Inequality and wealth redistribution

[NobleSavage]

If you favor wealth redistribution in the US would you favor a global wealth redistribution? Seems morally logical to me.

I understand that wealth is not GDP, but lets use GDP as a starting point.

World GDP $71.83 trillion / World Population 7.125 billion

If we are going to be fair lets do radical redistribution -- everyone gets the same amount.

Are you gong to be better off or worse off when you are left with $100?

(Yeah, yeah, yeah I spelled redistribution wrong in the title. I have dyslexia, sorry.)

 

[bilby]

If you favor wealth distribution in the US would you favor a global wealth redistribution? Seems morally logical to me.

I understand that wealth is not GDP, but lets use GDP as a starting point.

World GDP $71.83 trillion / World Population 7.125 billion

If we are going to be fair lets do radical redistribution -- everyone gets the same amount.

Are you gong to be better off or worse off when you are left with $100?

(Yeah, yeah, yeah I spelled redistribution wrong in the title. I have dyslexia, sorry.)

70 trillion divided by 7 billion would be $10,000 each.

Debt free and with $10,000 to my name I would be quite a lot worse off than I am today; If I only had $100, I would be a lot worse off, and wondering which cheating bastard had made of with my other $9,900...

(Oh, and no need to apologise about the syldexia).

 

[NobleSavage]

(Oh, and no need to apologise about the syldexia).

I seem to suck at math as well.

 

[dx713]

I would be very worse, unless I am suddently debt-free, given that my mortgage alone costs more than that.

But, despite being often seen as a radical leftist, I object on your global distribution idea on two points:
- A lot of humans seem to still need carrots / rewards / a direct effect of their work on their life. USSR failed not only because of their dictators, but also because people like to own nice things. So you need to keep a little variance in earnings to oil the machine.
- Costs of living are not even in the world. So you need to take that into account. Okay, the costs are themselves linked to the richness of the people around, so that could be balanced in the long term, but you need to transition very slowly.

I also don't like redistribution for equality sake. I have no problem with some people being mega-rich. I appear anti-mega-rich because I just want everybody to have a basic social net, and when you need money to fund that net, I propose to take it where it hurts less first. But once the social net is funded, I have no problem with the mega-rich (probably now only kilo-rich, poor them) staying kilo-rich.

 

[Togo]

GDP is income. it would probably more to the point to redistribute assets, rather than income. Or do both.

It's also worth noting that both taxes and prices would fall quite heavily, since most tax is redistributive in one form or another, and most prices are way above the cost of supply simply to operate in a high wage environment.

 

[Tigers!]

If you gave everyone the same amount I wonder how long before some would lose theirs, waste it, be defrauded etc?

John D. Rockefeller (IIRC) once talked of this and thought that in a year far too many would be the way they were previously due to the habits, character, initiative etc. In a few years it would be back almost to the way it was previously. He said almost because some people, once given the opportunity would show themselves as wise stewards of money.

How regularly would you need to do the redistribution to keep the (alleged) inequality in check?

 

[lpetrich]

If you gave everyone the same amount I wonder how long before some would lose theirs, waste it, be defrauded etc?

John D. Rockefeller (IIRC) once talked of this and thought that in a year far too many would be the way they were previously due to the habits, character, initiative etc. In a few years it would be back almost to the way it was previously. He said almost because some people, once given the opportunity would show themselves as wise stewards of money.

Where is John D. Rockefeller supposed to have stated that?

I've seen that fairy tale repeated elsewhere, but that does not make it any less of a fairy tale.

It ignores historical accidents and inequality of opportunity, like inheritance of wealth. Would Paris Hilton get her wealth back? Would the Kennedys get their wealth back? The Bushes? The Kochs?

Also, things that would be difficult to repeat, like Microsoft getting a de facto monopoly on desktop-computer operating systems. That occurred with the help of various historical accidents that would be difficult to repeat. Massive redistribution of wealth would mean that Bill Gates and his friends would be deprived of most of their Microsoft stock, stock that would be given to many others. How would Bill Gates succeed in getting it back? How would he create some software-company startup that would be guaranteed to grow as big as M$ is now? He's now 58.

Financial wizards would have the best chance of getting their money back, I think, but even they are dependent on historical accidents. Many of the dethroned rich people would spend the rest of their days in the middle class, being competent enough to avoid major self-destructive mistakes, only dropping out of it if overwhelmed by circumstances.

We can see that in what happened when ruling classes were overthrown. Most of the Russian aristocrats who fled the Bolsheviks did not exactly become the rulers of the lands that they fled to, though they often fled with enough wealth to give themselves a good head start.

 

[barbos]

(Oh, and no need to apologise about the syldexia).

I seem to suck at math as well.

DeVry graduate?

 

[TV and credit cards]

If you gave everyone the same amount I wonder how long before some would lose theirs, waste it, be defrauded etc?

John D. Rockefeller (IIRC) once talked of this and thought that in a year far too many would be the way they were previously due to the habits, character, initiative etc. In a few years it would be back almost to the way it was previously. He said almost because some people, once given the opportunity would show themselves as wise stewards of money.

It may not be the same characters rising to the top but I do agree with John D.
Your welcome.

Consider, it's a lot easier to obtain wealth than it is to retain it. Obtaining it often entails some degree of luck. Retaining it almost always entails sound practical judgement.

 

[Canard DuJour]

If you favor wealth redistribution in the US would you favor a global wealth redistribution? Seems morally logical to me.

Does it? If you want redistribution for its own sake, perhaps. The rich industrialised economies redistribute for other reasons :

- Libertopian fantasy aside, the distribution would otherwise be too top heavy to maintain mass consumption/production, the necessary infrasructure and education.

- Libertopian fantasy aside, the distribution would otherwise have more to do with disparate bargaining power than merit.

I understand that wealth is not GDP, but lets use GDP as a starting point.

World GDP $71.83 trillion / World Population 7.125 billion

If we are going to be fair lets do radical redistribution -- everyone gets the same amount.

Are you gong to be better off or worse off when you are left with $100?

I'd have quite a lot less money on day one.

But, as Togo points out, it doesn't work like that. The money's only worth what you can buy with it. Prices would adjust locally until either the dollars flowed back to where all the productive capacity, know-how and financial centres are, or different currency values adjusted.

If we could could redistribute capacity to produce and demand stuff, someone like me would be no worse or better off within a generation or two. The way to do that is to not pay workers in developing economies peanuts and not thereby bid domestic wages down. I'm prepared to pay a bit more for coffee and disc players but transnational corporations aren't prepared to accept a bit less profit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You wouldn't have anything like $10k.

GDP is the nation's income, not personal income. Distribute it all to the people and the business economy instantly collapses.

 

[Jarhyn]

I gotta say, I'm more a fan of helicopter inflation and graduated asset taxation to offset it to 2% annual.

 

[Emily Lake]

Ignoring any quibbling about math, and considering the intent of the question... I would be a lot worse off, and so would everyone in the developed world. There are more people in undeveloped nations than there are in developed nations, so it would effectively be a one-way flow of funds. And since those developed nations rely heavily on consumers in order to stay developed... the result would likely be global economic collapse.

You'd need a 50-year transition plan to avoid it. Please submit said plan in triplicate, with the appropriate authorizations, by October 28th for due consideration.

 

[arkirk]

Ignoring any quibbling about math, and considering the intent of the question... I would be a lot worse off, and so would everyone in the developed world. There are more people in undeveloped nations than there are in developed nations, so it would effectively be a one-way flow of funds. And since those developed nations rely heavily on consumers in order to stay developed... the result would likely be global economic collapse.

You'd need a 50-year transition plan to avoid it. Please submit said plan in triplicate, with the appropriate authorizations, by October 28th for due consideration.

I believe you stumbled on the rationalization the right wing uses all the time...and the demand for a fully matured solution without first maturing in some sort of democratic process. A rational progressive says, "Let's have some democracy and see where it can take us in a spirit of cooperation." On the other side of the argument, the Ron Pauls, the Kochs and the Ryans of the world say, "Okay, if you are so smart where is your plan for the redistribution?" They always denigrate the power of fair rules democracy to promote peaceable cooperation. They always claim that those with "low intellect" (low income) should not have a say in how the pie is distributed. This cannot be determined instantly or even by one person alone and that is where these challenges are lodged.

The notion of democracy has a component part that is ignored by right wing thinkers...empathy. The empathy comes from the increased communication involved in democracy. Without that, we make the same painful blunders over and over again. Everybody must have a seat at the table. Just look at the Republicans running around trying to deny black and poor people their vote. It is clear what is happening here. Government should not be a game but rather a civilizing process that improves the general human lot on this planet. Unless all are considered, the solutions will be empty and not even remotely address even the most obvious of social problems.
It is possible to actually smell the right wing stench, one of aggression against the weak and the poor, in the argument demanding a complete plan for Utopia now. Such a demand is beyond bewildering. It is actually raw aggression and paints a picture of the progressive as being a utopian, when in fact their own claim is that we are already in Utopia.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ignoring any quibbling about math, and considering the intent of the question... I would be a lot worse off, and so would everyone in the developed world. There are more people in undeveloped nations than there are in developed nations, so it would effectively be a one-way flow of funds. And since those developed nations rely heavily on consumers in order to stay developed... the result would likely be global economic collapse.

You'd need a 50-year transition plan to avoid it. Please submit said plan in triplicate, with the appropriate authorizations, by October 28th for due consideration.

You flunked bureaucrat 101.

The plan needs to be submitted no later than 10/01/2014.

 

[bilby]

Ignoring any quibbling about math, and considering the intent of the question... I would be a lot worse off, and so would everyone in the developed world. There are more people in undeveloped nations than there are in developed nations, so it would effectively be a one-way flow of funds. And since those developed nations rely heavily on consumers in order to stay developed... the result would likely be global economic collapse.

You'd need a 50-year transition plan to avoid it. Please submit said plan in triplicate, with the appropriate authorizations, by October 28th for due consideration.

You flunked bureaucrat 101.

The plan needs to be submitted no later than 10/01/2014.

What's so special about the tenth of January?

 

[arkirk]

Ignoring any quibbling about math, and considering the intent of the question... I would be a lot worse off, and so would everyone in the developed world. There are more people in undeveloped nations than there are in developed nations, so it would effectively be a one-way flow of funds. And since those developed nations rely heavily on consumers in order to stay developed... the result would likely be global economic collapse.

You'd need a 50-year transition plan to avoid it. Please submit said plan in triplicate, with the appropriate authorizations, by October 28th for due consideration.

You flunked bureaucrat 101.

The plan needs to be submitted no later than 10/01/2014.

This is exactly what I was talking about. You cannot have a truly useful plan till you have democracy and see just what needs to be in that plan. Loren, in giving out his ultimatums believes he is in Utopia already and the drudges are just a part of an ideal society...no change needed. It is no win with Loren. You suggest an incremental change that might help and he demands Utopia by October 1st...or you are somehow intellectually deficient.

What he is really saying is "Thank your lucky stars you are privileged to be living in Utopia right now, so don't change a thing...or it won't be Utopia anymore!"

 

[Emily Lake]

Ignoring any quibbling about math, and considering the intent of the question... I would be a lot worse off, and so would everyone in the developed world. There are more people in undeveloped nations than there are in developed nations, so it would effectively be a one-way flow of funds. And since those developed nations rely heavily on consumers in order to stay developed... the result would likely be global economic collapse.

You'd need a 50-year transition plan to avoid it. Please submit said plan in triplicate, with the appropriate authorizations, by October 28th for due consideration.

I believe you stumbled on the rationalization the right wing uses all the time...and the demand for a fully matured solution without first maturing in some sort of democratic process. A rational progressive says, "Let's have some democracy and see where it can take us in a spirit of cooperation." On the other side of the argument, the Ron Pauls, the Kochs and the Ryans of the world say, "Okay, if you are so smart where is your plan for the redistribution?" They always denigrate the power of fair rules democracy to promote peaceable cooperation. They always claim that those with "low intellect" (low income) should not have a say in how the pie is distributed. This cannot be determined instantly or even by one person alone and that is where these challenges are lodged.

The notion of democracy has a component part that is ignored by right wing thinkers...empathy. The empathy comes from the increased communication involved in democracy. Without that, we make the same painful blunders over and over again. Everybody must have a seat at the table. Just look at the Republicans running around trying to deny black and poor people their vote. It is clear what is happening here. Government should not be a game but rather a civilizing process that improves the general human lot on this planet. Unless all are considered, the solutions will be empty and not even remotely address even the most obvious of social problems.
It is possible to actually smell the right wing stench, one of aggression against the weak and the poor, in the argument demanding a complete plan for Utopia now. Such a demand is beyond bewildering. It is actually raw aggression and paints a picture of the progressive as being a utopian, when in fact their own claim is that we are already in Utopia.

Okay, I clearly understand your viewpoint toward politics, akirk, but I fail to understand how your post follows from mine...

- - - Updated - - -

This is exactly what I was talking about. You cannot have a truly useful plan till you have democracy and see just what needs to be in that plan. Loren, in giving out his ultimatums believes he is in Utopia already and the drudges are just a part of an ideal society...no change needed. It is no win with Loren. You suggest an incremental change that might help and he demands Utopia by October 1st...or you are somehow intellectually deficient.

What he is really saying is "Thank your lucky stars you are privileged to be living in Utopia right now, so don't change a thing...or it won't be Utopia anymore!"

Forgive my tactlessness, but... what the hell?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You flunked bureaucrat 101.

The plan needs to be submitted no later than 10/01/2014.

What's so special about the tenth of January?

You realize what country both Emily and I are in? And how we write dates?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You flunked bureaucrat 101.

The plan needs to be submitted no later than 10/01/2014.

This is exactly what I was talking about. You cannot have a truly useful plan till you have democracy and see just what needs to be in that plan. Loren, in giving out his ultimatums believes he is in Utopia already and the drudges are just a part of an ideal society...no change needed. It is no win with Loren. You suggest an incremental change that might help and he demands Utopia by October 1st...or you are somehow intellectually deficient.

What he is really saying is "Thank your lucky stars you are privileged to be living in Utopia right now, so don't change a thing...or it won't be Utopia anymore!"

I was having some fun with Emily's post, you seem to have missed it entirely.

You are looking at redistributing from the wealthy to you, but if redistribution is the proper course of action it should be taken to it's logical conclusion--which will no doubt leave you one of those being taken from rather than a recipient. Emily was pointing this out and then put some bureaucratese at the end of her post.

Her requirements, while extreme were at least theoretically possible. Thus I modified them slightly to make them completely impossible.