Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[bripat9643]

The report, from the left-leaning United for a Fair Economy, says that 40 percent of the Forbes 400 richest Americans inherited a “sizeable asset from a spouse or family member.”

The phrase "a sizeable asset" id do vague and nebulous that it's meaningless. If a man inherits $10,000, he has inherited a "sizable asset." If he builds that $10,000 into a $10 billion dollar fortune, the "sizeable asset" is an insignificant contribution to his fortune.

Forbes says that 30 percent of the Forbes 400 members inherited their wealth and the remaining 70 percent are entirely “self-made.”

It doesn't tell you how much total wealth was inherited and how much was created. The last time I looked at the list, the number of self-made men was far higher than 70%.

Got it, You can't be honest/ I'm shocked, Shocked I tell you!

Provide a detailed list of all the people who supposedly inherited all their wealth and we'll see.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Got it, AGAIN you'll not argue the posit, but instead go off on a tangent

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

To understand this aspect of the zero-sum nature of wealth, and the way many people get rich—that is, besides selling-out our workers to Third World countries—consider how Gates, Eisner, and Welch Jr. did it. It’s no mystery, and it isn’t all that hard to do.

Although the following specific details are fictional, the scenario is accurate. Through their emissaries, Mr. Bill Gates (CEO of Micro- soft), met with Michael Eisner (CEO of Walt Disney Corp.), and John Welch Jr. (CEO of General Electric). Their discussion went like this:

Gates: “Gentlemen, you astute, wise, talented, outstanding, and morally principled managers of today—I can sell you something that cost me $10 per unit to produce for $400 each. It’s a little disk with a bunch of zeros and ones on it.”

Eisner and Welch Jr., in unison: “Why in the hell would we be stupid enough to do something like that?”

Gates: “Simple. It will enable your secretaries to produce twice as much work in half the time. In other words, you can fire half your secretaries—those who helped make your organizations successful in the first place. And the secretaries who remain will still work the same hours for the same pay. You will cut your labor costs in half, the stock of your companies will skyrocket and your grateful shareholders will reward your managerial brilliance by making you incredibly, fabulously rich. Not like me, of course, but pretty damn rich.

“Here’s another wrinkle you’ll love. When your companies start growing again, Disney will hire the experienced secretaries that GE fired, and GE will hire the secretaries that Disney fired. Since they are new employees, they’ll start out at base pay, which has hardly budged for the past 20 years—and with no benefits. Times are tough for secretaries these days, you know, with the corporate downsizing and all.

“Oh yes, with Republicans in control of Congress and Clinton ap-pointing conservative judges to the courts, you can work your secretaries’ asses off, and you don’t have to worry about them getting carpal tunnel syndrome and suing you.”

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

That's why wealth never increases. Oh, wait.......

As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game.

If Microsoft stock rises tomorrow and makes Bill Gates worth an extra $1 billion, who lost the billion?

There is only so much corporate income in a given year.

Why would you confuse wealth with income? Oh, right, you're not too bright.

 

[Listening]

So what if they inherited it ?

It's funny the left would quote Jefferson when it suites their cause, but ignores "the 200 year old dead guys" when it does the same.

What pisses me off is the way the government protects the large corporations that got them the wealth in the first place. Economics teaches you that if someone is getting wealthy, others will jump in. We'll they are not because they have huge barriers of entry to overcome created mostly by government.

And we want more of it.

 

[dnsmith35]

really dumbfuk? Owning houses is a sign of upward mobility? Lol


how'd that work out for dubya?

you can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk

jfk 1964!

Show me Bubba? NONE in the past 50 years have right?

Again, JFK 1964!LBJ got JFK's proposal passed. Anytime you cut corporate taxes and taxes for the rich it is supply side economics. Economics 1 (which came before 101 as any fool with a brain knows.)

 

[Dad2three]

Thank you, seriously, for actually addressing the topic. This helps us to get somewhere.

For what it's worth, I agree with you - to an extent. I'm not sure it's a 'vast majority', or even a majority, but certainly some (too many, in any case) of the uber wealthy aren't honestly earning the wealth they acquire. And government should put a stop to it. That's one of the most important functions of government.

But simply assuming that everyone making a lot of money is cheating doesn't really make a lot of sense. Even if we ignore the basic injustice of guilty-until-proven-innocent thinking, it's just not smart. People who are earning lots of money honestly are providing us with things we want and need. We want those people to have lots of economic power because they're doing good things with it.

If progressives want to do something about economic corruption, they'll find ready allies among libertarians and conservatives by going after collusion and fraud. Wouldn't that make more sense than indulging a stereotype that throws the baby out with the bathwater?

What? Oh, you mean the Boston Tea Party.

Yeah, the Boston Tea Party. Everyone nowadays says it was a rebellion against taxation. But if you go back and read the actual writings of that moment, it was a very clearly a rebellion against the British East India company. Americans were terrified of the British East India Company.

Because it was a monopoly. They controlled the tea traffic.

And people were afraid that they would leverage that monopoly to take over all kinds of other commerce here in America.

I wrote about that in the Wall Street Journal when our modern-day Tea Party movement was getting going, and pointed this out. But the response I would hear was that the British East India Company was a government monopoly, that it had been granted by the state—which is true enough. And so the argument then is that, since monopolies are created by government, so we don’t have to worry about the private sector, if we just hack down government, then we won’t have a problem.

Yeah, if you hack down government, then you’ll have government re-emerge, only the new government will be privately run.

What do you mean?

Well, let’s look at the corporation Amazon. Amazon now essentially governs business within the book industry. Amazon has so much power that it virtually gets to tell really big companies like Hachette, the French publisher, what to do. You’re gonna sell this book at this price. You’re gonna sell that book at that price. That means Amazon pretty much has the power to determine how many copies of a book a publisher might sell. That’s not citizens trading with one another in an open market setting those prices, that’s a giant corporation setting those prices. Which means what we are witnessing in the U.S. book industry, I think, is a form of top-down government.

. . . Then a corporation becomes government.


Free markets killed capitalism: Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, Wal-Mart, Amazon and the 1 percent?s sick triumph over us all - Salon.com

What in the hell are you talking about? You have the singular ability to quote my posts, but respond with completely unrelated nonsense. Are you actually reading what I'm posting?

Got it, YOU don't even know what you posited

"But simply assuming that everyone making a lot of money is cheating doesn't really make a lot of sense. Even if we ignore the basic injustice of guilty-until-proven-innocent thinking, it's just not smart. People who are earning lots of money honestly are providing us with things we want and need. We want those people to have lots of economic power because they're doing good things with it."

 

[Dad2three]

The phrase "a sizeable asset" id do vague and nebulous that it's meaningless. If a man inherits $10,000, he has inherited a "sizable asset." If he builds that $10,000 into a $10 billion dollar fortune, the "sizeable asset" is an insignificant contribution to his fortune.



It doesn't tell you how much total wealth was inherited and how much was created. The last time I looked at the list, the number of self-made men was far higher than 70%.

Example- Romney 'self made' of course he was born on 3rd base right?

The bottom line is that Romney did not inherit any of his wealth.

Nope, just born on 3rd base and sold some stocks he had sitting around to go to college

 

[Dad2three]

The phrase "a sizeable asset" id do vague and nebulous that it's meaningless. If a man inherits $10,000, he has inherited a "sizable asset." If he builds that $10,000 into a $10 billion dollar fortune, the "sizeable asset" is an insignificant contribution to his fortune.



It doesn't tell you how much total wealth was inherited and how much was created. The last time I looked at the list, the number of self-made men was far higher than 70%.

Got it, You can't be honest/ I'm shocked, Shocked I tell you!

Provide a detailed list of all the people who supposedly inherited all their wealth and we'll see.

Weird, I posited something when questioned backed it up with a source

YOU

"The last time I looked at the list, the number of self-made men was far higher than 70%

Provide a detailed list of all the people who supposedly inherited all their wealth and we'll see."


LOL

 

[Dad2three]

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

That's why wealth never increases. Oh, wait.......

As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game.

If Microsoft stock rises tomorrow and makes Bill Gates worth an extra $1 billion, who lost the billion?

There is only so much corporate income in a given year.

Why would you confuse wealth with income? Oh, right, you're not too bright.

Got it, you want to throw crap rather than TRY to address the actual posit. I'm shocked

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.

 

[dnsmith35]

What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?

I think if they don't support the country where they were able to make that money, they should go to another country where their greed is more welcome.

The Bush tax cuts were the greatest redistribution of wealth in history. From the middle class to the top 1%.

254 counties where food stamp usage doubled from 2007 to 2011, 213 voted for Mitt Romney, a pioneer of outsourcing. I wonder how many of those who lost their jobs, lost them when Mitt's company moved the jobs to China? Lucky that Mitt owed nothing to the people who helped him get $250,000,000.00 and $100,000,000.00 for each of his five sons. By the way, Mitt strongly supported the Iraq war. All five of his sons were in their 20's when the war started and not one, not a single one enlisted. He said they were already doing something important. Helping him get elected president.

And the Republican base supports that.

So many mistakes it is hard to know where to start. Lots of us liberals supported that last issue, even if we didn't want Mitt to win. As a long time former soldier, please note, we don't resent those with reasonable choices. We have a volunteer military and most of us were not crazy about that bunch of draftees in VN. Bush lowered the top bracket by 4.9%, eliminated an entire of less wealthy from the tax roles. Only your propagandist knows the truth. In addition Mitt had left the company before the big move to China, which is really irrelevant because as per studies for every job off shored, 1.7 jobs were created in the US, and traditionally the jobs exported tended to be labor intensive low paying jobs and the jobs created were more complex and paid more. Of the few high paying jobs exported the people who lost jobs lost only 3% of their income as beginners in new firms in the same industry.

Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says - The Washington Post

The study found that offshoring tends to increase productivity and reduce costs, which can prompt firms to expand domestic hiring enough to offset the jobs lost to workers overseas.

"Offshoring has no effect on native employment in the aggregate," the authors said. "While offshore workers compete directly with natives, their employment generates productivity gains that 'increase the size of the pie,' leading to an overall neutral impact on native employment."

More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment.​

Please note, the article was NOT written by a RW source.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game.

If Microsoft stock rises tomorrow and makes Bill Gates worth an extra $1 billion, who lost the billion?

There is only so much corporate income in a given year.

Why would you confuse wealth with income? Oh, right, you're not too bright.

Got it, you want to throw crap rather than TRY to address the actual posit. I'm shocked

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.

If I 'make' a million dollars,

How did you make it? Be specific.

 

[Dad2three]

jfk 1964!

Show me Bubba? NONE in the past 50 years have right?

Again, JFK 1964!LBJ got JFK's proposal passed. Anytime you cut corporate taxes and taxes for the rich it is supply side economics. Economics 1 (which came before 101 as any fool with a brain knows.)

So you can't provide a link showing jobs created by tax cuts and you want to argue the demand side tax cuts were really supply side? lol

Kennedy, and his chief economist Walter Heller, saw the tax cut as a demand-side cut aimed at creating old-fashioned Keynesian stimulus in a sluggish economy. Indeed, what Kennedy really wanted was to stimulate the economy through government spending, but he didn’t have the votes in Congress for that. So he went with the tax cut instead. The giveaway that Kennedy's wasn’t really a supply-side tax cut was that the cuts were greater in the middle and at the bottom than at the top. If you want to stimulate consumer purchasing, you’re better off concentrating income-tax cuts in the middle and at the bottom. If you want to stimulate investment, you’re better off concentrating income-tax cuts at the top—or, if that’s politically impossible, you make the cuts the same across the board.

Here?s Why Ryan Is No JFK | New Republic

Kennedy maintained a 70% top rate on unearned dividend income, treating it much like wages and salaries;

And Kennedy, it is conveniently forgotten by supply-siders, actually tried to enact a higher dividend-tax rate on incomes over $180,000, an initiative that failed passage


Time has validated that stimulative approach, whereas recent history has largely discredited the competing notion that federal tax cuts on upper-end incomes really spur investment and create jobs. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993, and a boom followed; George W. Bush lowered them substantially in 2001, and two million jobs were subsequently lost.

03.13.oleary



The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter


Kennedy has been correctly called the first Keynesian president (of which more in a moment). Reagan was the first chief executive disciple of supply-side economics, the tax-cut monomania that now dominates the GOP. Over the years, however, a strange connection has grown up between the two men, at least in the minds of some on the right. Because JFK advocated a tax cut to stimulate the economy, conservatives have adopted him as an early prophet of the supply-side religion.


The notion of Kennedy as supply-side forerunner is a powerful myth, but it is a myth. Context is key. Conservatives love to quote a speech Kennedy gave at the Economic Club of New York in December 1962.


Another important piece of context is the thinking behind the tax cuts. Kennedy's economic policies were rooted in a Keynesian belief in the stimulative effects of budget deficits.

Kennedy was the first to advocate planned deficits in a time of neither war nor economic emergency. The aim was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand, driving the economy from the bottom up.

Republicans, by contrast, argued that while tax cuts were desirable, running an $11 billion deficit, "with no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future, is both morally and fiscally wrong." That balanced-budget fixation was the ruling GOP philosophy until the rise of supply-side economics,


The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter - US News

 

[dnsmith35]

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

Clinton would like to erase his part in it too, as well as Carter. The CRA was Carter's millstone, but Clinton used it to start the housing price inflation in 1997. (What is good for the goose is good for the gander)

 

[dnsmith35]

really dumbfuk? Owning houses is a sign of upward mobility? Lol


how'd that work out for dubya?

you can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk

jfk 1964!

And yet, the economy sparkled under Eisenhower. What was the tax rate then?

Besides, you can only cut taxes to zero. Then you need another trick.

The economy sparkled under Eisenhower IN SPITE of the 90% top marginal rate. Spending after WWII was the cause of that. We were coming off a hugely patriotic period. Don't confuse the facts with your conjecture.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Show me Bubba? NONE in the past 50 years have right?

Again, JFK 1964!LBJ got JFK's proposal passed. Anytime you cut corporate taxes and taxes for the rich it is supply side economics. Economics 1 (which came before 101 as any fool with a brain knows.)

So you can't provide a link showing jobs created by tax cuts and you want to argue the demand side tax cuts were really supply side? lol

Kennedy, and his chief economist Walter Heller, saw the tax cut as a demand-side cut aimed at creating old-fashioned Keynesian stimulus in a sluggish economy. Indeed, what Kennedy really wanted was to stimulate the economy through government spending, but he didn’t have the votes in Congress for that. So he went with the tax cut instead. The giveaway that Kennedy's wasn’t really a supply-side tax cut was that the cuts were greater in the middle and at the bottom than at the top. If you want to stimulate consumer purchasing, you’re better off concentrating income-tax cuts in the middle and at the bottom. If you want to stimulate investment, you’re better off concentrating income-tax cuts at the top—or, if that’s politically impossible, you make the cuts the same across the board.

Here?s Why Ryan Is No JFK | New Republic

Kennedy maintained a 70% top rate on unearned dividend income, treating it much like wages and salaries;

And Kennedy, it is conveniently forgotten by supply-siders, actually tried to enact a higher dividend-tax rate on incomes over $180,000, an initiative that failed passage


Time has validated that stimulative approach, whereas recent history has largely discredited the competing notion that federal tax cuts on upper-end incomes really spur investment and create jobs. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993, and a boom followed; George W. Bush lowered them substantially in 2001, and two million jobs were subsequently lost.

03.13.oleary



The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter


Kennedy has been correctly called the first Keynesian president (of which more in a moment). Reagan was the first chief executive disciple of supply-side economics, the tax-cut monomania that now dominates the GOP. Over the years, however, a strange connection has grown up between the two men, at least in the minds of some on the right. Because JFK advocated a tax cut to stimulate the economy, conservatives have adopted him as an early prophet of the supply-side religion.


The notion of Kennedy as supply-side forerunner is a powerful myth, but it is a myth. Context is key. Conservatives love to quote a speech Kennedy gave at the Economic Club of New York in December 1962.


Another important piece of context is the thinking behind the tax cuts. Kennedy's economic policies were rooted in a Keynesian belief in the stimulative effects of budget deficits.

Kennedy was the first to advocate planned deficits in a time of neither war nor economic emergency. The aim was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand, driving the economy from the bottom up.

Republicans, by contrast, argued that while tax cuts were desirable, running an $11 billion deficit, "with no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future, is both morally and fiscally wrong." That balanced-budget fixation was the ruling GOP philosophy until the rise of supply-side economics,


The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter - US News

So you can't provide a link showing jobs created by tax cuts

Looks like Reagan's tax cuts did okay.

 

[dnsmith35]

And yet, the economy sparkled under Eisenhower. What was the tax rate then?

Besides, you can only cut taxes to zero. Then you need another trick.

That is such a bogus argument.

We've had 60 years of inflation eroding incomes since the 1950s. The high tax rates in that era were offset by more deductions. We didn't have the AMT. And most importantly of all, most of the developed world was reduced to rubble in WWII, with the exception of the U.S. We had very little competition in the world economy, which fueled a great deal of economic growth...benefiting those who wished to work.

90% of the world was rebuilt by 1955 and 100% by 1960. WHY ALL THOSE GOOD YEARS UNTIL CONSERVATIVE POLICIES?

I hate to give a Republican credit, but Eisenhower was a great president for economics. How else could we have helped rebuild the destroyed continent of Europe?

 

[dnsmith35]

The jobs lost in the recession were lost BECAUSE of Republican Policies, lies and fallacies- Can we say Trickle Down (Voodoo!) Economics? Hell, even Dubya's Dad knew that stuff was, uh, Bunk!

WOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD ATTRIBUTE THAT COMMENT TO IGNORANCE OR JUST PLAIN STUPIDITY. The jobs lost during the great recession which came about in 2006 WERE NOT TAX POLICY PROBLEMS. They were totally, woo% caused by the housing crash. What caused the housing crash? Bad federal monetary and fiscal policies, starting off when Carter's administration passed the CRA, which incidentally was not enforced until Clinton's administration. Though CRA was not the main culprit, it had a part. The most important failure was the attempts to make housing available to many people who were not credit worthy and subsidizing EVERYONE with low interest rates and the pushing of ARM loans. Between the speculators trying to make a killing and got caught with their pants down at the first interest adjustment, and all the people who were pushed into the market because of the low interest, no down payments, and lax credit standards heated up the price to value ration starting in 1997, and wen the price to value started to stabilize in 2006 the housing bubble burst. That was the whole of the cause of the recession which ballooned from there causing many to lose their jobs, and houses. At least try to learn some facts before making stupid statements.Bush's tax cuts were across the board with the bottom brackets getting the most advantageous tax cuts. I do agree that the top brackets were cut too much, but you need to recognize IT WAS NOT THE TAX CUT WHICH CAUSED THE RECESSION.In fact neither was correct. The tax cuts were relatively neutral to the economy and the recession was caused by the housing balloon/crash, not the tax cuts.

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It depends on the business cycle. The JFK tax cuts worked miracles. The Bush tax cuts did very little of anything. As bad as Bush was, the tax cuts were not the major issue.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis.

Are you really that ignorant? Why do you believe the private sector loans had anything to do with it? Did they control the interest? Did they guarantee the loans? Of course the lenders were private. The government does not make home loans, but the control the interest and they use Fannie and Freddie to guarantee the loans and effectively force private lenders to follow their policies.

Why don't you really study what happened instead of blowing propagandist gas into the wind?

 

[Dad2three]

What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?

I think if they don't support the country where they were able to make that money, they should go to another country where their greed is more welcome.

The Bush tax cuts were the greatest redistribution of wealth in history. From the middle class to the top 1%.

254 counties where food stamp usage doubled from 2007 to 2011, 213 voted for Mitt Romney, a pioneer of outsourcing. I wonder how many of those who lost their jobs, lost them when Mitt's company moved the jobs to China? Lucky that Mitt owed nothing to the people who helped him get $250,000,000.00 and $100,000,000.00 for each of his five sons. By the way, Mitt strongly supported the Iraq war. All five of his sons were in their 20's when the war started and not one, not a single one enlisted. He said they were already doing something important. Helping him get elected president.

And the Republican base supports that.

So many mistakes it is hard to know where to start. Lots of us liberals supported that last issue, even if we didn't want Mitt to win. As a long time former soldier, please note, we don't resent those with reasonable choices. We have a volunteer military and most of us were not crazy about that bunch of draftees in VN. Bush lowered the top bracket by 4.9%, eliminated an entire of less wealthy from the tax roles. Only your propagandist knows the truth. In addition Mitt had left the company before the big move to China, which is really irrelevant because as per studies for every job off shored, 1.7 jobs were created in the US, and traditionally the jobs exported tended to be labor intensive low paying jobs and the jobs created were more complex and paid more. Of the few high paying jobs exported the people who lost jobs lost only 3% of their income as beginners in new firms in the same industry.

Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says - The Washington Post

The study found that offshoring tends to increase productivity and reduce costs, which can prompt firms to expand domestic hiring enough to offset the jobs lost to workers overseas.

"Offshoring has no effect on native employment in the aggregate," the authors said. "While offshore workers compete directly with natives, their employment generates productivity gains that 'increase the size of the pie,' leading to an overall neutral impact on native employment."

More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant. Offshoring also tends to push native U.S. workers toward more complex jobs, while offshore workers tend to specialize in less-skilled employment.​

Please note, the article was NOT written by a RW source.

"Please note, the article was NOT written by a RW source."

REALLY?



" London School of Economics Center for Economic Performance"



The CEP is an interdisciplinary research centre at the LSE Research Laboratory. It was established by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) in 1990 and is now one of the leading economic research groups in Europe.

The CEP studies the determinants of economic performance at the level of the company, the nation and the global economy by focusing on the major links between globalisation, technology and institutions (above all the educational system and the labour market) and their impact on productivity, inequality, employment, stability and wellbeing.

CEP | About Us

BUT NO, THEY DIDN'T SAY 1.7 JOBS FOR EVERY OFF-SHORED JOB EITHER

"More specifically, the researchers found that increasing offshore jobs by 1 percent is linked to a 1.72 percent increase in overall U.S. employment of native workers, though they describe the effect as neutral overall because the 0.72 percent difference is too small to be statistically significant.

...The paper also examined the impact of immigrants and found that immigration had an even more positive effect on jobs for native-born U.S. workers: Every 1 percent increase in immigrant jobs boosted aggregate employment for American-born workers by 3.9 percent.

How Immigrants Create More Jobs, IS THE REAL STORY!!!


Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says - The Washington Post

"The study notes that when companies move production offshore, they pull away not only low-wage jobs but also many related jobs, which can include high-skilled managers, tech repairmen and others. But hiring immigrants even for low-wage jobs helps keep many kinds of jobs in the United States, the authors say. In fact, when immigration is rising as a share of employment in an economic sector, offshoring tends to be falling, and vice versa, the study found.

In other words, immigrants may be competing more with offshored workers than with other laborers in America.'



Economic theory and past performance suggest that although offshoring provides overall economic gains, it is also redistributive, with affected workers facing the prospect of job loss and wage pressures. A powerful set of policy tools can help navigate the ups and downs of this new global force, but so far most have not been deployed.


Services Offshoring, American Jobs, and the Global Economy | Brookings Institution

 

[dnsmith35]

The jobs lost in the recession were lost BECAUSE of Republican Policies, lies and fallacies- Can we say Trickle Down (Voodoo!) Economics? Hell, even Dubya's Dad knew that stuff was, uh, Bunk!

WOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD ATTRIBUTE THAT COMMENT TO IGNORANCE OR JUST PLAIN STUPIDITY. The jobs lost during the great recession which came about in 2006 WERE NOT TAX POLICY PROBLEMS. They were totally, woo% caused by the housing crash. What caused the housing crash? Bad federal monetary and fiscal policies, starting off when Carter's administration passed the CRA, which incidentally was not enforced until Clinton's administration. Though CRA was not the main culprit, it had a part. The most important failure was the attempts to make housing available to many people who were not credit worthy and subsidizing EVERYONE with low interest rates and the pushing of ARM loans. Between the speculators trying to make a killing and got caught with their pants down at the first interest adjustment, and all the people who were pushed into the market because of the low interest, no down payments, and lax credit standards heated up the price to value ration starting in 1997, and wen the price to value started to stabilize in 2006 the housing bubble burst. That was the whole of the cause of the recession which ballooned from there causing many to lose their jobs, and houses. At least try to learn some facts before making stupid statements.Bush's tax cuts were across the board with the bottom brackets getting the most advantageous tax cuts. I do agree that the top brackets were cut too much, but you need to recognize IT WAS NOT THE TAX CUT WHICH CAUSED THE RECESSION.In fact neither was correct. The tax cuts were relatively neutral to the economy and the recession was caused by the housing balloon/crash, not the tax cuts.

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It depends on the business cycle. The JFK tax cuts worked miracles. The Bush tax cuts did very little of anything. As bad as Bush was, the tax cuts were not the major issue.

"In fact neither was correct. The tax cuts were relatively neutral to the economy and the recession was caused by the housing balloon/crash, not the tax cuts."

LOL,

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

Do you realize how stupid that statement was? There was a recession. There were also many deficits. In fact their have been deficits every fiscal year since Eisenhower. Apples and oranges....Recession and Deficits. Study economics, you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Dad2three]

WOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD ATTRIBUTE THAT COMMENT TO IGNORANCE OR JUST PLAIN STUPIDITY. The jobs lost during the great recession which came about in 2006 WERE NOT TAX POLICY PROBLEMS. They were totally, woo% caused by the housing crash. What caused the housing crash? Bad federal monetary and fiscal policies, starting off when Carter's administration passed the CRA, which incidentally was not enforced until Clinton's administration. Though CRA was not the main culprit, it had a part. The most important failure was the attempts to make housing available to many people who were not credit worthy and subsidizing EVERYONE with low interest rates and the pushing of ARM loans. Between the speculators trying to make a killing and got caught with their pants down at the first interest adjustment, and all the people who were pushed into the market because of the low interest, no down payments, and lax credit standards heated up the price to value ration starting in 1997, and wen the price to value started to stabilize in 2006 the housing bubble burst. That was the whole of the cause of the recession which ballooned from there causing many to lose their jobs, and houses. At least try to learn some facts before making stupid statements.Bush's tax cuts were across the board with the bottom brackets getting the most advantageous tax cuts. I do agree that the top brackets were cut too much, but you need to recognize IT WAS NOT THE TAX CUT WHICH CAUSED THE RECESSION.In fact neither was correct. The tax cuts were relatively neutral to the economy and the recession was caused by the housing balloon/crash, not the tax cuts.Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It depends on the business cycle. The JFK tax cuts worked miracles. The Bush tax cuts did very little of anything. As bad as Bush was, the tax cuts were not the major issue.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis.

Are you really that ignorant? Why do you believe the private sector loans had anything to do with it? Did they control the interest? Did they guarantee the loans? Of course the lenders were private. The government does not make home loans, but the control the interest and they use Fannie and Freddie to guarantee the loans and effectively force private lenders to follow their policies.

Why don't you really study what happened instead of blowing propagandist gas into the wind?

Got it, MORE ignorant shit from a right winger, shocking

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up



Here are key things we know based on data. Together, they present a series of tough hurdles for the big lie proponents.

•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.



Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.


The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom – Source: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill




Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006



Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing laws overseen by either Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Community Reinvestment Act — Source: McClatchy

“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast

INTEREST RATES?

Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?

According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":

Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?




Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?


… after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate. …

When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:

Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

 

[Dad2three]

WOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD ATTRIBUTE THAT COMMENT TO IGNORANCE OR JUST PLAIN STUPIDITY. The jobs lost during the great recession which came about in 2006 WERE NOT TAX POLICY PROBLEMS. They were totally, woo% caused by the housing crash. What caused the housing crash? Bad federal monetary and fiscal policies, starting off when Carter's administration passed the CRA, which incidentally was not enforced until Clinton's administration. Though CRA was not the main culprit, it had a part. The most important failure was the attempts to make housing available to many people who were not credit worthy and subsidizing EVERYONE with low interest rates and the pushing of ARM loans. Between the speculators trying to make a killing and got caught with their pants down at the first interest adjustment, and all the people who were pushed into the market because of the low interest, no down payments, and lax credit standards heated up the price to value ration starting in 1997, and wen the price to value started to stabilize in 2006 the housing bubble burst. That was the whole of the cause of the recession which ballooned from there causing many to lose their jobs, and houses. At least try to learn some facts before making stupid statements.Bush's tax cuts were across the board with the bottom brackets getting the most advantageous tax cuts. I do agree that the top brackets were cut too much, but you need to recognize IT WAS NOT THE TAX CUT WHICH CAUSED THE RECESSION.In fact neither was correct. The tax cuts were relatively neutral to the economy and the recession was caused by the housing balloon/crash, not the tax cuts.Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It depends on the business cycle. The JFK tax cuts worked miracles. The Bush tax cuts did very little of anything. As bad as Bush was, the tax cuts were not the major issue.

"In fact neither was correct. The tax cuts were relatively neutral to the economy and the recession was caused by the housing balloon/crash, not the tax cuts."

LOL,

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

Do you realize how stupid that statement was? There was a recession. There was also many deficits. In fact their have been deficits every fiscal year since Eisenhower. Apples and oranges....Recession and Deficits. Study economics, you are embarrassing yourself.

Weird, and yet the CBO said almost 1/3rd of the deficits from 2001-2010 WERE attributable to Dubya's tax cuts for the rich. Go figure!