[oiless]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oiless', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '
')Simply stated: Why does income redistribution not work?

[graham]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nickel', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('graham', 'I')ts interesting to note that in Argentina reform of land registry laws has not resulted in the desired increase in credit supply to new land owners, primarily as the deeds are owned by slum dwellers not deemed credit worthy. Having a stable income seems to be more important- for example, the development of micro finance is having more of an impact than reforming land registry laws.

[BlueGhostNo2]

Basically Cube this has happened (albiet over a very long time period) between feudal systems and modern (capitalist or communist) systems.

However as you say because new technology raised everybody's consumption the rich also got (in absolute terms) richer.

BUT, this is about economics (the distribution of resources) not science/technology (the methods of exploiting those resources).

SO, if an egyptian man-god or the first chinese emperor could get the entire population to turn their economic capacity over to building his tomb then they were (in relative terms) 'richer' than the richest people today. If their peasants slaved long hours for subsistance rations with the majority of their economic output going to the 'living god'. They were (relatively) poorer than the working classes today.

Your argument basically boils down to:
If capital is re-distributed away from those who have it then society will have less productive economic activity.

This is manifestly true because in order for the the wealth to be redistributed there has to be some bureaucratic process to do the redistributing this of course costs.

HOWEVER a feudal system in which the king / god / emperor in effect redistributes EVERYTHING to themselves is so inefficient almost any switch will reduce the corruption and bureaucracy and so satisfy your option 4.

What this really boils down to is systems verses bureaucratic control. In capitalism you have a system where at least in theory increases in income must come from persuading other people to give you more. So everyone has an incentive to increase their economic output.

In my view the majority of western democracies problems come from our Bureaucrats getting involved in the allocation of capital AND our Capitalists bribing the Bureaucrats into making the system less capitalistic.

Examples: Lax monopoly laws & stupid subsidies as the Bureaucrats are bribed by the Capital

and

Too generous unemployment benefits and stupid targeted taxation as the Bureaucrats get too involved with income re-distribution.

[graham]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bodinagamin', '.')..
Capitalism is also income redistribution, but one that many think is not fair.

[Bas]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '
')
Granted you received a benefit from government, perhaps universal health care. That seems quite popular amongst the middle class and the poor too.
But did society really climb one step higher on the ladder at the expense of a rich man being forced to take one step down?
An argument can be made the middle class gained nothing.
They simply received "free" health care insurance by sacrificing thousands of ship building jobs.
Receive B but Sacrifice A.

[bl00k]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'G')ood answer but...
If a rich man has to pay more taxes that cuts into his disposable income. Maybe he can no longer afford to buy that yacht that is equal the length of a football field. ohh the horrors!
Yes I know you will have no sympathy for him but just imagine how many jobs could have been creating building a yacht of such size?
Imagine how many thousands of ship building workers that could of been employed for years working on such a yacht!

[Snowrunner]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'A')hh the quotation marks "for free".
You admit that it really isn't free.

[Nickel]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'A')hh the quotation marks "for free".
You admit that it really isn't free.
The government provided a service through taxation.
These taxes could of been used for something else such as a rich man opening up a 2nd factory.

[Nickel]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'M')y assertion still stands.
Income redistribution does not work.

[Nickel]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'G')ranted you received a benefit from government, perhaps universal health care. That seems quite popular amongst the middle class and the poor too.
But did society really climb one step higher on the ladder at the expense of a rich man being forced to take one step down?

[Nickel]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('graham', 'N')ot in the slightest bit suprised. My point was land registry hasn't worked, i'm a bit puzzled at your attack here...

[Nickel]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'N')ickel - wrong answer. failed attempt

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oiless', 'N')o. I understand perfectly.
.....
If you want to make statements the onus is on you to prove them, not upon others to disprove them.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', 'A')nd your point being? As I went on to post later the second factory will STILL be opened if there is a market for it's product. 10% return on an investment is better than NO return.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bl00k', '.')..
If a society can offer the people more affordable health care on the cost of a few thousand rich being not able to buy as much luxury items as before, then yes i'd say society climbed a step on the ladder. The problem lies in finding how much you want to tax the rich. Too much and they'll flee, too little and the government can't offer certain services anymore. I'd rather see a little too few than a little too much for i don't trust the government one bit. After all, government spending is no more than taking the money from the people in order to spend it how they please (to a certain extent in a democracy).

[Quinny]

Which is why as Marx always said Socialism has to be International!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', 'A')nd your point being? As I went on to post later the second factory will STILL be opened if there is a market for it's product. 10% return on an investment is better than NO return.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bas', '.')..
I'd say that the same number of jobs would be created in healthcare and that the product is far more beneficial to far more people than one man's pleasure yacht.

Even if laborers were paid more at the expense of the rich guy they would expend that money on far more efficiently produced goods and services than the one yacht and therefor the overall welfare would increase by much more than the one yacht, also in this case the number of jobs would be the same.

If I would follow your line of reasoning though, I could make the argument that there would be more jobs than on the yacht as a yacht entails more capital costs. A yacht infact would result in net joblosses.

[Quinny]

This argument might be a little less laughable if governments hadn't just bailed out so much of the private sector.

Well aware of the investment argument, but it's not what the private sector has been doing!

Back in the 70's /80's when the right wing was destroying British Industry we in Lancashire set up a model for investment that turned on it's head the traditional grant / bailout model of government intervention. We insisted not just on a share of the cake for the taxpayers pound, but a seat on the board as well. Guess what - companies funded under this option were more successful than others who relied on scarce private finance.

German banks have always had a longer term view of financing industry and worker participation on the boards of private companies is almost universal.

I find it difficult to understand how the right, particularly in the States can fail to recognise that their obsession with the free market has taken their country to the brink!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bas', '.')..
I'd say that the same number of jobs would be created in healthcare and that the product is far more beneficial to far more people than one man's pleasure yacht.

Even if laborers were paid more at the expense of the rich guy they would expend that money on far more efficiently produced goods and services than the one yacht and therefor the overall welfare would increase by much more than the one yacht, also in this case the number of jobs would be the same.

If I would follow your line of reasoning though, I could make the argument that there would be more jobs than on the yacht as a yacht entails more capital costs. A yacht infact would result in net joblosses.

[Snowrunner]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', 'A')nd your point being? As I went on to post later the second factory will STILL be opened if there is a market for it's product. 10% return on an investment is better than NO return.

[cube]

Well guys it's been fun but it's time for me to step out.

Everybody had plenty of an opportunity to speak their mind
*look at how many pages there are! - that's a lot for 1 person to reply to*
so I don't want to hear anyone complaining or accusing me of trying to avoid the issue b/c that is false.

Sorry Quinny you showed up too late to the party.

Bas and bl00k I found your discussions to be the most fruitful.

Later guys