Save us, Wealth-Creator Man!

[Seth]

It's fairly simple: The number of consumers is finite therefore the more consumers that have money to buy your shit the more money you make. The less consumers employed, the less consumers that have money to buy your shit. Therefore, the more consumers that are employed the more consumers there are to buy your shit.

Okay so let's say I own a store and am wealthy. Y dollars are taken from me to and given to other people. Those people then have more money to spend, and shop at my store. But there's no way they will end up spending more than the Y dollars they got originally. Or even if they do, that will be far less in profits as there will be the costs in incurred in supplying the goods for their purchase. I am still losing money.

Please try again.

If they DON'T spend it at your store, and there's no guarantee they will, in which case you've been forced to subsidize their purchase from someone else and you don't get to decide how you spend your own money. And then there the overhead. You see, when those Y dollars are taken from you, before it's given to those other people, Z amount of that money, probably something close to 40 percent in socialist countries like the UK, is diverted to pay for the government functionaries who administer the program, which benefits no one but the government functionaries, who only exist on the government payroll in order to collect money for (primarily) themselves. Whatever trickles out of the government and actually goes to the other people you refer to is substantially diminished and therefore worth less to those other people than the money was worth to you if left in your bank account.

[Atheist-Lite]

I like the liquidator man.

[JimC]

Exactly - 99% of the financial transactions world wide each day are speculative- on 1% wealth creating and in case one is mis-informed - money is NOT wealth.

99% might be pushing it, but certainly there is a lot of parasitic behaviour by some very greedy bastards...

[Atheist-Lite]

Exactly - 99% of the financial transactions world wide each day are speculative- on 1% wealth creating and in case one is mis-informed - money is NOT wealth.

99% might be pushing it, but certainly there is a lot of parasitic behaviour by some very greedy bastards...

They are a small percentage of the wealthy and shouldn't be confused with deserving wealth. The crooks which need cleansing from the system are almost all in the new money and easily identified. The coming operation, not revolution, will require brain surgery with a scalpel rather than the use of pickaxes and hammers. The trouble is mostly all I can see are folks with a axe to grind on this delicate issue. I fear the worst.

[macdoc]

The implementation of a “Tobin tax” more than an isolated measure, should respond to a series of criteria of rationality of the global economy, which seems inexorably destined to go from crisis to crisis. One idea is enough to enable us to understand the situation with which we have been struggling for years: over 99% of the daily capital movements in the world are linked to financial activities, mostly speculation, while less than 1% is related to the real economy (production of goods and services). And this is particularly serious. We are favoring a kind of game of chance that doesn’t create wealth.

bring it on....
http://www.miradaglobal.com/index.php?o ... 17&lang=en

What I find outrageous is that financial institutions are chartered by the very people they fleece ( representative democracy ) to allow them to magnify their capital in a way no other business is allowed to and then they speculate on top of that .....this was not the purpose of fractional lending which was to match money supply with growth.

[JimC]

Practical and achievable solutions, however are not easy...

For one thing, it is too easy for financial regulation, even with the best of intentions, to have unintended consequences, such as the suppression of valid economic growth via the dead hand of an incompetent bureaucracy...

Critics of socialism sometimes have a point...

Finding an effective, rational balance of competing "goods" is a difficult art...

[Gerald McGrew]

Who says what's listed is "ideal?" It looks to me like it's "ideal" only for Marxists. Fuck them.

Everybody...conservatives, liberals, and moderates. That's why I linked to the paper and called it a "must read". If you didn't read it, then you are arguing from ignorance.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Still not seeing how forcibly having money taken from me results in me making more money. It's okay to admit that this approach isn't very good for the wealthy. The argument can then shift to whether it works for everyone else. But the argument here is falling flat.

Where do you get this from? Who said it? Link, please!

[Seth]

Who says what's listed is "ideal?" It looks to me like it's "ideal" only for Marxists. Fuck them.

Everybody...conservatives, liberals, and moderates. That's why I linked to the paper and called it a "must read". If you didn't read it, then you are arguing from ignorance.

I read it. It's based on Rawls' "distributive justice" bullshit. And it's a worthless piece of crap because it only asks what people would consider a "fair" distribution of wealth, an it does NOT ask what the respondent's opinion is on HOW THAT BALANCE IS ACHIEVED.

I'm happy to say that I think everyone should be equally wealthy, but that doesn't mean that I agree that in order to achieve this desirable social condition wealth should be take by force from some and redistributed to others so that the wealth distribution is "fair" or "just.""

I believe people should be as wealthy as they are willing to make themselves in a free-market capitalistic world where the opportunity to achieve great wealth is dependent upon one's character and abilities and not upon one's race, social class or gender.

In other words, I welcome everyone to seek the highest level of wealth THROUGH THEIR OWN EFFORTS and fair dealing in a competitive free-market economy.

I do NOT subscribe to the Rawlsian proposition that forced redistributionism is "justice."

[Drewish]

It's okay to admit that this approach isn't very good for the wealthy. The argument can then shift to whether it works for everyone else. But the argument here is falling flat.

You're correct in saying this model is best for the wealthy. I'm correct in saying my model is best for civlization.

Good. So now we agree that wealth redistribution is in fact not a good thing for those who have wealth taken from them. Now let us move on to the point about whether it is in fact, "better for civillization." Any objections before moving on?

[Gerald McGrew]

And it's a worthless piece of crap because it only asks what people would consider a "fair" distribution of wealth, an it does NOT ask what the respondent's opinion is on HOW THAT BALANCE IS ACHIEVED.

Because that wasn't the point of the study. The results show that everyone, regardless of political affiliation, recognizes that our current wealth distribution structure is unfair and less than ideal, and that most people greatly underestimate just how skewed towards the uber-wealthy it is.

I'm happy to say that I think everyone should be equally wealthy, but that doesn't mean that I agree that in order to achieve this desirable social condition wealth should be take by force from some and redistributed to others so that the wealth distribution is "fair" or "just.""

Which has nothing to do with the study, so your rant is a very good example of missing the entire point.

[Tero]

In these questions of wealth, I always come ro the same. My work, with some 30 years in the field, is worth more than the 16 year old at mcDonalds. But I really can't see anyone's "work" being worth more than 200 000 a year.

[Audley Strange]

In these questions wealth, I always come ro the same. My work, with some 30 years in the field, is worth more than the 16 year old at mcDonalds. But I really can't see anyone's "work" being worth more than 200 000 a year.

So if I made custom jewellery on the net and it was so popular that I make half a milion quid a year I should what?

A) have the majority of my earnings taken off me to support a society that increasingly needs more hand outs?

b) Pay someone to exploit the system because taking more than half of what I earn is unreasonable?

c) Stop making jewellery that people like and instead not bother my arse and scrounge off the state?

People get paid what they get paid, worth has fuck all to do with it and I doubt anyone would turn down a bigger pay packet.

[Randydeluxe]

Drewish, you seem to be unaware of the nature of the creation of wealth.

It's quite simple. You and I working together to build a house, and then working together to build a second house, will complete our task faster than you working alone to build one house while I work alone to build another. Ten of us working together to build ten houses will complete the task incredibly faster than ten of us working alone.

There is not a finite amount of money. We create more and more all the time. The more people we pay to work together, the faster they generate wealth.

[Gerald McGrew]

Good. So now we agree that wealth redistribution is in fact not a good thing for those who have wealth taken from them. Now let us move on to the point about whether it is in fact, "better for civillization." Any objections before moving on?

Shouldn't you define "wealth redistribution" first?

Technically speaking, using tax revenues to employ people to build roads and bridges is "wealth redistribution" (money is taken from me and given to someone else, i.e. construction workers).