (General meaning that it does not promote the welfare of individuals, or corporations, but promotes the welfare of the entire nation; also notice the word, 'promote', not 'provide') Article 1, Section 8. As Jefferson said, it is "...the most sacred of the duties of a government, to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens. To this a single observation shall yet be added. To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it." (Note in Political Economy , p. 464-66)

astine 18y ago

I'd say that it's less wrong, to redistribute in this fashion as it is at least under the guise of charity.