3 ms·

> While I don't think these current retroactive taxes are intentional hard core redistribution of wealth (because there might be some technicality or specific q

by joshAg 14y ago

> While I don't think these current retroactive taxes are intentional hard core redistribution of wealth (because there might be some technicality or specific quark we are dealing with here) it is none-the-less a soft beginning and a peak into what's to come. > When a State becomes a welfare and entitlement land, the hordes that it will bread will have a voting power that will outmatch those that work and earn. Perhaps, but the US's domestic policy from about 1980 has been an intentional distribution of wealth: [1]. And on top of that, americans prefer much more evenly distributed wealth than the current situation: [2]. Source article for [1] and [2] is [3]. > Just look at any city or state that's failing. They all have the same thing in common. Too many resource consumers (and destroyers), not enough resource producers (and creators). The US has a consumer based economy, so wouldn't more consumers be a good thing since it would require the producers to produce more, which would create more jobs? Also, wasn't the main problem with the recession that most companies couldn't find enough consumers willing to buy their product? I think you have this part backwards. > There is no doubt that in the next 20-50 years we will probably see this redistribution mostly in the form of higher taxes, and taxation without representation will become the norm (see - http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/suburbs-secede-from-atlanta/ http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/suburbs-secede-from-atlanta/ for an intresting example of this last part). And it will always fail and just make things worse. It seemed to work pretty well in the 1930's and 1940's. [1]: http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_a... [2]:http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page2... [3]: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequalit...

bhb916 14y ago
This comment is one big logic failure. First, a claim that policy has been intentionally written to redistribute wealth upwards and then as evidence two charts that don't show policy or intention. The next link indicates the results of a study on inequality preferences without actually explaining how that relates to anything in particular (hint: it doesn't). Then, a claim that the US is a consumer based economy which is a peculiar statement about the nation with the greatest manufacturing output in the world (1) and the 3rd most competitive manufacturing sector (2). Finally, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic about economic policy in the 1930s or not, but I'm going to suggest a refresher course in the material just in case. The parent comment wasn't really talking about economic inequality directly anyhow, it was discussing the potential danger inherent in an democratic system when the majority willingly votes away the property of the minority. I don't necessarily agree that this is what's going on currently, but it is something that was frequently of concern to revolution-era scholars. Regardless, your comment seems like it was meant to scratch some political itch instead of actually discussing the topic. [1]: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42135.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42135.pdf [2]: http://www.compete.org/ncf/Council_GMCI_2012.pdf http://www.compete.org/ncf/Council_GMCI_2012.pdf
- joshAg 14y ago
  > This comment is one big logic failure. Well, yeah, because my comment uses rhetoric, not logic. > First, a claim that policy has been intentionally written to redistribute wealth upwards and then as evidence two charts that don't show policy or intention. In the interest of keeping this post relatively short, I'm not going to make a fully fleshed out argument for whether or not supply-side economics is intended to distribute wealth upwards since that will basically come down to a bunch of quotes showing who knew what and when, but I will say that, whether intended or not, there has been a steady upward distribution of wealth since roughly 1980. > The next link indicates the results of a study on inequality preferences without actually explaining how that relates to anything in particular (hint: it doesn't). Perhaps that second link is a bit of a non sequitur there, but it is a reponse to the parent's claim that the "When a State becomes a welfare and entitlement land, the hordes that it will bread will have a voting power that will outmatch those that work and earn." > Then, a claim that the US is a consumer based economy which is a peculiar statement about the nation with the greatest manufacturing output in the world and the 3rd most competitive manufacturing sector. First off, it's worth pointing out that manufacturing makes up only 12.2% of the GDP based on output and employs only 9% of the total workforce (13% if you include jobs that manufacturing supports) [1], so even if we accept your premise that manufacturing is somehow not part of a consumer-based economy, then, no, the US does not have a manufacturing-based economy, or whatever type of economy you thought was based on manufacturing that wasn't consumer-based. Now for your implied point that manufacturing isn't part of a consumer-based economy; A consumer-based economy just means that consumer spending drives the economy instead of gross private domestic investment [2], government spending [3], or exports minus imports. Consumer spending has made up at least 65% of the GDP since 1983 [4]. > Finally, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic about economic policy in the 1930s or not, but I'm going to suggest a refresher course in the material just in case. Yes, I was being sarcastic. but the economic policy at the time, either implicitly or explicitly, was to redistribute wealth downwards through massive government spending (eg painting a mural, building a damn or highway or bridge or battleship, or occupying various parts of Europe and Asia). > The parent comment wasn't really talking about economic inequality directly anyhow, it was discussing the potential danger inherent in an democratic system when the majority willingly votes away the property of the minority. First, unabridged possession of property is not some sort of basic human right. Up until America's reaction against socialism and communism abroad in the 1910's and 1920's private property wasn't considered personal. Second, Taxes aren't the voting away of property, but rather the price for being a member of a society. [1]: http://www.nam.org/Statistics-And-Data/Facts-About-Manufacturing/Landing.aspx http://www.nam.org/Statistics-And-Data/Facts-About-Manufactu... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_private_domestic_investment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_private_domestic_investme... [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending [4]: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/05/03/business/economy/consumergdp.jpg http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/05/03/business/econ...

by joshAg 14y ago

bhb916 14y ago

This comment is one big logic failure. First, a claim that policy has been intentionally written to redistribute wealth upwards and then as evidence two charts that don't show policy or intention. The next link indicates the results of a study on inequality preferences without actually explaining how that relates to anything in particular (hint: it doesn't). Then, a claim that the US is a consumer based economy which is a peculiar statement about the nation with the greatest manufacturing output in the world (1) and the 3rd most competitive manufacturing sector (2). Finally, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic about economic policy in the 1930s or not, but I'm going to suggest a refresher course in the material just in case. The parent comment wasn't really talking about economic inequality directly anyhow, it was discussing the potential danger inherent in an democratic system when the majority willingly votes away the property of the minority. I don't necessarily agree that this is what's going on currently, but it is something that was frequently of concern to revolution-era scholars. Regardless, your comment seems like it was meant to scratch some political itch instead of actually discussing the topic. [1]: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42135.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42135.pdf [2]: http://www.compete.org/ncf/Council_GMCI_2012.pdf http://www.compete.org/ncf/Council_GMCI_2012.pdf

joshAg 14y ago
> This comment is one big logic failure. Well, yeah, because my comment uses rhetoric, not logic. > First, a claim that policy has been intentionally written to redistribute wealth upwards and then as evidence two charts that don't show policy or intention. In the interest of keeping this post relatively short, I'm not going to make a fully fleshed out argument for whether or not supply-side economics is intended to distribute wealth upwards since that will basically come down to a bunch of quotes showing who knew what and when, but I will say that, whether intended or not, there has been a steady upward distribution of wealth since roughly 1980. > The next link indicates the results of a study on inequality preferences without actually explaining how that relates to anything in particular (hint: it doesn't). Perhaps that second link is a bit of a non sequitur there, but it is a reponse to the parent's claim that the "When a State becomes a welfare and entitlement land, the hordes that it will bread will have a voting power that will outmatch those that work and earn." > Then, a claim that the US is a consumer based economy which is a peculiar statement about the nation with the greatest manufacturing output in the world and the 3rd most competitive manufacturing sector. First off, it's worth pointing out that manufacturing makes up only 12.2% of the GDP based on output and employs only 9% of the total workforce (13% if you include jobs that manufacturing supports) [1], so even if we accept your premise that manufacturing is somehow not part of a consumer-based economy, then, no, the US does not have a manufacturing-based economy, or whatever type of economy you thought was based on manufacturing that wasn't consumer-based. Now for your implied point that manufacturing isn't part of a consumer-based economy; A consumer-based economy just means that consumer spending drives the economy instead of gross private domestic investment [2], government spending [3], or exports minus imports. Consumer spending has made up at least 65% of the GDP since 1983 [4]. > Finally, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic about economic policy in the 1930s or not, but I'm going to suggest a refresher course in the material just in case. Yes, I was being sarcastic. but the economic policy at the time, either implicitly or explicitly, was to redistribute wealth downwards through massive government spending (eg painting a mural, building a damn or highway or bridge or battleship, or occupying various parts of Europe and Asia). > The parent comment wasn't really talking about economic inequality directly anyhow, it was discussing the potential danger inherent in an democratic system when the majority willingly votes away the property of the minority. First, unabridged possession of property is not some sort of basic human right. Up until America's reaction against socialism and communism abroad in the 1910's and 1920's private property wasn't considered personal. Second, Taxes aren't the voting away of property, but rather the price for being a member of a society. [1]: http://www.nam.org/Statistics-And-Data/Facts-About-Manufacturing/Landing.aspx http://www.nam.org/Statistics-And-Data/Facts-About-Manufactu... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_private_domestic_investment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_private_domestic_investme... [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending [4]: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/05/03/business/economy/consumergdp.jpg http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/05/03/business/econ...