Inequality like this is unsustainable (page 8)

dinah

Yes, I saw it.

So are you one of those people who is going to be forced to pay employees? Or did you move your operations overseas so you could keep more profit?

Nobody is trying to redistribute income. Level playing field, to me, says you work hard to help a corporation make money, you are compensated. Not with million dollar bonuses, but maybe you can afford to have a place two live and raise a couple of kids.

More people would be "successful" if they were given opportunity. Not food stamps, just a job that let's them afford to buy food.

BizzyBee

Framing this discussion as communism vs. capitalism is disengenuous, but it is effective is a Rovian sort of way.

the proponents of income redistribution want to take it from people over the median and give it to people under the median.

.....as opposed to the way it actually works - take it from people under the median and give it to people over the median. Why do you think we have such a growing income gap?

james_woods

So are you one of those people who is going to be forced to pay employees?

Well, "forced to pay employees" is a rather harsh way to put it. When I had my own business and had employees, I did not think of it that way. I was paying my employees because they were working as a team with me so that we could all get paid. Now that I work for a large corporation, I see things from that end - believe me on this: ethical corporations want their employees to benefit from their labor and prosper in society.

Nobody is trying to redistribute income.

Well, that is a very unrealistic statement. This whole thread, at its core, is all about income redistribution. The notion is that the rich are too rich and the poor are too poor. Obama is the poster child for income redistribution in this country at the present time - he is running for president on the basis of income redistribution. He gave the state of the union speech last night highlighting his desire for higher taxes on the rich, and for government to redistribute this to the poor through various social programs.

botchtowersociety

Why do you think we have such a growing income gap?

I've already mentioned part of the reason why upthread but it has been ignored because it doesn't fit into the trite little left/right paradigm.

Monetary inflation disproportionately hurts lower income workers. Those with capital can ride the asset bubbles created by money printing. Those with assets see them appreciate. Those that receive the new monies first benefit first (the financial sector). Those that see the money last lose. Wages trail inflation as well.

The double whammy of inflation and income inequality

The last decade has seen a burgeoning surge in economics literature investigating the link between inflation and income inequality. Regardless of the mechanisms proposed, these papers came to the inevitable conclusion that the greater the inflation, the greater the income disparity...

It has been said that “inflation benefits the rich and prosecutes the poor”. Here is why. The poor tend to be savers, and with inflation on the upward trend, the real value or purchasing power of their money decreases. The rich on the other hand tend to be more credit-worthy (having a higher credit rating) and have better access to financial instruments that hedge against inflation. Inflation in some ways is seen as a form of tax.

A regressive tax. Read the whole thing here:

http://newasiarepublic.com/?p=29706

sir82

Y'all are dancing around in circles.

Maybe the answers to the following questions would help clarify matters:

-- Is any redistribution of wealth, supervised by the government, ever justified? If so, when? If not, why not?

-- Is any regulation on capitalism, supervised by the government, ever justified? If so, when? If not, why not?

-- Are progressive tax rates always unfair? If so, why? If not, why not?

I suspect the "right vs. left" divide is not as great as some might think - it may well be a matter of degree. If that is the case, then compromise could be reached if both sides were honest and reasonable.

slimboyfat

Well, technically - the proponents of income redistribution want to take it from people over the median and give it to people under the median.

Not really. What we want is to draw up the rules of the game differently, so that a few people cannot grab all the wealth in the first place.

truth_b_known

In order for communism to work, all must be willing to work and all must be willing to be happy with whatever the government gives them. The moment one person refuses to work or takes steps to have more than what the government tells him what he needs, the whole system falls like the house of cards it is.

Communism had it's day. It failed. It failed because of Coca-Cola and Levi jeans.

The first steps to a communist society is to take away the right of the individual to own property. I can afford to give my a children a home where they each have their own bedroom. Do I need a home that big. No. Under communism the government would have my family living in a 2-bedroom apartment.

In addition, I have a strong work ethic. I feel it is unjust for me to sweat and toil while my neighbor does everything half-assed, yet he is given the same quality of life as me. Further, I don't want to risk being put in jail because I bought an extra chocolate bar for my son's birthday through the black market because my family was over it's chocolate ration for the month.

botchtowersociety

Not really. What we want is to draw up the rules of the game differently, so that a few people cannot grab all the wealth in the first place.

Your favored economic system does not prevent this. Since it requires a concentration of power to function, it inherently does the very thing you want to demolish. Furthermore, this has been the universal result everywhere it has been attempted. I think that is a large part of the point Terry made.

Classical Marxism, incidentally, is built on the labor theory of value. It has been widely discredited:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theory_of_value

The value of a thing has nothing to do with the labor required to produce it. Value does not reside in a thing, or in what labor is required to produce it, but in the mind of the beholder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1I5n2-ro_Q

Marx built his economic theory on a flawed economic premise.