3 ms·

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

• 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...
  • bhb916 14y ago
    Thanks for the follow-up post. I'm not going to continue this dead thread, but I do appreciate the reply.