Redistribution of Wealth (?)

[johnaries]

Many RW pundits accuse Obama and other Democrats of supporting the “Redistribution of Wealth”, which was a catchphrase of supporters of Socialism in the past. By extension, they claim this proves that Obama and other Dems and Liberals in general are “Socialist.” In truth, there has already been a redistribution of wealth in progress for years: the wealth has been redistributed from the poor- and middle-class to the upper-class.

Since the 2000 election, the upper-class income has increased seven-fold, while the buying power of the poor- and middle-class has decreased. This is a true redistribution of wealth, toward the upper-class. This is the result and goal of trickle-down or “supply-side” economics. Wealth has been redistributed from the working class to the elite. This is not some ideological argument - it already happened and the facts prove it.

Some people try to justify it by saying such ridiculous statements as “you want to give money to the people who create jobs”. But, if there is no demand to create jobs, those same people will simply keep the money rather than use it to “create jobs” that aren’t needed.

The whole “supply-side” or “trickle-down” argument is nothing more than an argument to redistribute more wealth to the already wealthy. Some may criticize this argument as “class-war”. Yes, it is. And the upper-class fired the first shots and started the war. The irony is that if they would embrace the natural consumer-based “percolate-up” nature of the market they claim to embrace they would profit even more in the long run. But, that is the fly in the ointment: they are too impatient to wait for increased profits “in the long run”, they want more profits NOW.

Consider this: we have a market-based economy. Any market economy is consumer-based. You can have the best product ever conceived, but if the consumers can’t afford to buy it then it won’t sell. However, if the consumers can afford to buy the basic necessities and have some money left over, then they will look at your product and potentially buy it. The more money the consumers have, the more that the sellers can sell.

Credit agencies understood this at one time, and increased the buying power of the lower classes by allowing them to spread payments over time. Until they got too greedy. Many companies today could take a lesson from the old Aesop fable of the Goose who laid the Golden Eggs.

In conclusion, if we want a sustainable and vibrant economy we have to understand and embrace the fact that any sustainable market economy is consumer-based. Government has a vital role to play. We need a referee. Can you imagine a football or baseball game without rules and referees or umpires to enforce them? An unregulated Caveat Emptor (“let the buyer beware”) market is exactly that: a free-for-all where the consumer loses to snake-oil salesmen. On the other hand, in a regulated Caveat Vendor (“let the seller beware”) the consumer has more money to spend, and they have more confidence in the product they are buying. In this type of market, everyone prospers.

It’s very simple - increase the buying power of everyone, and more people will buy your product. Plus, the more income everyone makes, the more income tax revenues will increase and we can reduce the Federal deficit.

I cannot understand why the already wealthy would not support such an approach which would surely increase their profits over time - unless either they are too impatient, or they do not have enough faith in their own product. Regardless, we need to stop listening to their propaganda and do what is right for ALL of us., not just a few.

[safeinOhio]

1. No pure Capitalist or Socialist

country can be a democratic republic. As money concentrates in a pure unfettered capitalistic society, the masses will vote in their own interest. In a pure socialist country the government will need more and more control until population votes them out or rebells. We have a healthy combination that swings back and forth. As one idea goes overboard, the other side begins to win elections. We have both the best and worse of all economic systems. The one thing we do have is a system that does not swing too far as long as we maintain our right to vote.

[HughMoran]

2. Interesting

I agree with you, though I am willing to bet there will be little support for this theory of 'balance' between opposing forces.

[Go2Peace]

3. You think the balance is "healthy" at this point? Seriously?

If you deal with mind control "propaganda", and the power of money over democracy, then I would agree with you. But until we tackle those things and get them under control the idea that the system balances itself will be a fantasy.

[johnaries]

4. But the masses here often vote AGAINST their own interests.

Mostly due to propaganda marketing, true. But it's still a fact and a factor to be considered.

I am against a purely Socialistic system because it puts too much power in the hands of too few. I believe in separating power as mush as possible, which includes keeping Legal power separate from Economic power. Unfortunately, currently Economic Power has way too much influence over Legal (government) power. That needs to be fixed. But consolidating Economic and Legal power such as a pure Socialistic system does is not the answer. One needs to counter-balance the other.

Don't get me wrong, I still believe in some Socialistic institutions such as the Police, Firefighters, public schools etc. Spome things are just too important to be left up to the people who seek profit over performance.

But just as I don't want the POTUS(whoever that may be at the time) to be the US eqivalent of the Pope, neither do I want him to be the CEO of every company in the US.

[Scuba]

5. Set taxes back to 1970 levels... problem over.

[Viking12]

6. Every economic transaction is a redistribution of wealth

That's how markets work.