Govt"redistribution of wealth" is no more than theft and distribution of stolen goods

[regent]

Can anyone name a nation that does not have a system for redistributing the wealth? Seems that most Econ 101 books name that function as one of the responsibilities of government. There should be someplace on this earth that people that don't want government can go and exist. Of course, the first thing they would probably do is establish a government and that means taxes. We had a great thing going in America, then the founders decided to write the Constitution and bingo in that document the first power given to government was the power to tax for the general welfare.

Congo, South Africa, Uganda...

So those nations have no system for redistributing wealth? Everyone keeps what they have and that ends the process? Do those three countries have money, if so, for what purpose?

 

[ShawnChris13]

Can anyone name a nation that does not have a system for redistributing the wealth? Seems that most Econ 101 books name that function as one of the responsibilities of government. There should be someplace on this earth that people that don't want government can go and exist. Of course, the first thing they would probably do is establish a government and that means taxes. We had a great thing going in America, then the founders decided to write the Constitution and bingo in that document the first power given to government was the power to tax for the general welfare.

Congo, South Africa, Uganda...

So those nations have no system for redistributing wealth? Everyone keeps what they have and that ends the process? Do those three countries have money, if so, for what purpose?

I was being facetious. Those countries are too busy killing themselves.

 

[bripat9643]

Your parents must be so proud.

Why, because I tell the truth?

Yeah, I can see it now. Mom, Dad, I've been meaning to talk to you about your retirement. You know, you've become worthless ticks on the ass of society don't you? Why don't you go down to Walmart and apply for something. Anything. I can hardly show my face around town.

What a jackass.

Facts are facts. People collecting Social Security and Medicare produce nothing and collect benefits that young people had to work like borrowed mules to pay for.

Please prove me wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, I can see it now. Mom, Dad, I've been meaning to talk to you about your retirement. You know, you've become worthless ticks on the ass of society don't you? Why don't you go down to Walmart and apply for something. Anything. I can hardly show my face around town.

I have this conversation with my father all the time - the fact that he's sitting on $5M or so does not in any way diminish his sense of entitlement to his SS benefit.

Llike most people who support the reditribution of wealth, he cannot present a sound reason why people should be forced by the state to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.

I suspect he can and has. You just didn't want to hear it.

BTW, what are you going to do with your share of the $5M that you inherit?

You suspect wrong. None of the leftwing turds in this forum have ever managed to produce a justification for it. Why would anyone other than an infantile moron believe his parents did?

 

[bripat9643]

Can anyone name a nation that does not have a system for redistributing the wealth? Seems that most Econ 101 books name that function as one of the responsibilities of government. There should be someplace on this earth that people that don't want government can go and exist. Of course, the first thing they would probably do is establish a government and that means taxes. We had a great thing going in America, then the founders decided to write the Constitution and bingo in that document the first power given to government was the power to tax for the general welfare.

Congo, South Africa, Uganda...

So those nations have no system for redistributing wealth? Everyone keeps what they have and that ends the process? Do those three countries have money, if so, for what purpose?

You seem to believe that redistribution of wealth to have money. That simply isn't the case. You don't even need to have government money. We had money issued by private banks in this country until the Federal Reserve was created.

 

[itfitzme]

The government is buying bonds, not selling them. How does debasing the currency benefit the rich? If anyone, it benefits debtors. Rich people tend to be creditors.

This is the US Treasury Department website.

TreasuryDirect - Home

Individual - My Accounts

It says,

TreasuryDirect®

You can buy Treasury securities using one convenient web–based account which is part of an application we call TreasuryDirect. TreasuryDirect is our primary retail system for selling our securities. This system allows us to establish direct relationships with you as an investor, enabling you to do business with us electronically using the Internet and conduct transactions without personal assistance from us.

In TreasuryDirect, you can purchase and hold Treasury bills, notes, bonds and inflation-protected securities (TIPS) as well as savings bonds, and manage your holdings online in a secure environment.

So, if you can buy bonds from the Treasury Department, then they are selling them.

Do you not filter anything?

You don't know the slightest thing about FOMC operations and how the FED controls the money supply, do you?

You don't know what "not selling them." means, do you?

If you know anything about economics, you sure haven't demonstrated it.

 

[bripat9643]

This forum is rich with ample explanations if you're of a mind to hear them. I'm not going to bother regurgitating a viewpoint that I think has been expressed better by a few others yet still had no power to influence.

Translation: You know cannot present any such argument.
Thanks for the admission.

Ah, yes of course. Other things I can and can't do:

I CAN lead a horse to water. I CAN'T make him drink.

You haven't provided any water, nimrod. Where's the argument to justify it?

 

[bripat9643]

This is the US Treasury Department website.

TreasuryDirect - Home

Individual - My Accounts

It says,



So, if you can buy bonds from the Treasury Department, then they are selling them.

Do you not filter anything?

You don't know the slightest thing about FOMC operations and how the FED controls the money supply, do you?

You don't know what "not selling them." means, do you?

If you know anything about economics, you sure haven't demonstrated it.

You're splitting hairs. The point isn't worth debating. The bottom line is that the FED increases the money supply by selling bonds.

 

[Fishlore]

All governments redistribute wealth. It is what governments do. There is nothing any government can do that does not involve the redistribution of wealth. Every time a government does anything, it costs money. That money comes from one place and ends up in another.

The national debt is one of the biggest redistribution programs of all time. Billions of dollars are taken from the working poor and the shrinking middle class in the form of income taxes and given to foreign banks and wealthy capitalists who buy government bonds.

 

[bripat9643]

I suspect he can and has. You just didn't want to hear it.

Neither he nor anyone has ever presented such an argument.
Please feel free to try, should you think it piossible to do so.

This forum is rich with ample explanations if you're of a mind to hear them. I'm not going to bother regurgitating a viewpoint that I think has been expressed better by a few others yet still had no power to influence.

You aren't going to regurgitate it because there is nothing to regurgitate. No such arguments have been posted that haven't been shot down 1000 times.

 

[JoeNormal]

Why, because I tell the truth?

Yeah, I can see it now. Mom, Dad, I've been meaning to talk to you about your retirement. You know, you've become worthless ticks on the ass of society don't you? Why don't you go down to Walmart and apply for something. Anything. I can hardly show my face around town.

What a jackass.

Facts are facts. People collecting Social Security and Medicare produce nothing and collect benefits that young people had to work like borrowed mules to pay for.

Please prove me wrong.

I'm a jackass because I'd like to see the people who've contributed to the system all their lives get the benefits they need? See, this is why right wingers are having trouble attracting new members to your club. You guys are a bunch of stingy, crotchety assholes who most real humans would avoid like the plague.

 

[bripat9643]

I have this conversation with my father all the time - the fact that he's sitting on $5M or so does not in any way diminish his sense of entitlement to his SS benefit.

Llike most people who support the reditribution of wealth, he cannot present a sound reason why people should be forced by the state to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.

I suspect he can and has. You just didn't want to hear it.

Neither he nor anyone has ever presented such an argument.
Please feel free to try, should you think it piossible to do so.

BTW, what are you going to do with your share of the $5M that you inherit?

Hookers, booze and guns.

Wooooo! wooooo!

 

[itfitzme]

Has it ever occurred to you that with a population density close to zero, the concept of private property is nebulous at best? So someone plants a crop and doesn't want another person to mess with it. He says, 'why don't you plant your crop over there.' It doesn't have to be on the same patch of land every year and there's no shortage of land on which to grow crops.

For most of history there was plenty of undeveloped land. Yet, people still felt the need to lay claim to specific tracts of land. One reason for that is that the areas near town are the most desirable since they are the easiest to get to. Furthermore, your belief that one tract of land is like any other doesn't hold water. Obviously, some areas have better soil, fewer rocks, better drainage, etc. Also, when a farmer works the land, he makes many improvements. He tills the soil and breaks it up. He clears the unwanted brush. He removes all the big rocks, and he often builds a fence around it to keep out animals. Do you actually believe anyone would do all that work to a plot of land and then allow someone else to squat on the results of all his hard work? Also, while there is a crop growing on it, the farmer is obviously going to want exclusive rights to it.

Your theory is obvious horseshit. Agriculture can't proceed without the institution of private property. That's how the concept came into being. It wasn't an invention of government.

Squatters rights is what I would call what you're describing. That's a whole lot less formal than 'property rights'.

Unfortunately, Alaska no longer has a program for sqatters. But, Canada still does.

Canada

In Canada, there are two systems to register the ownership of land. Under the land title system, squatter rights, formally known as adverse possession, were abolished. However, under the registry system, these rights have been preserved. If a person occupies land for the required period of time as set out in provincial limitation acts and, during that time, no legal action is taken to evict or in trespass, the ownership in the land goes from the legal owner to the squatter

Squatting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, with the global temperature increasing, it is becoming more hospitable.

I don't know how good of an opportunity it is. Alaska was an excellent opportunity and many people took advantage of it until they changed the law. Maybe Canada is a good opportunity.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, I can see it now. Mom, Dad, I've been meaning to talk to you about your retirement. You know, you've become worthless ticks on the ass of society don't you? Why don't you go down to Walmart and apply for something. Anything. I can hardly show my face around town.

What a jackass.

Facts are facts. People collecting Social Security and Medicare produce nothing and collect benefits that young people had to work like borrowed mules to pay for.

Please prove me wrong.

I'm a jackass because I'd like to see the people who've contributed to the system all their lives get the benefits they need? See, this is why right wingers are having trouble attracting new members to your club. You guys are a bunch of stingy, crotchety assholes who most real humans would avoid like the plague.

They contributed only a small fraction of what they collected. Furthermore, politicians spent all the money they contributed. Young people certainly aren't to blame for that. The old people currently collected vote in all the politicians who pissed away the Social Security trust fund.

The "crotchety stingy assholes" are the greedy geezers who voted in politicians who guaranteed them that young people would be made to work like borrowed mules their entire lives to pay for current benefits for retirees. Why young people would ever vote for Democrats is beyond me. It takes an incredible amount of brainwashing to produce such a collection of servile gullible suckers.

 

[bripat9643]

Has it ever occurred to you that with a population density close to zero, the concept of private property is nebulous at best? So someone plants a crop and doesn't want another person to mess with it. He says, 'why don't you plant your crop over there.' It doesn't have to be on the same patch of land every year and there's no shortage of land on which to grow crops.

For most of history there was plenty of undeveloped land. Yet, people still felt the need to lay claim to specific tracts of land. One reason for that is that the areas near town are the most desirable since they are the easiest to get to. Furthermore, your belief that one tract of land is like any other doesn't hold water. Obviously, some areas have better soil, fewer rocks, better drainage, etc. Also, when a farmer works the land, he makes many improvements. He tills the soil and breaks it up. He clears the unwanted brush. He removes all the big rocks, and he often builds a fence around it to keep out animals. Do you actually believe anyone would do all that work to a plot of land and then allow someone else to squat on the results of all his hard work? Also, while there is a crop growing on it, the farmer is obviously going to want exclusive rights to it.

Your theory is obvious horseshit. Agriculture can't proceed without the institution of private property. That's how the concept came into being. It wasn't an invention of government.

Squatters rights is what I would call what you're describing. That's a whole lot less formal than 'property rights'.

Wrong. To be a squatter you have to occupy land owned by someone else. Note that I said "unclaimed land." That means land that no one owns. The first time someone occupies the land and makes improvements to it, it's no longer unowned.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not the slightest bit confused. The government both borrows and issues new money, depending on the current policy objective.

Does that mean the government is or is not the monopoly issuer of the dollar?

The government gave the monopoly of issuing money to the Federal Reserve in 1913. So no, the government is not the monopoly on issuing money.

The Federal Reserve is an arm of the government, so, yes, issuing money is a government monopoly.

 

[JoeNormal]

What a jackass.

Facts are facts. People collecting Social Security and Medicare produce nothing and collect benefits that young people had to work like borrowed mules to pay for.

Please prove me wrong.

I'm a jackass because I'd like to see the people who've contributed to the system all their lives get the benefits they need? See, this is why right wingers are having trouble attracting new members to your club. You guys are a bunch of stingy, crotchety assholes who most real humans would avoid like the plague.

They contributed only a small fraction of what they collected. Furthermore, politicians spent all the money they contributed. Young people certainly aren't to blame for that. The old people currently collected vote in all the politicians who pissed away the Social Security trust fund.

The "crotchety stingy assholes" are the greedy geezers who voted in politicians who guaranteed them that young people would be made to work like borrowed mules their entire lives to pay for current benefits for retirees. Why young people would ever vote for Democrats is beyond me. It takes an incredible amount of brainwashing to produce such a collection of servile gullible suckers.

Are your parents on kidney dialysis or something? Most people contribute more than they receive but as with all forms of insurance, they should consider themselves fortunate if that's the case. You should be thanking your lucky stars that you don't have to pay for their apparently astronomical medical expenses. In the old days, that's what kids did.

 

[itfitzme]

You don't know the slightest thing about FOMC operations and how the FED controls the money supply, do you?

You don't know what "not selling them." means, do you?

If you know anything about economics, you sure haven't demonstrated it.

You're splitting hairs. The point isn't worth debating. The bottom line is that the FED increases the money supply by selling bonds.

Then why are you debating it?

I read what you post. It is either correct or it ain't. If you say something like "not selling them.", then I assume that is what you mean.

So, what is your point about the Feds open market operations? Yeah, they buy and sell bonds. So? You clearly don't understand how the money supply functions.

Yeah, the Fed manages the money supply, duh! Their suppose to. GDP keeps climbing. How do you think the money supply is going to grow to account for an ever increasing poplation and GDP? Magically?

The Fed indirectly affects the supply and demand for money. Private banks, businesses, and household create money through borrowing.

Oh, look, month to month, the percent change in CPI is all over the place.

It is as high as .75, as low as about -.3, on a month to month basis, in the near past.

As a yearly average, it is from as high as 4% to as low as 1%, recently.

Last I checked, it has averaged from 2 to 2.5% yearly.

So, what's your point? That you are clueless as to how and why money management is what it is? Cuz, so far, all you've suggested is that you have moronic unstated assumptions. Do you really believe that inflation can be held to absolute zero? Is that it, you have some conspiracy theory?

 

[kiwiman127]

I see the tools are at it again.
Almost 40 years old flat wages in Real Dollars. Who determines the wages and who benefits from flat wages that don't reflect the growth of profits?
Many economist are blaming flat wages for the sloooowww recovery. Why? Seventy percent of the US economy is driven by consumer spending. But because of flat wages the consumer class has less and less expendable income. The result? Slow economic recovery. It's so simple a fifth grader could figure it out. Flat wages while there are record profits. The money is staying at the top. No reward for the hard work of the working class, they are forced to be grateful they have a job. And I bet most of the posters that are defending this crap are also those who are in the income rut. What ever happened to "A Fair Day's Pay for a Fair Day's Work? Oh that's right, that's socialism. It should have been, "a Fair Day's Profit for Me for a Fair Day's Work by the Working Class Who are Lucky to have a Job".
What did PT Barnum say,,,,,,think about it.

 

[regent]

Congo, South Africa, Uganda...

So those nations have no system for redistributing wealth? Everyone keeps what they have and that ends the process? Do those three countries have money, if so, for what purpose?

You seem to believe that redistribution of wealth to have money. That simply isn't the case. You don't even need to have government money. We had money issued by private banks in this country until the Federal Reserve was created.

So is this money or whatever redistributed or not? If it is redistributed what is the system by which it is redistributed?