Wealth Redistribution or Wealth Return?

[laughing dog]

As for policy, it would be a rare policy that did not have losers and winners. Any policy that has winners and losers has redistribution.
Any wealth that is created (which is what I think of when I hear "wealth return) comes from what is produced, not from what is redistributed.

The problem is the "winner" of a policy in many cases is the politician and all the participants are losers to varying degrees.

I know you believe that to be true. But the notion that all of the participants are losers is nonsense.

The thing is politicians get votes based on what the voters believe will happen, not based on what actually happens. Just look at the trumpets for a clear example of this.

If you are saying that a politician is not always held accountable, I agree. If you are saying that politicians are never held accountable, that is pure nonsense. Trump lost his bid for re-election.

As a general rule, if you have a long-standing issue and a simple solution that is not applied either the solution doesn't do what the label promises or there is a substantial difference of opinion on what the issue actually is.

That is true. So what?

Raise the minimum wage is such a case.

It is true that there is a substantial difference of opinion as to what the underlying issues are. It is not necessarily true that the solution does not do accomplish its intended purposes - that is an empirical question the answer to which depends on the specifics of the context.

Lots of words without actually presenting any counter arguments.

I think the my response is straightforward. Perhaps if you pointed out the words you don’t understand or explained why you feel it was not on point, I could better explain the obvious to you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As for policy, it would be a rare policy that did not have losers and winners. Any policy that has winners and losers has redistribution.
Any wealth that is created (which is what I think of when I hear "wealth return) comes from what is produced, not from what is redistributed.

The problem is the "winner" of a policy in many cases is the politician and all the participants are losers to varying degrees.

I know you believe that to be true. But the notion that all of the participants are losers is nonsense.

The thing is politicians get votes based on what the voters believe will happen, not based on what actually happens. Just look at the trumpets for a clear example of this.

If you are saying that a politician is not always held accountable, I agree. If you are saying that politicians are never held accountable, that is pure nonsense. Trump lost his bid for re-election.

As a general rule, if you have a long-standing issue and a simple solution that is not applied either the solution doesn't do what the label promises or there is a substantial difference of opinion on what the issue actually is.

That is true. So what?

Raise the minimum wage is such a case.

It is true that there is a substantial difference of opinion as to what the underlying issues are. It is not necessarily true that the solution does not do accomplish its intended purposes - that is an empirical question the answer to which depends on the specifics of the context.

Lots of words without actually presenting any counter arguments.

I think the my response is straightforward. Perhaps if you pointed out the words you don’t understand or explained why you feel it was not on point, I could better explain the obvious to you.

You still haven't addressed the fact that when you have a simple solution to a hard problem and it hasn't been used something is wrong with it.

 

[laughing dog]

You still haven't addressed the fact that when you have a simple solution to a hard problem and it hasn't been used something is wrong with it.

It is not a fact. It is an opinion. And it is simply not logically or even observationally true.

 

[Bomb#20]

Be that as it may, why do you say demand for labor is completely inelastic in the very short run? That sounds like a claim that if a worker making $15.50 demands his pay be immediately hiked to $20, the boss will say "Okay" and start paying him $20/hr (and probably start looking around for a replacement worker.) I.e., it sounds like a claim that the boss will never say "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out." Is that really what you mean to claim, or is there an angle here I'm missing?

In your example, if the wage goes up from $15.50 to $20 due to outside forces (i.e. the business owner did not negotiate the increase), in many instances before there is a chance for the business owner or manager to make adjustments to their service or production process, they simply have to use the same amount of labor.

Well sure, that could happen at some particular businesses due to idiosyncratic conditions; but for that to translate into a vertical demand curve, it would have to happen at every company buying unskilled labor, simultaneously.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You still haven't addressed the fact that when you have a simple solution to a hard problem and it hasn't been used something is wrong with it.

It is not a fact. It is an opinion. And it is simply not logically or even observationally true.

Got some example where it worked? (And not involving the introduction of new technology.)

 

[laughing dog]

You still haven't addressed the fact that when you have a simple solution to a hard problem and it hasn't been used something is wrong with it.

It is not a fact. It is an opinion. And it is simply not logically or even observationally true.

Got some example where it worked? (And not involving the introduction of new technology.)

Carbon taxes to reduce carbon emissions.

 

[bilby]

You still haven't addressed the fact that when you have a simple solution to a hard problem and it hasn't been used something is wrong with it.

It is not a fact. It is an opinion. And it is simply not logically or even observationally true.

Got some example where it worked? (And not involving the introduction of new technology.)

Carbon taxes to reduce carbon emissions.

Also, nuclear power plants to reduce carbon emissions. (Not a new technology; The power plants we have mostly pre-date serious concerns about carbon emissions by several decades, and the reasons for building them almost never include the mitigation of climate change).

[/ ]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You still haven't addressed the fact that when you have a simple solution to a hard problem and it hasn't been used something is wrong with it.

It is not a fact. It is an opinion. And it is simply not logically or even observationally true.

Got some example where it worked? (And not involving the introduction of new technology.)

Carbon taxes to reduce carbon emissions.

Where has that been meaningfully applied?

And note that that was not a long-standing proposal for dealing with it.

 

[laughing dog]

You still haven't addressed the fact that when you have a simple solution to a hard problem and it hasn't been used something is wrong with it.

It is not a fact. It is an opinion. And it is simply not logically or even observationally true.

Got some example where it worked? (And not involving the introduction of new technology.)

Carbon taxes to reduce carbon emissions.

Where has that been meaningfully applied?

And note that that was not a long-standing proposal for dealing with it.

Nonsense - Finland implemented one in 1990. Taxing polluting emissions as a proposed remedy has been around for over 80 years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You still haven't addressed the fact that when you have a simple solution to a hard problem and it hasn't been used something is wrong with it.

It is not a fact. It is an opinion. And it is simply not logically or even observationally true.

Got some example where it worked? (And not involving the introduction of new technology.)

Carbon taxes to reduce carbon emissions.

Where has that been meaningfully applied?

And note that that was not a long-standing proposal for dealing with it.

Nonsense - Finland implemented one in 1990. Taxing polluting emissions as a proposed remedy has been around for over 80 years.

Note the "long standing" bit.

 

[laughing dog]

Nonsense - Finland implemented one in 1990. Taxing polluting emissions as a proposed remedy has been around for over 80 years.

Note the "long standing" bit.

I think over 30 years is "long standing". Certainly, over 80 years is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nonsense - Finland implemented one in 1990. Taxing polluting emissions as a proposed remedy has been around for over 80 years.

Note the "long standing" bit.

I think over 30 years is "long standing". Certainly, over 80 years is.

Carbon taxes haven't been a long standing proposal.

 

[laughing dog]

Nonsense - Finland implemented one in 1990. Taxing polluting emissions as a proposed remedy has been around for over 80 years.

Note the "long standing" bit.

I think over 30 years is "long standing". Certainly, over 80 years is.

Carbon taxes haven't been a long standing proposal.

Carbon taxes have been around for 30 years. They were not first proposed 30 years ago. I know I learned about them as an undergraduate student in the 1970s which makes them around 50 years old. Taxing pollutants of any type dates back over 80 years. So, I think your unstated definition of "long-standing" is pretty much idiosyncratic.

 

[Worldtraveller]

You still haven't addressed the fact that when you have a simple solution to a hard problem and it hasn't been used something is wrong with it.

It is not a fact. It is an opinion. And it is simply not logically or even observationally true.

Got some example where it worked? (And not involving the introduction of new technology.)

Carbon taxes to reduce carbon emissions.

Universal healthcare.

 

[lostone]

To me, it is all about wealth return. Productivity has gone up and up, but the only ones who seem to have benefitted are those who already were on top. Changes we have seen since the Conservative Thermidorian takeover in the 1980s.

Thermidorian Reaction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To me, it is all about wealth return. Productivity has gone up and up, but the only ones who seem to have benefitted are those who already were on top. Changes we have seen since the Conservative Thermidorian takeover in the 1980s.

Thermidorian Reaction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The share that goes to buy means of production keeps getting ignored.