A short lesson in economics. I'm going to make it very simple, there is a limited amount of money and resources in any nation, for example the United States, and like a pie we can divide it up. Also like a pie, if we choose to give more to one person, by definition there is less available to give to everyone else. Therefore if we give more to the wealthy, ie those people who already have the most pie to begin with, by definition there is less pie available for everyone else to share.
You see it is not possible to make the rich richer, without making the poor poorer, because the wealth and resources of our society are not unlimited. The people who believe that we can all get richer if only we make the wealthy even wealthier, are therefore clearly, fundamentally confused about the nature of Economics, they have fallen into the trap of thinking that money and resources are somehow in unlimited supply, which clearly they are not. When people complain socialism is attempting to redistribute the wealth, they demonstrate ignorance of the simple fact that the wealth has already been redistributed away from the general population into the hands of a tiny minority, not through their own labours, but rather through the exploitation of the labours of others. All socialism is trying to do, is attempt to redress the imbalance created by that exploitation.
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I don't disagree with the premise of this argument ,this planet has finite resources,though technology can greatly change the equation at times.
The main point I would like to make here is that there is not a limit to money. Money is a man made concept and you just cannot run out of it. Governments can never run out of money,there I said it.
Our problem is that we have allowed the private banking sector to create nearly all the money we use in a modern economy and we have to pay interest to them for every penny/cent they create. Banks new create money by lending it to us,every loan is new money created(paying off your loan destroys that money btw).This is our problem ,money has become the wealth generator for banks.97% of the current money supply in any modern ecomomy is created by private banks. We need to stop this and allow the state to do it instead,once it does we all stop having to become indebted to banks to get our money. Debt levels will fall and inequality with it.
Of course we would till face the "resources" limit.
If you are interested see here
VinceRichardson
Level 6
Dec 8, 2017
1
You can't 'run out of money' anymore than you can run out of centimetres or inches. Money is just a measurement of wealth. The 'name of the game ' in economics is BALANCE. You must have just the right amount of 'money' to keep the economy 'ticking' along nicely. Of course, down at 'street level' you can run out of coin. I'm referring to the complex workings of the government and banks who can created this 'money' (wealth measurment) out of nowhere actually. It's all to do with BALANCE
Who decides what the balance is....is the question?
Currently it is the private banks. But It should be "we the people".
Banks decide how much to create and where to invest it,we and our politicians have no say in what they decide.
Of course we do get to spend as a nation but we offset that with taxes so the net effect is balanced I agree.....but the big but is what do banks do to justify their lending(money creation),other than to take the profits from creating money and pass the losses for mistakes onto us? Where is the balance there?There isn't any because we have a loaded private money creation system.
I hear you and I agree. you also stated that there is a limited amount of resources. What if the money is being redistributed to adjust for that? There is a company in Seattle Washington, called gravity payments that started paying there employees 70k a year. With the new wealth employees started to have children. What if the government and top one percent are in conclusion to decrees the population?
Arasmuson
Level 6
Dec 8, 2017
1
LeighShelton
Level 8
Dec 7, 2017
2
In 1978, a modem was 75 baud.
In 1982 it was 300 baud.
A few years later, 2400 baud, approaching the theoretical maximum of 3300 baud.
Then in the 90s, ISPs gained the right to put their own equipment in the telco CO.
And now today, even without wires, we're in gigabyte territory.
Our most valuable resource is our ability to identify new resources and do better stuff with those resources so that, you know, the pie gets bigger.
I'll have strawberry rhubarb, please.
andygee
Level 7
Dec 7, 2017
3
That's not a baud answer! 
That's not true. Look at Japan, and look at Russia. Japan has far fewer resources per person than Russia does, but the average Japanese person has a much higher standard of living than the average Russian. Technology lets us use those resources more efficiently than we have in the past.
BD66
Level 8
Dec 7, 2017
2
It is true. As a matter of fact you proved his point. Japan distributes its wealth more equitably, so even with less more people get more wealth.
BD66:
When Russia distributed its wealth equally, they were even poorer on average than they are today, and they were much, much, much poorer than Japan.
First of all, the USSR was a communist state, not a Socialist State and second of all, where socialism is actually the form of capitalism being practiced, things are dramatically better than the oligarchy often practiced in the United States.
BD66:
If you list the top countries of the world in terms of GDP per capita, most of them are tax & regulation havens where it is impossible to calculate the GINI index.
1 LIECHTENSTEIN $139,100 2009 EST. (Tax Haven)
2 QATAR $127,700 2016 EST. (Extreme Income Inequality)
3 MONACO $115,700 2015 EST. (Tax Haven)
4 LUXEMBOURG $104,000 2016 EST. (Tax Haven) Gini Index 30.4
5 FALKLAND ISLANDS (ISLAS MALVINAS) $96,200 Gini Index 36.0
6 MACAU $95,100 2016 EST. 35.0 (Tax Haven)
7 SINGAPORE $87,900 2016 EST. GINI Index 45.8
8 BERMUDA $85,700 2013 EST. (Tax Haven)
9 ISLE OF MAN $84,600 2014 EST. (Tax Haven)
10 BRUNEI $76,900 2016 EST. (Extreme Income Inequality)
11 KUWAIT $71,900 2016 EST. (Extreme Income Inequality)
Most of these countries near the very top didn't have much going for them until they decided it would be extremely profitable to become a haven from taxation and regulation.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
World Music
1329 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.