Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby cube » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 00:28:54

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


Do you have evidence that it doesn't work?
I believe that over the last 30 or so years the inflation adjusted income of the bottom income 20% of US citizens has been flat to declining, while the highest income 20% has seen income growth of 60% or so, inflation adjusted.
It seems to me that income redistribution is working quite well for that top 20%.
failure to understand

original question:
"There has never been a situation where the middle class has successfully got a pay raise at the expensive of the rich getting a pay cut. --> why?"
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby cube » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 01:03:18

okay I'm going to *try* and push this thread along.

Imagine a rich man who owns a $10Billion oil refinery in a nation of 100million people.

Question:
How do you redistribute wealth?
Rich people tend to have most of their wealth tied up into assets that are not easy to divide out amongst a large number of people.
How the hell do you divide an oil refinery so 100million people each get a $100?
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby Snowrunner » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 01:11:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'o')kay I'm going to *try* and push this thread along.

Imagine a rich man who owns a $10Billion oil refinery in a nation of 100million people.

Question:
How do you redistribute wealth?
Rich people tend to have most of their wealth tied up into assets that are not easy to divide out amongst a large number of people.
How the hell do you divide an oil refinery so 100million people each get a $100?


You're limiting Wealth to possessions (e.g. oil refinery) and cash.

Wealth is much more than that. Wealth is when someone can get around town without needing a car (e.g. public transit paid for by taxes) etc.

As such, Wealth Redistribution DOES happen and DOES succeed. You don't cut up the oil refinery, you tax what they produce and use that money to "redistribute wealth".
User avatar
Snowrunner
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed 24 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Screwed

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby Sixstrings » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 01:22:08

cube wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow the hell do you divide an oil refinery so 100million people each get a $100?


Here's how. You enact a livable minimum wage, universal healthcare, and a whole slew of French-style workers' rights (30 hour workweeks, two months vacation by law). That would be a start.

Net result? Mr. Standard Oil makes a bit less money, but still enough to build Xanadu if he so pleases.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby cube » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 01:32:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', '.')..
You're limiting Wealth to possessions (e.g. oil refinery) and cash.

Wealth is much more than that. Wealth is when someone can get around town without needing a car (e.g. public transit paid for by taxes) etc.
This is not a discussion of whether or not government should provide the most basic level of services like for example police, fire department, traffic signals so we all don't crash our cars and kill each other.
There is a universal consensus here so therefore it does not need to be brought up.
YOU know what I'm talking about Snowrunner when I say "income redistribution".

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', 'A')s such, Wealth Redistribution DOES happen and DOES succeed. You don't cut up the oil refinery, you tax what they produce and use that money to "redistribute wealth".
But if government taxes a rich man's profits that takes money away that could be invested to open up a 2nd oil refinery which by the way:
1) produces jobs for society
2) produces taxes for government
3) produces profits for the next 30 years which of course can be reinvested into another company
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby ReverseEngineer » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 01:37:54

The underlying "success" if you want to call it that of Western Capitalism is built on two Pillars. One is the legal deeding of property rights based on land, the second one is an equaton between those rights and Precious Metals, primarily Gold but Silver to an extent also.

Going way back to the beginning of the Agricultural revolution ad the development of counting systems, it became necessary to account for wealth in terms of land held and food produced in terms of something tangibel besides digital bits on a computer, they didn't have those back then. They did have papyrus and kept countign sheets but commerce without some Token you could exchange didn't work without a Debit Card or even the ability to print difficult to reproduce pieces of paper. PMs in this time period were a GREAT way to both store wealth AND to provide coinage for trade.

Fast forward to a world where PMs represent very little in terms of total pouplation and aren't useful for coinage, but you still retain the legal contracting and deeding of property to individuals. Layer upon layer of these contracts have been built up over the centuries, with disembodied "corporations" holding it all so no individual can be held accountable. DESPITE the fact that some individuals do hold the greatest stake in these corporations and accrue profits from them when they are successful. Soon as they fail though, "Hey, I'm not responsible. The Company went Belly Up, not ME!". So it is possible through this construct to arrive at the Socialization for the Rich, which is that when times are good, they get all the benefits, when times are bad, all the debt gets thrown back off their backs onto somebody else, whoever their corporation owed money to.

Property ownership in its essence is the centralization of the commons into the hands of a given individual. Once you say one person "owns" the land, then that person is the sieve through which all the people who live on that land get paid for their labor. "I own this land, you farm it for me and I will pay you a subsistence wage". Or, "I own this land and I will Tax you on your profits from it so I can live well".

Why should one person or one family from generation to generation be the Owners of the Earth? You are born into the world, and why is not one piece of that world as much yours as someone who was born to someone else? The only thing that separates you both are contracts which say one person owns the land and another is beholden to that person. Its fundamental slavery of course.

You cannot have ownership of land and have equity between people, and the proposition that "All men are created equal" is immediately undermined by property ownership and inheritance of property rights.

The land upon which we all live has to be held in trust by ALL the people, no one man deserves the right to own it all and all others live by his leave. Nevertheless, since the days of agriculture and Feudalism, such has been the concept with Pharoahs and Kings. It was not that way of course with the Hunter Gatherers, for whom all land was the Commons. The problem of course there is that as population increases, the commons get used up pretty fast. So you have wars between the tribes for use of the commons. This however does keep these populations in check all the time, it was only once Agriculture was introduced it went out of whack and large organizations of people could swallow up others with big armies.

Holding the Commons in trust for ALL the people is of course the fundamental underpinning of Communism. Where communism falls apart is in the Corruption of the individuals repsonsible for holding that trust, just as Capitalism falls apart in trusting the Banksters to hold your money safely. Individual Greed undermines any big system like this. the society must remain small enough so that the leaders of the society have a direct connection to the people they are leading, their grandchildren for the most part. This is the nature of a Tribal society of Hunter Gatherers.

There will be no equity and there will be no balance in society until such time as the population is once again reduced to the poitn that we govern ourselves in small tribes of no more than 10,000 Human Souls in parcels of land around 500 miles in diameter. That day is coming to a Theatre Near You, sooner than many here think. It does not have to be Clan of the Cave Bear though, much technology could be retained. It just needs to be much smaller than it is now, our footprint on Gaia is too big for the planet to support this way. It would be my great hope that once the die off is complete and that people understand the nature of a WORLD of limited resources, they will change how they looked at life, as a never ending expansion and conglomeration of ever bigger entities up to the Nation Sate and World Civilization. This MUST end if humanity is to survive, and it WILL end. The only question is whether there will be people around to rebuild a better society and better way of life after this one is finished.

Reverse Engineer
User avatar
ReverseEngineer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby cube » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 02:01:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '[')b]cube wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow the hell do you divide an oil refinery so 100million people each get a $100?
Here's how. You enact a livable minimum wage, universal healthcare, and a whole slew of French-style workers' rights (30 hour workweeks, two months vacation by law). That would be a start.

Net result? Mr. Standard Oil makes a bit less money, but still enough to build Xanadu if he so pleases.
I've never been to France but the place does have over 300 different varieties of cheeses so it can't be such a bad place right? :wink:
but....
Despite all the generous social welfare, Joe Sixpack in France is no better off then people in other countries which have significantly less social welfare: USA, Singapore, Japan, etc...
Interesting huh?

BTW youth (18 to 25-year-olds) unemployment rate in France is 20%. ouch!
I'd rather live in a country that has zero job security (USA is a good example) but there are actually jobs rather then live in a country where government mandated all the security in the world for workers rights but there are no jobs to be had.
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby Snowrunner » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 03:21:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'T')his is not a discussion of whether or not government should provide the most basic level of services like for example police, fire department, traffic signals so we all don't crash our cars and kill each other.


Yes it is. Because any service that is provided "for free" is something you don't have to shell out for yourself.

If I can get around for free in my city I don't have to buy a car, maintain a car, fill up a car, pay taxes on the car, pay the car loan etc.

In the end it is more money for myself which increases my ability to spend money, this can be (I did it for myself) be as high as $1000 / month.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is a universal consensus here so therefore it does not need to be brought up.
YOU know what I'm talking about Snowrunner when I say "income redistribution".


I know that you are aiming for a specific conclusion that you have reached and are trying to force others to come to as well so that you can then turn around and say: "See, I am not the only one".

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut if government taxes a rich man's profits that takes money away that could be invested to open up a 2nd oil refinery which by the way:
1) produces jobs for society
2) produces taxes for government
3) produces profits for the next 30 years which of course can be reinvested into another company


The oil refinery does not produce riches out of thin air. It produces riches because it has a market to sell it's products into.

Any kind of factory is an "aggregator" of wealth. It pools resources, work and capital (the latter one much less than the other two).

The "investor" or "owner" gets to skim off money at the top for his "genius" of opening the factory / refinery.

In the end, taxing the "investor" is not preventing a second factory / refinery from opening if there is a demand for the output.

It is a fallacy by some ideologues that high taxes would prevent investment. Even a 10% return on an investment will attract an investor, despite on the griping by certain people with an agenda.
User avatar
Snowrunner
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed 24 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Screwed
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby Snowrunner » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 03:25:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', 'H')olding the Commons in trust for ALL the people is of course the fundamental underpinning of Communism. Where communism falls apart is in the Corruption of the individuals repsonsible for holding that trust, just as Capitalism falls apart in trusting the Banksters to hold your money safely. Individual Greed undermines any big system like this. the society must remain small enough so that the leaders of the society have a direct connection to the people they are leading, their grandchildren for the most part. This is the nature of a Tribal society of Hunter Gatherers.


Every system designed by humans for humans will eventually be corrupted. The only solution is to smash it to pieces and rebuild when the point is reached.

And no, this is not a nice process and in fact it can be very ugly.
User avatar
Snowrunner
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed 24 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Screwed
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby Snowrunner » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 03:27:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '
')Despite all the generous social welfare, Joe Sixpack in France is no better off then people in other countries which have significantly less social welfare: USA, Singapore, Japan, etc...
Interesting huh?


How do you define "better off"? I think that's the crux of your argument.

I grew up in Europe, I live right now in North America and I would say, from personal experience an observation, that the aveage Joe is better of (or was anyway) in Europe. Sure, no big houses, not five TVs etc. But again: What is your definition of "better off"?
User avatar
Snowrunner
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed 24 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Screwed
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby ReverseEngineer » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 03:37:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', '
')
Every system designed by humans for humans will eventually be corrupted. The only solution is to smash it to pieces and rebuild when the point is reached.

And no, this is not a nice process and in fact it can be very ugly.


I would agree with this statement, which is why it behooves humans to keep their systems small. That way when you smash it to pieces it doesn't do so much damage.

Reverse Engineer
User avatar
ReverseEngineer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby ReverseEngineer » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 03:55:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'o')kay I'm going to *try* and push this thread along.

Imagine a rich man who owns a $10Billion oil refinery in a nation of 100million people.

Question:
How do you redistribute wealth?
Rich people tend to have most of their wealth tied up into assets that are not easy to divide out amongst a large number of people.
How the hell do you divide an oil refinery so 100million people each get a $100?


That would be obvious. You divide it up into shares and pay them each dividends. Or you simply Nationalize entire industries such as Oil and use the proceeds from those industries to fund the Goobermint, which provides services to the People. The Saudis do that. Of course the Sheiks keep plenty of the proceeds for themselves.

It would be very easy really to redistribute the wealth of America. Just take every square inch of property over by Emminent Domain, nationalize all the industries and make everyone an employee of the Homeland. This isn't rocket science Cube.

The problem with this is that those at the top of the pyriamid don't want to give up the power, wealth and status that such redistribution entails, so they fight it of course. Poor folks have little problem with such redistribution of course.

If you run a good Slave farm and keep your slaves well fed and happy, the Slaves don't begrudge Massah his Gulfstream Jets and his Mansion all that much. When Massah screws up on the markets, loses all his money and can't keep the Plantation running, the Slaves hang him up by his Gonads. Basically, TPTB are approaching the Gonad Hanging stage now.

Reverse Engineer
User avatar
ReverseEngineer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby Snowrunner » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 04:03:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', '
')
Every system designed by humans for humans will eventually be corrupted. The only solution is to smash it to pieces and rebuild when the point is reached.

And no, this is not a nice process and in fact it can be very ugly.


I would agree with this statement, which is why it behooves humans to keep their systems small. That way when you smash it to pieces it doesn't do so much damage.


Yes, the irony in this for me is that the Communist thought the State was the answer, the Capitalists think it's the private Enterprise.

Both are wrong, but neither would ever admit it.
User avatar
Snowrunner
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Wed 24 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Screwed
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby cube » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 04:24:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', 'Y')es it is. Because any service that is provided "for free" is something you don't have to shell out for yourself.
If I can get around for free in my city I don't have to buy a car, maintain a car, fill up a car, pay taxes on the car, pay the car loan etc.
In the end it is more money for myself which increases my ability to spend money, this can be (I did it for myself) be as high as $1000 / month.
Ahh 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.
But he could not do that because he had to pay taxes so you can get a "free ride" on public transit. :wink:
Sacrifice A to receive B. --> no such thing as a free lunch

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', 'I') know that you are aiming for a specific conclusion that you have reached and are trying to force others to come to as well so that you can then turn around and say: "See, I am not the only one".
What's wrong, I'm not allowed to have my own opinion?
original question:
"There has never been a situation where the middle class has successfully got a pay raise at the expensive of the rich getting a pay cut. --> why?"

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', 'I')n the end, taxing the "investor" is not preventing a second factory / refinery from opening if there is a demand for the output.
huh what?
A rich man may withhold opening up a 2nd factory if he believes there is no market demand for one.
But if there is a market demand for one he will attempt to open up a 2nd factory with the amount of money he has available after taxes of course. :P

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Snowrunner', 'I')t is a fallacy by some ideologues that high taxes would prevent investment.
So according to your logic it does not matter if a rich man is taxed 20% or 60% he has the ability to open up the same number of factories in both cases.
That is absurd!
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby cube » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 04:55:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', '.')..
That would be obvious. You divide it up into shares and pay them each dividends. Or you simply Nationalize entire industries such as Oil and use the proceeds from those industries to fund the Goobermint, which provides services to the People. The Saudis do that. Of course the Sheiks keep plenty of the proceeds for themselves.

It would be very easy really to redistribute the wealth of America. Just take every square inch of property over by Emminent Domain, nationalize all the industries and make everyone an employee of the Homeland. This isn't rocket science Cube.

The problem with this is that those at the top of the pyriamid don't want to give up the power, wealth and status that such redistribution entails, so they fight it of course. Poor folks have little problem with such redistribution of course.

If you run a good Slave farm and keep your slaves well fed and happy, the Slaves don't begrudge Massah his Gulfstream Jets and his Mansion all that much. When Massah screws up on the markets, loses all his money and can't keep the Plantation running, the Slaves hang him up by his Gonads. Basically, TPTB are approaching the Gonad Hanging stage now.

A country finds itself in economic distress.
Political revolutionaries seize the opportunity and make the same tired argument that has been repeated 1,000 times throughout history.
political message:
"Lets throw the fat pigs out.
Put us in power and we'll redistribute the wealth fairly and that means we can all get to have double servings because the fat pigs are no longer around to hog up most of the economic pie.
Sounds great right!"
ReverseEngineer - You know how the story ends 95% of the time.
When everything is all said and done Joe Sixpack finds himself no better off then before.

My assertion still stands.
Income redistribution does not work.
original question:
"There has never been a situation where the middle class has successfully got a pay raise at the expensive of the rich getting a pay cut. --> why?"

//

Anyways I'm getting tired. Time to take a break.
I have never replied to so many questions as this before.
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby bl00k » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 05:47:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'I') never said money / wealth was the end all to everything.
For example Denmark is one of the most socialistic countries on the planet but they have ranked number 1 in happiest country
sure being happy is important but....
*points to message board subcategory*
This is "Economics & Finance" and NOT quality of life, wellbeing, happiness, etc....

So maybe it never happened that the middle class got a pay raise on the expense of the rich. That doesn't prove income redistribution doesnt work. Through tax money (of which rich pay more than poor people) the government can offer certain services, so in a way the income of the rich is redistributed over the total population (or anyone who needs those services). The middle class didn't get a pay raise, but might get a little bit more help.

Funny side note: im having this same discussion on a dutch forum and believe it or not, in that discussion i'm 'in favor', of the rich. The other side proposes to increase taxes (even more) for those who earn most. Those high wages apparently are immoral or something.
The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.
User avatar
bl00k
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat 17 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Netherlands
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby ReverseEngineer » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 07:37:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '
')A country finds itself in economic distress.
Political revolutionaries seize the opportunity and make the same tired argument that has been repeated 1,000 times throughout history.
political message:
"Lets throw the fat pigs out.
Put us in power and we'll redistribute the wealth fairly and that means we can all get to have double servings because the fat pigs are no longer around to hog up most of the economic pie.
Sounds great right!"
ReverseEngineer - You know how the story ends 95% of the time.
When everything is all said and done Joe Sixpack finds himself no better off then before.


I would dispute that conclusion. If J6P is out of a job, his house foreclosed on living in a tent in Bushville unable to buy food for his starving children, he certainly can be no worse off with a wealth redistribution, since he has been stripped of any he had at all. When the Romanoffs got filled full of lead in a Ruskie basement, most certainly the impoverished Ruskies improved their lot in life under Communism, because they were starving to death before Communism, that is WHY they had a revolution.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')My assertion still stands.
Income redistribution does not work.
original question:
"There has never been a situation where the middle class has successfully got a pay raise at the expensive of the rich getting a pay cut. --> why?"


In answer to your original question, because the rich control the wealth, and they only dole out so much as is necessary to keep the social order. A middle class provides them the services they need like Doctors and Nurses and Lawyers, and they trickle out just enough wealth to this class to keep them above the labor class, but not by much relatively speaking. In an economic crash, the middle class gets sucked down into abject poverty with the labor class, it becomes one mass of starving people. At this point wealth redistribution is forced on the rich, since you cannot control the wealth when your head is rolling down Main Street. The impoverished member of society is way better off immediately.

Reverse Engineer
User avatar
ReverseEngineer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby cube » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 08:16:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bl00k', '.')..
So maybe it never happened that the middle class got a pay raise on the expense of the rich. That doesn't prove income redistribution doesnt work. Through tax money (of which rich pay more than poor people) the government can offer certain services, so in a way the income of the rich is redistributed over the total population (or anyone who needs those services). The middle class didn't get a pay raise, but might get a little bit more help.
Good 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!

Granted you received a benefit from government, perhaps universal health care. That seems quite popular amongst the middle class and the poor too. :razz:
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.
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby cube » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 08:42:50

*4 shots of espresso + trying to short the stock market == very little sleep*

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', 'I') would dispute that conclusion. If J6P is out of a job, his house foreclosed on living in a tent in Bushville unable to buy food for his starving children, he certainly can be no worse off with a wealth redistribution, since he has been stripped of any he had at all. When the Romanoffs got filled full of lead in a Ruskie basement, most certainly the impoverished Ruskies improved their lot in life under Communism, because they were starving to death before Communism, that is WHY they had a revolution.
Was the life of the average Russian better off under communist rule instead of the Czars? Probably yes. But a counter-argument can be made that was only because the Soviets got to enjoy 20th century technology.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y assertion still stands.
Income redistribution does not work.
original question:
"There has never been a situation where the middle class has successfully got a pay raise at the expensive of the rich getting a pay cut. --> why?"
In answer to your original question, because the rich control the wealth, and they only dole out so much as is necessary to keep the social order.
A middle class provides them the services they need like Doctors and Nurses and Lawyers, and they trickle out just enough wealth to this class to keep them above the labor class, but not by much relatively speaking.
A rich man will not give his workers a pay raise unless he gets a pay raise too in the form of higher profits!
Therefore the middle class can never get a pay raise at a rich man's expense.
It makes sense.
But there must be more to it.
The answer seems much to short and incomplete.
Any other reasons???

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', 'I')n an economic crash, the middle class gets sucked down into abject poverty with the labor class, it becomes one mass of starving people. At this point wealth redistribution is forced on the rich, since you cannot control the wealth when your head is rolling down Main Street. The impoverished member of society is way better off immediately.
hmmm?
Consider this.
For example in the USA you have George Soros who has $10Billion while J6P has only $10K. Basically the rich has 1,000,000 times net worth.
If we go back to ancient times.
A normal man in Mongolia may have had 3 horses. Did Genghis Khan have 3million horses? LOL --> no
If a highlander owned 2 cows did the king of Scotland own 2million cows? *laughter* --> not even close
My goodness wealth was much more "evenly distributed" back in the middle ages but who wants to go back there?

An argument can be made that income disparity is actually beneficial for the middle class in certain situations.
The greater the disparity the better! What do you think of that theory? :wink:
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Inequality (US Vs. Europe)

Postby ReverseEngineer » Mon 22 Dec 2008, 09:06:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', 'I') would dispute that conclusion. If J6P is out of a job, his house foreclosed on living in a tent in Bushville unable to buy food for his starving children, he certainly can be no worse off with a wealth redistribution, since he has been stripped of any he had at all. When the Romanoffs got filled full of lead in a Ruskie basement, most certainly the impoverished Ruskies improved their lot in life under Communism, because they were starving to death before Communism, that is WHY they had a revolution.
Was the life of the average Russian better off under communist rule instead of the Czars? Probably yes. But a counter-argument can be made that was only because the Soviets got to enjoy 20th century technology.
[/quote]

Go ahead and make the counter argument, I'll carve it up like Thanksgiving Turkey :-) If you want just a simple rebuttal to this, I'll counter your counter argument by saying the only reason Soviets got to nejoy 20th Century technology was BECAUSE of Communism. They weren't Industrialized before communism you know.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y assertion still stands.
Income redistribution does not work.
original question:
"There has never been a situation where the middle class has successfully got a pay raise at the expensive of the rich getting a pay cut. --> why?"
In answer to your original question, because the rich control the wealth, and they only dole out so much as is necessary to keep the social order.
A middle class provides them the services they need like Doctors and Nurses and Lawyers, and they trickle out just enough wealth to this class to keep them above the labor class, but not by much relatively speaking.
A rich man will not give his workers a pay raise unless he gets a pay raise too in the form of higher profits!
Therefore the middle class can never get a pay raise at a rich man's expense.
It makes sense.
But there must be more to it.
The answer seems much to short and incomplete.
Any other reasons???[/quote]

Not really. Its just fundamental greed that once one person HAS control of wealth, he doesn't want to "give" it away. He will exact some type of work from you to "earn" this wealth back from him, and he will bid out the jobs at the lowest price he can get. Basically you pit one poor person against the next. The only reason Mddle Class folks get paid better than laborers is because the rich need those services to enhance their quality of life, and most of those services take some education. So the rich have to dole out enough to educate some members of the working class to be Doctors and Lawyers and so forth. They need these apparatchiks, so they pay the costs for that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReverseEngineer', 'I')n an economic crash, the middle class gets sucked down into abject poverty with the labor class, it becomes one mass of starving people. At this point wealth redistribution is forced on the rich, since you cannot control the wealth when your head is rolling down Main Street. The impoverished member of society is way better off immediately.hmmm?
Consider this.
For example in the USA you have George Soros who has $10Billion while J6P has only $10K. Basically the rich has 1,000,000 times net worth.
If we go back to ancient times.
A normal man in Mongolia may have had 3 horses. Did Genghis Khan have 3million horses? LOL --> no
If a highlander owned 2 cows did the king of Scotland own 2million cows? *laughter* --> not even close
My goodness wealth was much more "evenly distributed" back in the middle ages but who wants to go back there?

An argument can be made that income disparity is actually beneficial for the middle class in certain situations.
The greater the disparity the better! What do you think of that theory? :wink:[/quote]

I don't think much of any of your theories Cube, because they are just too easy to deconstruct. The latter one isn't even worth wasting time on.

Insofar as the disparity of wealth differential today versus the Mongol Era, that is just an effect of the energy multiplier effect of Oil. You simply could not control so much energy and wealth as is concentrated in a barrel of oil in the time of Genghis Khan. Relatively speaking however, the concentration of wealth is similar, and equally bad now as it was then, or in the time of the French Revolution. This inequity cannot last, its too imbalanced and there are too few rich and too many poor to maintain control over such an imbalance. Bascially, you run out of money to pay the police and staff the prisons. At this point, the smart rich guy RUNS FOR HIS LIFE. Anyone with any wealth in situation where most of the society is in abject poverty is going to be stripped of that wealth. If you can't pay cops to protect you, you are TOAST.

Reverse Engineer
User avatar
ReverseEngineer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 60 guests