4 ms·

Most people reject this Libertarian framing of the issue. The progressive point of view is that income redistribution is justified if it leads to a "better" or

by gizmo 13y ago

Most people reject this Libertarian framing of the issue. The progressive point of view is that income redistribution is justified if it leads to a "better" or "more just" society; it's not about punishing successful people. They also don't think the world is anywhere close to a meritocracy, therefore the wealth people create is at least to a very large part a function of good fortune so there is no moral issue with wealth redistribution. The US busted unions and fought organised labor in general since the 1970s, and deregulated industry enormously. Also taxation is at a historic low. Those are the causes of the massive wealth presently accumulating at the top -- wealthy people today are not more meritocratic or harder working than wealthy people from the 1950s. But they're much, much wealthier. The reduction in real wages since the 70s has pushed regular people into debt (in an attempt to live a middle class lifestyle) with all the predictable negative consequences. This is even terrible from a libertarian point of view. Because a country without a middle class is a country without consumers.

snitko 13y ago
Most people rejected the idea that slavery is a bad thing for the most of human history. The problem with the idea that one's success somehow lies on the shoulders of the rest of the society (and therefore one is forever in debt to it, some may say) is that you can't prove it. You can say it, but you can't prove it. Some people got successful despite the hurdles society put in front of them. When you say taxation is at historic low you have to remember that it is those who are at the top and are in bed with politicians who can afford to pay low taxes. Starting entrepreneurs and mom and pop businesses pay a lot. That's not even mentioning the fact that they have a lot less options to protect their savings from inflation (which is also a tax). If you look at the US govt share in the economy it grew from about 8-10% in the 1930s to more than 50% now. Those who get enormously rich these days are mostly those who are in bed with the government.
- tks2103 13y ago
  I don't understand what you are trying to say in the first paragraph. You can easily say that no one would be successful without roads or electricity, so there is always some percentage of a person's success derived from society. Society lowers the cost of innovation far more than any perceived hurdles it may place in front of people, in all but the most extreme cases (like Syria maybe?). So, what do you mean?
  - snitko 13y ago
    > You can easily say that no one would be successful without roads or electricity You can? A lot of people became successful without roads or electricity in the past. Actually, I'm pretty sure those who built roads or invented electricity became successful without those things. Then others paid them to use their invention and that paved way to their success. Of course everyone's success depends on many things that were built before. But to claim that only a government can build those things and therefore you are forever indebted to the society as a whole is just plain wrong. Are you willing to pay Apple for the rest of your life because it invented the modern smartphone?
    - tks2103 13y ago
      What? I'm willing to pay Apple for a smartphone. Why would I pay them for life? Even if I did pay them for life, what would that have to do with anything? Nowadays, everyone uses roads. If you claim today that you are a self-made person that doesn't owe anything to anyone, I could just point out that roads exist and without them you would not be successful. I guess Genghis Khan was pretty successful without roads, but what does that have to do with anything? Right now, other people make things that allow individuals to succeed. Right now, if you succeed and claim other people did not have anything to do with it, you are lying to yourself and everyone else. Edit: And therefore, the idea of a rich man who made his money 'honestly' is too simple to be useful in any framework that manages a modern society. The definition of 'honest' is missing.
      - Glide 13y ago
        One could argue that Ghengis Khan had to owe a part of his success to the culture he grew up in and the ability to use combined arms. We do have a way of rewarding innovators: patents and copyrights. Now, those systems have been abused from everywhere to Texas, but it can be reformed. At least I would like to think so. What I don't get is why people just don't look at the labor side of this argument. A wealthy person certainly didn't create a work force and educate them. He didn't provide them with a stability and other basic needs. Even at a more basic level where do all the consumers come from? Don't they buy products based on their desires that are largely due to society as well? I really do think we find ourselves in an economic "web of life." I don't like the idea of framing it as honest and dishonest either. I would much rather make sure that the wealthy don't have too much leverage overs others in society. An example I would give is how credit card companies have basically pushed the risks out to merchants. Yes combat fraud. Also push for chip and pin in the states so that less of it occurs and figure out something with online purchases. To a lesser extent we have taken steps when we recognize this imbalance. Cigarette companies can no longer market to minors. Young minds being the most impressionable ones.
gaius 13y ago
The thing is that distribution of income refers only to the shape of the graph. Unfortunately in English the word is overloaded in the sense of "the giving of stuff". That clouds any discussion.
randyrand 13y ago
Globalization and technology has played a much more important role than union-busting and deregulating industry (not sure how that last one factors in at all to be honest). Think about it, before the lowest 90% were competing with themselves. Now they're competing with the Chinese, Indians, and robots who are happy with a few dollars a day or a nice greasing. In depth report of why inequality is growing in OECD countries: http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/social-issues-migration-health/the-causes-of-growing-inequalities-in-oecd-countries_9789264119536-en#page21 http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/social-...
a3n 13y ago
> the wealth people create is at least to a very large part a function of good fortune Massive-scale wealth is created by the labor of others, and you become massively wealthy by figuring out how to keep more of the wealth than the laborers keep. No one creates a billion dollars on their own. The "good fortune" is merely finding yourself in that position; the wealth was created by collaboration, on purpose.

by gizmo 13y ago

snitko 13y ago

Most people rejected the idea that slavery is a bad thing for the most of human history. The problem with the idea that one's success somehow lies on the shoulders of the rest of the society (and therefore one is forever in debt to it, some may say) is that you can't prove it. You can say it, but you can't prove it. Some people got successful despite the hurdles society put in front of them. When you say taxation is at historic low you have to remember that it is those who are at the top and are in bed with politicians who can afford to pay low taxes. Starting entrepreneurs and mom and pop businesses pay a lot. That's not even mentioning the fact that they have a lot less options to protect their savings from inflation (which is also a tax). If you look at the US govt share in the economy it grew from about 8-10% in the 1930s to more than 50% now. Those who get enormously rich these days are mostly those who are in bed with the government.

tks2103 13y ago
I don't understand what you are trying to say in the first paragraph. You can easily say that no one would be successful without roads or electricity, so there is always some percentage of a person's success derived from society. Society lowers the cost of innovation far more than any perceived hurdles it may place in front of people, in all but the most extreme cases (like Syria maybe?). So, what do you mean?
- snitko 13y ago
  > You can easily say that no one would be successful without roads or electricity You can? A lot of people became successful without roads or electricity in the past. Actually, I'm pretty sure those who built roads or invented electricity became successful without those things. Then others paid them to use their invention and that paved way to their success. Of course everyone's success depends on many things that were built before. But to claim that only a government can build those things and therefore you are forever indebted to the society as a whole is just plain wrong. Are you willing to pay Apple for the rest of your life because it invented the modern smartphone?
  - tks2103 13y ago
    What? I'm willing to pay Apple for a smartphone. Why would I pay them for life? Even if I did pay them for life, what would that have to do with anything? Nowadays, everyone uses roads. If you claim today that you are a self-made person that doesn't owe anything to anyone, I could just point out that roads exist and without them you would not be successful. I guess Genghis Khan was pretty successful without roads, but what does that have to do with anything? Right now, other people make things that allow individuals to succeed. Right now, if you succeed and claim other people did not have anything to do with it, you are lying to yourself and everyone else. Edit: And therefore, the idea of a rich man who made his money 'honestly' is too simple to be useful in any framework that manages a modern society. The definition of 'honest' is missing.
    - Glide 13y ago
      One could argue that Ghengis Khan had to owe a part of his success to the culture he grew up in and the ability to use combined arms. We do have a way of rewarding innovators: patents and copyrights. Now, those systems have been abused from everywhere to Texas, but it can be reformed. At least I would like to think so. What I don't get is why people just don't look at the labor side of this argument. A wealthy person certainly didn't create a work force and educate them. He didn't provide them with a stability and other basic needs. Even at a more basic level where do all the consumers come from? Don't they buy products based on their desires that are largely due to society as well? I really do think we find ourselves in an economic "web of life." I don't like the idea of framing it as honest and dishonest either. I would much rather make sure that the wealthy don't have too much leverage overs others in society. An example I would give is how credit card companies have basically pushed the risks out to merchants. Yes combat fraud. Also push for chip and pin in the states so that less of it occurs and figure out something with online purchases. To a lesser extent we have taken steps when we recognize this imbalance. Cigarette companies can no longer market to minors. Young minds being the most impressionable ones.

gaius 13y ago

The thing is that distribution of income refers only to the shape of the graph. Unfortunately in English the word is overloaded in the sense of "the giving of stuff". That clouds any discussion.

randyrand 13y ago

Globalization and technology has played a much more important role than union-busting and deregulating industry (not sure how that last one factors in at all to be honest). Think about it, before the lowest 90% were competing with themselves. Now they're competing with the Chinese, Indians, and robots who are happy with a few dollars a day or a nice greasing. In depth report of why inequality is growing in OECD countries: http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/social-issues-migration-health/the-causes-of-growing-inequalities-in-oecd-countries_9789264119536-en#page21 http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/social-...

a3n 13y ago

> the wealth people create is at least to a very large part a function of good fortune Massive-scale wealth is created by the labor of others, and you become massively wealthy by figuring out how to keep more of the wealth than the laborers keep. No one creates a billion dollars on their own. The "good fortune" is merely finding yourself in that position; the wealth was created by collaboration, on purpose.