redistribution of wealth

[tyler_fitz 10+ year member]

In real capitalism, you don't start with two cows. Where does one get the two cows to begin with? That analogy never made sense.

well then i guess the same can be said about socialism. i'm just using the example my macroeconomics teacher gave.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

The US economy is not socialist, and yet it re-distributes wealth. An argument against re-distribution of wealth and argument against socialism are two different things. That's not even getting into the argument that motivation is largely inborne and that external factors are always weak contributors to motivation.

The wealth one amasses is a rudimentary metric to compare success....an "e-penis" so to speak.

People combine the redistribution of wealth with socialism...The reason is that governments typically do not pull the robin hood of taking a sack of gold from jack and give it to Paul. But it is done through government programs, such a bail outs, where the US gains some ownership in the means of production in exchange for the people's capital.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

well then i guess the same can be said about socialism. i'm just using the example my macroeconomics teacher gave.

Your teacher is an idiot. One shouldn't attempt to dumb down economic philosophies, nor teach them from such a slant. Even though I oppose philosophies that aren't "winner take all", it is only right to explain them with equal ground as all others.

 

[terrrrrist]

Your teacher is an idiot. One shouldn't attempt to dumb down economic philosophies, nor teach them from such a slant. Even though I oppose philosophies that aren't "winner take all", it is only right to explain them with equal ground as all others.

Practically all mainstream economic teachings (at least those taught in line with any mainstream textbooks) are dumbed down ridiculously...models that only work assuming we ignore 1238098 other variables that do exist in real life and have a huge amount of impact on the outcome.

It's like people teaching that in order to gain 3db you must double cone area or double power, when in reality there are any number of things including smaller increments of those mentioned which will increase your score.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Practically all mainstream economic teachings (at least those taught in line with any mainstream textbooks) are dumbed down ridiculously...models that only work assuming we ignore 1238098 other variables that do exist in real life and have a huge amount of impact on the outcome.
It's like people teaching that in order to gain 3db you must double cone area or double power, when in reality there are any number of things including smaller increments of those mentioned which will increase your score.

But those models are difficult to understand, compute, and relate to modern life...While there has to be an "intro" level, I think it should consist of something better than "You have two cows"...

There is good reason why they call economics the dismal science.

 

[terrrrrist]

But those models are difficult to understand, compute, and relate to modern life...While there has to be an "intro" level, I think it should consist of something better than "You have two cows"...
There is good reason why they call economics the dismal science.

Just went and actually read the example given and yes that is a ridiculously stupid model...imo much like a number of the ideas and concepts taught standardly

 

[galacticmonkey 5,000+ posts]

There should just be a flat tax.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

How is "redistribution of wealth" defined? Charging the wealthy people a bit more in taxes that they can afford and charging average people a bit less in taxes so they have a bit more spending money to drive the economy?

Why is that so horrible? Taxes aren't gonna be higher than they were for anyone pre-bush.

 

[02gixxersix 10+ year member]

Even if everything was evenly distributed, at some point we would be right back to where we are because some people would squander it and put it up their nose and others would invest and build industry and such. People who complain about redistribution of wealth and socialism are not complaining now as they bail out major industries to keep this country's economy alive. Also anyone who thinks this country does or has ever run on pure capitalism is an idiot. We need to utilize certain aspects of different approaches to make things work.

 

[infamous_e46 5,000+ posts]

Yay Lets Give It All To The Lazy Fcks Who Quit School

 

[LiquidClen 10+ year member]

interesting read.

 

[Hundreth 10+ year member]

Arguing over Obama's puppet economics is a moot point. There won't be a noticeable difference either way. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

Why you ask?

Because the Federal Reserve still exists and Obama is too p*ssy to address it. Of course 10% of the population owns 90% of the wealth when private bankers charge our country interest for printing money!

The more money this country spends, the more money these bankers make. The more money we need, the more money the Federal reserve prints, and the faster inflation rises. This is the motivation for many wars and stupid programs.

Did you ever stop to ask who this country owes it's deficit to? Those trillion dollar figures belong to the Federal Reserve.

Our monetary system has no real backing, paper is printed out of no where. Before the Federal Reserve, money was actually backed by gold. There was no such thing as inflation.

Ron Paul was the only candidate to address the issue at all. Abraham Lincoln, JFK and Andrew Jackson were the only presidents who tried to stand up to these private bankers. Look what happened...