Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution

[Xerographica]

[youtube:323xkidn]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFq05Z7_Dyk[/youtube:323xkidn]

Xero: [usual argument]

Liberal: Your problem is that you don't understand the crucial importance of redistribution of wealth.

Xero: Is every bakery going to be a success? Obviously not...right? If that were the case then poverty would be eliminated because everybody who lacked money would be guaranteed money simply by starting a bakery. No need for redistribution.

So what factors determine whether a bakery will be successful or not? Maybe it simply boils down to luck? That can't be right. The fact of the matter is that it's a given that some bakers are going to make less mistakes than other bakers. As a result, some bakeries are going to be more successful than others.

It boils down to insight and foresight. A successful baker sees more accurately than an unsuccessful baker. And it's up to consumers to determine which baker sees more accurately.

You want to redistribute wealth from a wealthy baker to a poor baker? You want to give more influence to people who see less accurately? You want to take flour from a successful baker and give it to an unsuccessful baker?

Your intentions are good, but unfortunately, because you're failing to think things through you're simply increasing the severity of the problem you're trying to solve.

If you truly want the poor to have better options in life...then you have to think things through. Better options depend on people doing better things with society's limited resources. Consumers determine who exactly are the people who are doing better things with society's limited resources. The people they give their positive feedback (money) to are the people with the most insight/foresight. Therefore, we all will greatly benefit by allowing taxpayers to choose where their taxes go.

[Bibliofagus]

Yeah. Lets give all our money to the guy who does the best (whatever the fuck that means) things with society's limited resources to have the other 5.999.999.999 people on earth reap the vast benefits!

[Xerographica]

Yeah. Lets give all our money to the guy who does the best (whatever the fuck that means) things with society's limited resources to have the other 5.999.999.999 people on earth reap the vast benefits!

I'm saying that if people can't choose exactly how much positive feedback (money) they give to an organization, then there's no way to accurately determine how much benefit society is deriving from that particular good/service.  Without this feedback it's a given that either too much, or too little, of that good/service will be supplied.  In other words, without this feedback it's a given that society's limited resources will be inefficiently allocated.  In other words, without this feedback it's a given that we won't derive the maximum value from how society's limited resources are used.  

You can certainly argue that congresspeople can determine how much benefit society derives from a particular good/service.  But if you're going to argue that their determination is at least equally as accurate as the sum of everybody's feedback...then this can't only be true of public goods.  

If congresspeople can know, better than society itself, exactly how much benefit society derives from public education...then it has to be true that congresspeople can know, better than society itself, exactly how much benefit society derives from milk.  So if we're better off allowing congresspeople to determine how much public education should be supplied, then we're also better off allowing congresspeople to determine how much milk should be supplied.  

The fact of the matter is...as a group, millions and millions of taxpayers have infinitely more insight/foresight than 300 congresspeople do.  That's why we'd be infinitely better off by allowing taxpayers to decide for themselves exactly how much positive feedback (tax dollars) they give to government organizations.

[Plu]

Do you never stop repeating the exact same thing over and over again?

[mykcob4]

The problem with people that advocate "free enterprize" is that it isn't free and it isn't fair. The fact is that the wealthy start out with an unfair advantage. They deny opportunity to the unwealthy and the poorly capitalized, thus excluding competition. Therefore you end up with corrupt corporate monopolies. This corrupt corporate monopoly business world is what the conservatives call free enterprize.
I have seen the arguements, the bumper sticker mentality that generate misleading slogans like "redistribution of wealth" as if they are true. They are anything but the truth.
If you could gauranty fair opportunity and fair compitition, then and only then would you and could you have a true "free enterprize" system.
The truth is that corrupt corporate monopolies don't pay fair wages, they don't pay taxes, they aren't responsible to the environment, they don't have safe work places, and they don't allow fair free compitition.
So don't bore me with bumper-sticker mentality buzzword lying slogans. Don't lie to my face about capitalism and socalled "free enterprize". And don't lie about "redistribition of wealth".
The fact is that wealth has been redistributed to the top 1% wealthy for decades and the conservatives have lied about that distribution. It's classic propaganda.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012 ... ital-gains
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/02-4
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/ ... -lower-93/
http://www.patternliteracy.com/655-redi ... th-upwards
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/ ... very/?_r=0
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/ ... very/?_r=0
http://www.google.com/search?q=rich+get ... d=0CE4QsAQ
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... NpMe3P5ruQ
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 25q7gQ9YNg

[LikelyToBreak]

Damn!  They must be having snowball fights in hell.   :shock:   I agree with most of mykcob4 post.  :-k  

The only exception to his post which I take is:

The fact is that wealth has been redistributed to the top 1% wealthy for decades and the conservatives have lied about that distribution. It's classic propaganda.

Unless what he means by conservatives is the bi-partisan party.  As both parties have had there turn at the rudder, and both have redistributed the wealth to the top 1%er's.  Otherwise, I can pretty much agree with mykcob4.  Go figure.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Xero, you're also forgetting some very important facts in bumper sticker politics. Billionaires get to spend vast sums of money to influence congress to pass laws that heavily favor them while mom and pops corner bakery can't even get a cop to stop by for a donut..
Classical fail. Are the moms and pops all failures and ought to remain as such for not being billionaires?

[mykcob4]

Damn!  They must be having snowball fights in hell.   :shock:   I agree with most of mykcob4 post.  :-k  

The only exception to his post which I take is:

The fact is that wealth has been redistributed to the top 1% wealthy for decades and the conservatives have lied about that distribution. It's classic propaganda.

Unless what he means by conservatives is the bi-partisan party.  As both parties have had there turn at the rudder, and both have redistributed the wealth to the top 1%er's.  Otherwise, I can pretty much agree with mykcob4.  Go figure.

Well you might believe that the redistribution of wealth is the fault of both parties but the "Bikini Chart" is the truth to the fact that the republicans are primarily responsible for wealth being redistributed to the top 1% wealthy Americans.

[Xerographica]

Xero, you're also forgetting some very important facts in bumper sticker politics. Billionaires get to spend vast sums of money to influence congress to pass laws that heavily favor them while mom and pops corner bakery can't even get a cop to stop by for a donut..
Classical fail. Are the moms and pops all failures and ought to remain as such for not being billionaires?

How is crony capitalism possible in a pragmatarian system?  Do environmentalists give the EPA more money if the EPA allows corporations to trash the environment?  Is the EPA really going to have any legitimacy/credibility if the only people funding it are big corporations?  Obviously not...and the EPA would know this.  Everybody would know this.

In a pragmatarian system we'd know exactly what percentage of the public was funding any given government organization.  Billionaires only represent less than 1% of the population.  So if a government organization is only receiving funding from 1% or less of the population, then clearly the government organization would lose all legitimacy/credibility.  Voters would clearly see that the government organization was not supplying a public good.  As a result, it would no longer qualify to receive public funding.  It would be removed from the "menu"...as it should be.  

So tell me, what percentage of the population would have to give their taxes to a government organization in order to credibly argue that it truly is supplying a public good?  What is the legitimacy threshold?  How low can the percentage be before it becomes a given that the government organization is simply catering to special interests?  

In order for a public good to genuinely be considered a public good...it has to have a broad appeal.  It has to benefit a significant portion of the population.  Pragmatarianism would allow us to accurately determine exactly what percentage of the population was benefiting from any given public good.

[LikelyToBreak]

Sorry mykcob4 but your myopic vision is too short and narrow again.  The Bikini Chart shows how things went south when the Democrats took over Congress.

And this stuff didn't start in 2000, it started in 1900.  Take a look at when the Democrats controlled both houses.

Democrats controlled BOTH house from 1955 until 1980 (26 years).
From 1981 until 1987 the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats the House.
Democrats recaptured both houses in 87 and held them until 95 when the Republicans took both houses and held them until 2005.

//http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_years_did_democrats_control_both_house_and_senate

Wake up and smell the beans.  The Democrats only sound different than the Republicans.  It is all one big party, and they are leaving us with the tab.

Xerographica, until you can come up with a way to stop all the cronyism in the government,  pragmatarianism or any other system won't work.  The plutarchy would count the votes and rig them as they wanted them.  Yes, I am saying we cannot trust the government to do what it is mandated to do.  And as far as I can see, there is nothing we can do about.  The plutarchy controls 90% of the press and enough of the government to get what they want.  Suck it up, and figure out a way to level the playing field or try to educate people as to what reality is.  If you can't do that, move on to another subject.  Sorry, but I didn't design, make, or willing work on the playing field we have inherited.

[mykcob4]

Sorry mykcob4 but your myopic vision is too short and narrow again.  The Bikini Chart shows how things went south when the Democrats took over Congress.

And this stuff didn't start in 2000, it started in 1900.  Take a look at when the Democrats controlled both houses.

Democrats controlled BOTH house from 1955 until 1980 (26 years).
From 1981 until 1987 the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats the House.
Democrats recaptured both houses in 87 and held them until 95 when the Republicans took both houses and held them until 2005.

//http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_years_did_democrats_control_both_house_and_senate

Wake up and smell the beans.  The Democrats only sound different than the Republicans.  It is all one big party, and they are leaving us with the tab.

Xerographica, until you can come up with a way to stop all the cronyism in the government,  pragmatarianism or any other system won't work.  The plutarchy would count the votes and rig them as they wanted them.  Yes, I am saying we cannot trust the government to do what it is mandated to do.  And as far as I can see, there is nothing we can do about.  The plutarchy controls 90% of the press and enough of the government to get what they want.  Suck it up, and figure out a way to level the playing field or try to educate people as to what reality is.  If you can't do that, move on to another subject.  Sorry, but I didn't design, make, or willing work on the playing field we have inherited.

You and I will never agree on a specific point, the fact that you view every politician as a corrupt crony. I am not myopic in my viewpoint. You say the chart shows what happened when the Democrats took Congress, but that is not right. It shows what happened specifically when the repukes took the whitehouse. Remember Congress is stagnated unless either party gets a supermajority otherwize government just grinds to a halt. The fact is that the economy only works if a Democrat or something other than a republican/conservative is in the Whitehouse. Since Teddy R. left the repuke party the repukes have been a corrupt party that caters to corrupt corporate monopolies. You can't say that of the Dems. Yes they have a few concerns that are very wealthy, but by and large the Dems are concerned with the middle class, the poor, the environment, PROGRESS and every minority, labor and workers and the general society at large. The reason that the economy works under the Dems is because the middle class gets larger and everyone benefits from that.

[Colanth]

"Redistribution of wealth" in economics refers to the manipulation by the wealthy to assure that money flows upward.  Accumulation of wealth, the result of that redistribution, causes destruction of the spending class,which causes depressions.

If you think October 29, 1929 was one of the high points of American history, then you're right about redistribution of wealth being a good thing.

[mykcob4]

"Redistribution of wealth" in economics refers to the manipulation by the wealthy to assure that money flows upward.  Accumulation of wealth, the result of that redistribution, causes destruction of the spending class,which causes depressions.

If you think October 29, 1929 was one of the high points of American history, then you're right about redistribution of wealth being a good thing.

EXACTLY!

[LikelyToBreak]

mykcob4 wrote in part:

You say the chart shows what happened when the Democrats took Congress, but that is not right. It shows what happened specifically when the repukes took the whitehouse.

Maybe I looked at the wrong Bikini chart.  Where the jobs started dropping in 2006.  I know your response.  "It was a delayed reaction because Clinton did so well."  Or something along those lines.

mykcob4 wrote in part:

The fact is that the economy only works if a Democrat or something other than a republican/conservative is in the Whitehouse.

Then why were the economies good during the Eisenhower and Reagan administrations?  I know, it was because of the Democrats in congress, right?
mycob4 wrote in part:

Since Teddy R. left the repuke party the repukes have been a corrupt party that caters to corrupt corporate monopolies. You can't say that of the Dems.

Sure I can and I thought I had been saying exactly that.
//http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm
I also recognize that the Dems don't have a monopoly on scandals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States#Executive_Branch
mykcob4 wrote in part:

Yes they have a few concerns that are very wealthy, but by and large the Dems are concerned with the middle class, the poor, the environment, PROGRESS and every minority, labor and workers and the general society at large.

That is their rhetoric, just like the Rep's say they are for a balanced budget.  Just hot air coming out of moving lips.  

mykcob4, you seem to have a religious conviction towards the Dems.  I have liked some Dems in my day and I liked a Rep too.  But, I never had the conviction to one party, even when I was running as a Libertarian, than you seem to have to the Dems.  Let me clue you in, their shit stinks too.

[mykcob4]

mykcob4 wrote in part:

You say the chart shows what happened when the Democrats took Congress, but that is not right. It shows what happened specifically when the repukes took the whitehouse.

Maybe I looked at the wrong Bikini chart.  Where the jobs started dropping in 2006.  I know your response.  "It was a delayed reaction because Clinton did so well."  Or something along those lines.

mykcob4 wrote in part:

The fact is that the economy only works if a Democrat or something other than a republican/conservative is in the Whitehouse.

Then why were the economies good during the Eisenhower and Reagan administrations?  I know, it was because of the Democrats in congress, right?
mycob4 wrote in part:

Since Teddy R. left the repuke party the repukes have been a corrupt party that caters to corrupt corporate monopolies. You can't say that of the Dems.

Sure I can and I thought I had been saying exactly that.
//http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm
I also recognize that the Dems don't have a monopoly on scandals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States#Executive_Branch
mykcob4 wrote in part:

Yes they have a few concerns that are very wealthy, but by and large the Dems are concerned with the middle class, the poor, the environment, PROGRESS and every minority, labor and workers and the general society at large.

That is their rhetoric, just like the Rep's say they are for a balanced budget.  Just hot air coming out of moving lips.  

mykcob4, you seem to have a religious conviction towards the Dems.  I have liked some Dems in my day and I liked a Rep too.  But, I never had the conviction to one party, even when I was running as a Libertarian, than you seem to have to the Dems.  Let me clue you in, their shit stinks too.

Ah well, I don't want to argue points that we have been beating to death since we started posting to each other. I don't have a "religious conviction" to anything, thank you very much.
The thing is the basic tenet of each party, what drives the party.
Illregardless of the party name or eavn their proposed platforms (slogans-bushwords-bumper stickers), there are basically two ideals.
Conservative and Liberal!
Conservatives:
restrict human/civil rights
redistribute resources from the middle class to the rich and corrupt corporations
foster fear, hate, and prejudice
dumb down the general populace
prey upon the weak
destroy the environment
promote selvishness and greed
degrade and disenfranchise everyone and everything that isn't white male and religious
Supress voting
decry cultural differences
and believe ethics can be summed up in a phrase "if you don't get caught it isn't a crime."
Liberals:
believe in humanity, human rights, diversity
strengthen the middle class
protect the environment
believe in the rule of law

So on and so forth. Now there are morons and corrupt people on both sides but the basic tenet is the driving force and the difference between the two.
Notice the two I described were not political parties.
So since the Democratic party is mainly Liberal and progress....and....
the republican party is mainly conservative,....
it stands to reason that I and any normal logical person that cares about this nation would prefer the Democratic party.
That is not to say that I pull the lever that marks all and just Democratic candidates, but it is to say that I will never vote for a conservative candidate no matter what party that they run in or on.