Wealth redistribution is a fallacy

[tman_ndsu08]

It does not lessen the gap between the rich and the poor!

http://www.intinc.org/The%20Main%20Issue.htm

[McAiden]

Depends on the level of people which we are discussing. The Irish were found dead in their homes, along the roadside, in the towns and cities following the potato famine. Nobody helped them, where was the welfare. Actually, few helped them after they immigrated to America! Following the 1926 flood in Mississippi, Louisiana, and all up and down the Mississippi (worse than last year's) nobody received help.

Where was the welfare, there? But, if you speak of a great country like the U.S., why would it be workable to redistribute the wealth, why would that work? The rich get the tax breaks because they provide the jobs to pay for the welfare for those indigent who are ill or unale to work, or are new immigrants.Nobody wishes to remain on this thing called welfare, or any other kinds of handout.

[jsmith36]

tman:

The link you provided presents information in a way that is a bit too simplistic. While it uses the rhetoric of academic economics, it relies on introductory concepts. It assumes all of the "efficient market" assumptions, like perfect information, elasticity in supply and demand, no market domination, and several other assumptions that, while appropriate in an introductory economics course, have no place in a discussion attempting to prove that "wealth income distribution is a fallacy".

For example, almost the entirety of the article relies on the concept of "equilibrium". However, it is almost universally accepted that reaching equilibrium is a 'sticky' process, meaning that the market doesn't return to equilibrium immediately, and may not return for a significant time period. A good example is the Great Depression, which is a great example of 'disequilibrium' in place for many years. Furthermore, this provides a counterfactual example to your claim about wealth redistribution, because the 'disequilibrium' existed despite a lack of redistribution of wealth, and was ended (in part) due to income distribution.

Finally, this article ignores everything except introductory economics. For example, Keynes' General Theory gives several "logical proofs" as to how the markets might wind up in long term disequilibrium, and how effective fiscal policy (including wealth redistribution) might be needed to solve that problem.

The information you provided isn't "wrong", just simplistic and inaccurate. The mathematical example lacks any explanation, and seems to use arbitrary and capricious numbers without any logic as to why "x leads to y". And it simply doesn't take into account any economic theory created after 1928 (or anything taught in upper level economics courses). I can give a proof as to why wealth distribution isn't a fallacy, but I figured I'd better debunk this myth first.

[tman_ndsu08]

Keynes economics should not be allowed on this thread.

They are a voodoo fallacy that do nothing more than try to rationalize a false logic.


The reason the Great Depression happened and the reason the market didn't return to equilibrium faster is because of government regulation and your beloved Keynesian nonsense.



Get your Keynesian lies off my thread and don't come back.

[bishop]

nice link tman.. dunno which story i liked more.. either "why it's hard to be a jew", or the interesting twist on the holocaust..


wealth redistribution only seems to be a fallacy in our country because our politicians are not beholden to the public.. it seems to be working just fine in virtually all european countries however - one of the shining examples being sweden..

this paper, and this paper poke lots of holes in "your" argument..

some of the highlights:

sweden has higher median wealth than the u.sl, despite having an egalitarian system.

wealth mobility is higher in sweden than the u.s. (i.e. the "american dream" is much more a reality in sweden than here.)


and my own side note: sweden instituted these egalitarian policies in the 70's and has experienced sustainable gdp growth (contrary to the view that such policies harm economies).

[Chris]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Keynes economics should not be allowed on this thread. They are a voodoo fallacy that do nothing more than try to rationalize a false logic. The reason the Great Depression happened and the reason the market didn't return to equilibrium faster is because of government regulation and your beloved Keynesian nonsense. Get your Keynesian lies off my thread and don't come back.

tman,

Please be respectful.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: bishop nice link tman.. dunno which story i liked more.. either "why it's hard to be a jew", or the interesting twist on the holocaust..

I didn't even read any of the side links.

Ignore them if you want or read them if you want. They're all completely irrelevent to the argument in the link I posted.

wealth redistribution only seems to be a fallacy in our country because our politicians are not beholden to the public.. it seems to be working just fine in virtually all european countries however - one of the shining examples being sweden.. this paper, and this paper poke lots of holes in "your" argument.. some of the highlights: sweden has higher median wealth than the u.sl, despite having an egalitarian system. wealth mobility is higher in sweden than the u.s. (i.e. the "american dream" is much more a reality in sweden than here.) and my own side note: sweden instituted these egalitarian policies in the 70's and has experienced sustainable gdp growth (contrary to the view that such policies harm economies).

And yet, try to open a business in Sweden.

Might as well not bother with all the taxes and regulation.


American dream my ass.


The American dream is in Hong Kong where you sign one paper and you have a business. Etc.

[bishop]

people have greater ability to ascend up the economc ladder in sweden, that is a fact. and, they also have higher median income..

you can post all the babble you like, it won't change those facts.

[jsmith36]

tman:

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Keynes economics should not be allowed on this thread. They are a voodoo fallacy that do nothing more than try to rationalize a false logic.

How do you define what theories should/should not be allowed? The theorys put forth by Keynes are widely accepted by most of the world's economists. If you can give some sort of actual critique of Keynesian economics, rather than an angry three sentence rant, then we might be able to learn something. But simply claiming they're a fallacy without any support for your claim is a waste of time. Post something useful.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The reason the Great Depression happened and the reason the market didn't return to equilibrium faster is because of government regulation and your beloved Keynesian nonsense.

While economists disagree about pinpointing a "specific" cause of the Great Depression, several factors are commonly accepted: the speculative bubble which cause the stock market crash of 1929, the buying of merchandise on credit, contractionary monetary policy, increasing tariffs, the business cycle, and certain rational expectation theories, government regulation is not given as a reason as to why the Great Depression happened. Herbert Hoover, the President during the start of the Great Depression, deplored government regulation; it seems unlikely that he enacted any Keynesian programs. However, if you'd like to substantiate your claims that Keynesian economics are the cause of the Great Depression, I'd love read it.

In fact, almost all of the reasons given as to why the Great Depression ended are grounded in Keynesian expansionary fiscal policy, such as increased military expenditures for the impending WWII, public works programs like the TVA and WPA,

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Get your Keynesian lies off my thread and don't come back.

I love it when people go off on angry rants that lack the coherence of essays submitted by 3rd Grade students. Instead of having an open debate on a subject that has room for disagreement, you respond to my (relatively) coherent post with an angry musing. Please get serious, come up with a coherent, logical post, and let's have a real debate.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Keynes economics should not be allowed on this thread. They are a voodoo fallacy that do nothing more than try to rationalize a false logic. The reason the Great Depression happened and the reason the market didn't return to equilibrium faster is because of government regulation and your beloved Keynesian nonsense. Get your Keynesian lies off my thread and don't come back.

Keynesian economics wern't pursued in the run up to the Great Depression. In fact, Keynes only began writing his "Keynesian" theories (he changed positions, so his earlier work isn't what you would think of as Keynesian) in the early 20's. Are you telling me Hoover, who was in support of minimal government interferance of the economy, was pushing for full employment?

Keynesian economics wern't pursued in Great Britain, and he was a British government economist, until after the war. Such economics oversaw the great recovery and were not even challeneged until the late 70's. Then Thatcher came in and went for moneterism. And what happened? Two boom and bust cycles. After that, our our governments have pursued a mix of both. Been doing okay so far.

[bishop]

i'm still waiting to hear tman post a coherent argument of how wealth redistribution is a fallacy - considering that his opening post was nothing more than a link.. and this link offered nothing more than offhand conjecture, not real economic analysis.

and he also stated that it doesn't lessen the gap between rich and poor, even though the case of sweden proves him horribly wrong. good ol' tman for you, deep like a puddle....

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: bishop people have greater ability to ascend up the economc ladder in sweden, that is a fact. and, they also have higher median income.. you can post all the babble you like, it won't change those facts.

The only reason it would be "easier" in Sweden to climb out of poverty is because the government steals away money from those who earn it and gives it to those who do nothing (except drugs).

That's a fact for you.


Median income is irrelevent.

How about the mean income?

Quote by: jsmith36 How do you define what theories should/should not be allowed?

Austrian = correct.

Keynesian = lies, false logic, pathetic attempt to justify government stealing money from it's own people, etc.

The theorys put forth by Keynes are widely accepted by most of the world's economists.

Simply untrue.

government regulation is not given as a reason as to why the Great Depression happened.

It's the reason the market wasn't allowed to right itself, as it always and perfectly does.

The government used it as an excuse to install excesive amounts of regulation in order to keep people down and poor and feel even more dependant on the government.

In fact, almost all of the reasons given as to why the Great Depression ended are grounded in Keynesian expansionary fiscal policy, such as increased military expenditures for the impending WWII, public works programs like the TVA and WPA,

Common misconceptions that are taught to 7th graders in history class.


Keynesian lies and government regulation kept people poor rather than allowing the market to right itself.

Quote by: bishop and he also stated that it doesn't lessen the gap between rich and poor, even though the case of sweden proves him horribly wrong.

All it proves is that the government of Sweden is good at stealing the wealth earned by it's business owners and giving it to the undeserving.


You can use all the false logic you want, but that right there is the only real fact that anyone needs to be concerned with when analyzing Sweden.

[bishop]

nice rinse and repeat post...

any income figure, mean or median, is meaningless unless you factor in the cost of living.. median income is used more often than mean income, but alas..

this site here provides a calculator where you can compare the u.s. vs. stockholm, sweden..

http://www.homefair.com/homefair/calc/intsalcalc.html

in any reasonable comparison (bumblefuck idaho isn't comparable to stockholm), the cost of living is less in stockholm.. costs less to live there despite higher tax rates.. all that extra income u.s. workers make is sucked away by our higher cost of living.

Quote by: tman All it proves is that the government of Sweden is good at stealing the wealth earned by it's business owners and giving it to the undeserving.

so, no longer want to pursue your ridiculous argument wealth redistribution is a fallacy? clearly, it IS a reality (not a fallacy) in sweden and hasn't had any real detrimental effects either.. the swedish economy grows at a nice rate, its cost of living is lower, nobody struggles for essentials like access to a better life (i.e. education) or healthcare, etc...

[IdahoSamurai]

Though, Bumblefuck is a very nice town.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: bishop http://www.homefair.com/homefair/calc/intsalcalc.html in any reasonable comparison (bumblefuck idaho isn't comparable to stockholm), the cost of living is less in stockholm.. costs less to live there despite higher tax rates.. all that extra income u.s. workers make is sucked away by our higher cost of living.

If you make 100k in Sweden you'd need to make only 82155 in Sioux Falls SD.

And that statistic is pure BS anyway because it's pretax.

If you make 100k in Sweden you really make 50k or so.


Any cost of living increasing in the US are nothing compared to having your income sucked away by taxes.

the swedish economy grows at a nice rate,

But not as fast as countries whose taxes are lower.

its cost of living is lower,

No they aren't.

They're higher.

They're even higher pretax.


If you consider taxes they're much higer.

nobody struggles for essentials like access to a better life (i.e. education) or healthcare, etc...

That's not even true.

There are poor people in Sweden who struggle.


As if the government stealing away money from the people means anything relative to reducing poverty.


And the whole arguement is irrelevent because those people don't deserve to get the free money in the first place.

[bishop]

whatever you say tman.. :)

[Pooeypants]

Tman, you can't argue the statistics with your opinions.

[tman_ndsu08]

What?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 What?

You must give the relevant sources if you are to refute someone. You know exactly what I am talking about so don't play dumb with me.

[IdahoSamurai]

I don't think he's "playing".