Income Redistribution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Heres a thing I dont understand: interest rates.

If someone goes on welfare, lets say they get 20,000 a year. Everybody says this is wrong because they’re getting someone elses money for nothing.

Now, lets say I invest 3,000,000 million into various accounts at 1% interest a year. That’s 30,000 a year I’m getting, for doing nothing.

And the bank can pay me this because they use my money to give out loans at higher interest rates. So my money is coming from the person who took out the loan.

And the person who took out the loan makes up for the interest on the loan by limiting the money they pay employees and raising prices. So the cost gets passed on to everybody else, through them.

So both the rich person and the poor person are effectively doing the same thing (getting money for doing nothing), yet the person on welfare is considered unethical while the rich person is considered smart and praised.[/quote]

k so you have 2 statements here.

  1. getting interest payment on your investment is “getting money for nothing”.
  2. those who borrow from the bank cut their employees salaries and raise prices.

so address #1 - in your example this would be barely enough to cover the inflation. however, you can still think of that as getting paid for investing into economy which in reality translates into new jobs, etc. And don’t forget that like 50% of that income is paid as taxes.

#2 - totally wrong. the primary reason for a business owner to borrow is to start/expand his operation, again thus creating jobs etc.

142

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:
Within the weightlifting economy it does affect others. If the only group we look at are people trying to gain muscle and strength (the real world the group is everyone, since most everyone is trying to gain money) it is very applicable.[/quote]

No, its not. Again, you can build as much muscle as you want, it doesnt stop me from building muscle. [/quote]
But it does stop you from winning competitions, and the status and recognition from them, if I have found a better way to make myself stronger.[/quote]

I’m trying to find a way to word this right.

What would you say if the use of gym equipment and supplements was limited based on how strong/muscular you were, where the biggest and strongest people get the vast majority of time on the equipment and supplements, and access to either is severely restricted to people less strong/big?

Would you consider that a fair system?[/quote]

That is an excellent metaphor. So what you’re saying is that those born into a good neighborhood, or with wealthy parents have a leg up on those who do not. Hence, the system is closed off to them.

Do I have that right?

143

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
…
What would you say if the use of gym equipment and supplements was limited based on how strong/muscular you were, where the biggest and strongest people get the vast majority of time on the equipment and supplements, and access to either is severely restricted to people less strong/big?

Would you consider that a fair system?[/quote]

Big guys hog the squat rack.

144

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:
Within the weightlifting economy it does affect others. If the only group we look at are people trying to gain muscle and strength (the real world the group is everyone, since most everyone is trying to gain money) it is very applicable.[/quote]

No, its not. Again, you can build as much muscle as you want, it doesnt stop me from building muscle. [/quote]
But it does stop you from winning competitions, and the status and recognition from them, if I have found a better way to make myself stronger.[/quote]

I’m trying to find a way to word this right.

What would you say if the use of gym equipment and supplements was limited based on how strong/muscular you were, where the biggest and strongest people get the vast majority of time on the equipment and supplements, and access to either is severely restricted to people less strong/big?

Would you consider that a fair system?[/quote]
Isn’t that how it is? Rarely do I see some skinny ass kid in the gym unless he has a mad desire to get bigger/faster/stronger. Rarely do I see someone with a large income(not rich because you can be born into it) unless they are driven to work for that large income. Once you get there you have access to more for sure, but the top bodybuilders and lifters are sponsored are they not? Do they not have better access to the newest supplements/equipment than the guy who is just breaking into the sport and is working out in a hole in the wall gym, busting his balls trying to land a big sponsorship? Does the guy with a dream get as good of a deal on a loan as a well established business man who already has a history of success?

145

[quote]ZEB wrote:

My point by the comparison is that not one of us is born equal to another in any way. And it’s certainly not the governments job to try to equalize the masses. That only creates disillusionment for those capable of creating jobs and thus helping the masses.

Stop looking for equality through some sort of "economic “justice”. That has been tried and doesn’t work. The government ends up with all the power and control. You’re a bright person you know that eventually leads to pain for the masses.
[/quote]

Read my posts. I’m not talking about regulation to ensure “economic justice.”

I’m saying our economy is a reflection of our cultural values. Those should change.

146

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:
Within the weightlifting economy it does affect others. If the only group we look at are people trying to gain muscle and strength (the real world the group is everyone, since most everyone is trying to gain money) it is very applicable.[/quote]

No, its not. Again, you can build as much muscle as you want, it doesnt stop me from building muscle. [/quote]
But it does stop you from winning competitions, and the status and recognition from them, if I have found a better way to make myself stronger.[/quote]

I’m trying to find a way to word this right.

What would you say if the use of gym equipment and supplements was limited based on how strong/muscular you were, where the biggest and strongest people get the vast majority of time on the equipment and supplements, and access to either is severely restricted to people less strong/big?

Would you consider that a fair system?[/quote]

That is an excellent metaphor. So what you’re saying is that those born into a good neighborhood, or with wealthy parents have a leg up on those who do not. Hence, the system is closed off to them.

Do I have that right?[/quote]

Wait. Please clarify “Hene, the system is closed off to them.” What system?

147

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Heres a thing I dont understand: interest rates.

If someone goes on welfare, lets say they get 20,000 a year. Everybody says this is wrong because they’re getting someone elses money for nothing.

Now, lets say I invest 3,000,000 million into various accounts at 1% interest a year. That’s 30,000 a year I’m getting, for doing nothing.

And the bank can pay me this because they use my money to give out loans at higher interest rates. So my money is coming from the person who took out the loan.

And the person who took out the loan makes up for the interest on the loan by limiting the money they pay employees and raising prices. So the cost gets passed on to everybody else, through them.

So both the rich person and the poor person are effectively doing the same thing (getting money for doing nothing), yet the person on welfare is considered unethical while the rich person is considered smart and praised.[/quote]

You are wrong on this one. The money that the rich person gains interest on is being used to create wealth for others. So he is “earning” his interest with his money. The money that the poor person has obtained came from others (like the rich guy) who have earned it and then had it taken away by the government (who took most of it to pay government workers) and then dolled out the rest to the poor. It’s not only a bad system it’s an inefficient system

Just keep in mind one does not have to do manual labor to work. Does a scientist reading all day deserve to make 300-k per year when a poor person who reads all day makes nothing? It has to do with productivity, which is not necessarily laborous in nature.

148

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

My point by the comparison is that not one of us is born equal to another in any way. And it’s certainly not the governments job to try to equalize the masses. That only creates disillusionment for those capable of creating jobs and thus helping the masses.

Stop looking for equality through some sort of "economic “justice”. That has been tried and doesn’t work. The government ends up with all the power and control. You’re a bright person you know that eventually leads to pain for the masses.
[/quote]

Read my posts. I’m not talking about regulation to ensure “economic justice.”

I’m saying our economy is a reflection of our cultural values. Those should change.[/quote]

They could be better, but I wouldn’t want the emphasis off economic power too much - Look what it’s brought us.

149

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:
Within the weightlifting economy it does affect others. If the only group we look at are people trying to gain muscle and strength (the real world the group is everyone, since most everyone is trying to gain money) it is very applicable.[/quote]

No, its not. Again, you can build as much muscle as you want, it doesnt stop me from building muscle. [/quote]
But it does stop you from winning competitions, and the status and recognition from them, if I have found a better way to make myself stronger.[/quote]

I’m trying to find a way to word this right.

What would you say if the use of gym equipment and supplements was limited based on how strong/muscular you were, where the biggest and strongest people get the vast majority of time on the equipment and supplements, and access to either is severely restricted to people less strong/big?

Would you consider that a fair system?[/quote]

That is an excellent metaphor. So what you’re saying is that those born into a good neighborhood, or with wealthy parents have a leg up on those who do not. Hence, the system is closed off to them.

Do I have that right?[/quote]

Wait. Please clarify “Hene, the system is closed off to them.” What system?[/quote]

The economic system is closed off to some just as the best equipment and supplements were closed off to the weaker.

No?

150

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
…
What would you say if the use of gym equipment and supplements was limited based on how strong/muscular you were, where the biggest and strongest people get the vast majority of time on the equipment and supplements, and access to either is severely restricted to people less strong/big?

Would you consider that a fair system?[/quote]

Big guys hog the squat rack.[/quote]

Lol, I know what you’re talking about.
I wuz gonna get my swell on and do some bicep curls and stuff but there were some punks squatting and shit. UNFAIR!

151

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Heres a thing I dont understand: interest rates.

If someone goes on welfare, lets say they get 20,000 a year. Everybody says this is wrong because they’re getting someone elses money for nothing.

Now, lets say I invest 3,000,000 million into various accounts at 1% interest a year. That’s 30,000 a year I’m getting, for doing nothing.

And the bank can pay me this because they use my money to give out loans at higher interest rates. So my money is coming from the person who took out the loan.

And the person who took out the loan makes up for the interest on the loan by limiting the money they pay employees and raising prices. So the cost gets passed on to everybody else, through them.

So both the rich person and the poor person are effectively doing the same thing (getting money for doing nothing), yet the person on welfare is considered unethical while the rich person is considered smart and praised.[/quote]

That might be the single worst comparison ever.

The poor person is getting money for nothing.

The rich person is getting compensated for the oppertunity cost lost when he allowed his assets to be used by another. This also allows the borrower(the one who ends up borrowing that same money from teh bank) to either start/expand a business or purchase a house or car.

This is basic economics and I mean really, really child like basic.

152

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:but he owns his own bakery. so the cost of ingredients and operating costs etc add up to X.
he sells it for Y.
Y-X = Z.
Z is the profit. simple stuff eh :slight_smile:
[/quote]

No, it also costs labor.

Apparently, it’s not as simple as you think. You’re getting your definitions confused.[/quote]

At this point labor is free resource - he is doing all the work himself, so the cost of labor doesn’t have to be factored into the equation. Since you brought it up it’s actually quite common for start-up business owners to pretty much break even (with Z in the equation above being close to zero or even negative).
But we’re getting ahead of ourselves here, let’s not over-complicate this very simple situation.

So, simple question, what’s wrong with that baker selling bread for profit again ?

[/quote]

No, you’re still confused. It’s not a matter of resources. The definition of profit is a return on an investment. Wages are the money you receive for work. In your example, it is impossible for this baker to profit, as he is the only employee.

153

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
…
Socialism is the only thing keeping capitalism on life support right now. It does’t fail. In fact, it’s the only way forward. You cannot cite an example of socialism failing except by being forcibly overthrown.
…
[/quote]

LOL. Please cite an example of a successful country built purely on socialist/communist principles.
I can name a few rather odious regimes that had “socialism” in the names of their programs but of course that would lead to an argument of how “impure” their implementations of the said hate-spewing doctrine were.
[/quote]

That’s just it, I can only think of two–the Paris Commune, and syndicalist-controlled territories of Spain during the Spanish Civil War. Both were forcibly overthrown.

154

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:
Within the weightlifting economy it does affect others. If the only group we look at are people trying to gain muscle and strength (the real world the group is everyone, since most everyone is trying to gain money) it is very applicable.[/quote]

No, its not. Again, you can build as much muscle as you want, it doesnt stop me from building muscle. [/quote]
But it does stop you from winning competitions, and the status and recognition from them, if I have found a better way to make myself stronger.[/quote]

I’m trying to find a way to word this right.

What would you say if the use of gym equipment and supplements was limited based on how strong/muscular you were, where the biggest and strongest people get the vast majority of time on the equipment and supplements, and access to either is severely restricted to people less strong/big?

Would you consider that a fair system?[/quote]

That is an excellent metaphor. So what you’re saying is that those born into a good neighborhood, or with wealthy parents have a leg up on those who do not. Hence, the system is closed off to them.

Do I have that right?[/quote]

Wait. Please clarify “Hene, the system is closed off to them.” What system?[/quote]

The economic system is closed off to some just as the best equipment and supplements were closed off to the weaker.

No?
[/quote]

Something along those lines, yes.

155

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Look at all of those posts. Is someone on Christmas break? I have a feeling you’re going to be spreading your brand of socialism alllllll over these threads.

LOL—Go get em you Marxist tiger you. [/quote]

From what I understand Marx himself didn’t work for shit getting most of his “income” provided by his butt-buddy Engels who in turn was getting his money from his family’s textile firm which was of course mercilessly “exploiting” the proletariat :)[/quote]

So? You don’t have a problem with getting money for no work. You’re the capitalist, remember? Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh do no work either, yet they pull fown far more than Marx ever did.

In short, what’s your point?

156

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Heres a thing I dont understand: interest rates.

If someone goes on welfare, lets say they get 20,000 a year. Everybody says this is wrong because they’re getting someone elses money for nothing.

Now, lets say I invest 3,000,000 million into various accounts at 1% interest a year. That’s 30,000 a year I’m getting, for doing nothing.

And the bank can pay me this because they use my money to give out loans at higher interest rates. So my money is coming from the person who took out the loan.

And the person who took out the loan makes up for the interest on the loan by limiting the money they pay employees and raising prices. So the cost gets passed on to everybody else, through them.

So both the rich person and the poor person are effectively doing the same thing (getting money for doing nothing), yet the person on welfare is considered unethical while the rich person is considered smart and praised.[/quote]

That might be the single worst comparison ever.

The poor person is getting money for nothing.

The rich person is getting compensated for the oppertunity cost lost when he allowed his assets to be used by another. This also allows the borrower(the one who ends up borrowing that same money from teh bank) to either start/expand a business or purchase a house or car.

This is basic economics and I mean really, really child like basic. [/quote]

I enjoy the snarky comments, really I do.

157

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Look at all of those posts. Is someone on Christmas break? I have a feeling you’re going to be spreading your brand of socialism alllllll over these threads.

LOL—Go get em you Marxist tiger you. [/quote]

From what I understand Marx himself didn’t work for shit getting most of his “income” provided by his butt-buddy Engels who in turn was getting his money from his family’s textile firm which was of course mercilessly “exploiting” the proletariat :)[/quote]

So? You don’t have a problem with getting money for no work. You’re the capitalist, remember? Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh do no work either, yet they pull fown far more than Marx ever did.

In short, what’s your point?
[/quote]

Apparently getting money for doing nothing is ok if you have lots of money.

158

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:but he owns his own bakery. so the cost of ingredients and operating costs etc add up to X.
he sells it for Y.
Y-X = Z.
Z is the profit. simple stuff eh :slight_smile:
[/quote]

No, it also costs labor.

Apparently, it’s not as simple as you think. You’re getting your definitions confused.[/quote]

At this point labor is free resource - he is doing all the work himself, so the cost of labor doesn’t have to be factored into the equation. Since you brought it up it’s actually quite common for start-up business owners to pretty much break even (with Z in the equation above being close to zero or even negative).
But we’re getting ahead of ourselves here, let’s not over-complicate this very simple situation.

So, simple question, what’s wrong with that baker selling bread for profit again ?

[/quote]

No, you’re still confused. It’s not a matter of resources. The definition of profit is a return on an investment. Wages are the money you receive for work. In your example, it is impossible for this baker to profit, as he is the only employee.
[/quote]

ok then, so let me get this straight - you’re calling Z in my example a “wage” and nothing is wrong with that picture, is that what I’m hearing?

159

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tex32 wrote:
Within the weightlifting economy it does affect others. If the only group we look at are people trying to gain muscle and strength (the real world the group is everyone, since most everyone is trying to gain money) it is very applicable.[/quote]

No, its not. Again, you can build as much muscle as you want, it doesnt stop me from building muscle. [/quote]
But it does stop you from winning competitions, and the status and recognition from them, if I have found a better way to make myself stronger.[/quote]

I’m trying to find a way to word this right.

What would you say if the use of gym equipment and supplements was limited based on how strong/muscular you were, where the biggest and strongest people get the vast majority of time on the equipment and supplements, and access to either is severely restricted to people less strong/big?

Would you consider that a fair system?[/quote]

That is actually a very bad metaphor,

A gym mebmership is something you pay for, so both of you have equal access tot he equipment as per the rules of the gym. Supplements are also paid for.

So the ones who prioritize the time on the squat rack and their supplements have mroe access because they are their first or spend their money on that.

income redistribution is nothing like waht you are talking about. You do not earn something simply by being born and existing. you have certains rights, but are naturally entitled to nothing. You have to earn it.

whether by suppoert of loaning money, cunsultation or advice or direct manual labor. you need to earn it.

160

[quote]orion wrote:If it is that easy, why does Microsoft exist?

It matters little what someone tinkers together in a garage, what metters if it reaches the customers.

Also, capitalists are only irrelevant if you believe that we have reached the maximum of what is possible.

Since this is not a valid option for us, risk taking and the exploratory nature of capitalism is indispendable.

[/quote]

Several reasons. One is that this is a very capitalist country, and the idea of cooperatives are pretty foreign to most people. It’s just not the way people do things. Secondly, it’s usually hard to find financing for something like that.

Right now, there is a lot of innovation in the area of computer software that is being restricted by companies because they can’t make money off of it. There’s nothing indispensable about a bunch of investors taking innovation hostage by demanding that it enrich them. Hell, a lot of this stuff comes from the government anyway.