| Pages:
1
2 |
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
The question is, what does an economy that rewards its workers fairly and appropriately look like?
What does an economy look like that strikes a balance between providing purchasing power/compensation to those that do the actual work of converting
raw materials to products and to provide services wherein their compensation gives them adequate compensation to purchase what they themselves
produce?
The worse the imbalance, the greater the disparity. Even the Pope knows that.
Economists everywhere are saying more and more these days that disparity itself is bad for the economy...hurts the balance of supply and demand in the
market place...i.e., not enough demand.
It would be great if there was better balance, that way more people would be able pay taxes and more people would not need public assistance and more
people could buy what they need...after all, they are the ones producing the necessities. Right now, necessities are produced by the economy, but not
enough people have enough money to buy what they produce.
Imbalance.
|
|
|
vgabndo
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3461
Registered: 12-8-2003
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Checking-off my bucket list.
|
|
Wouldn't this involve the "redistribution of wealth" and shrill cries of socialism?
I'm afraid the 1% in the USA are unlikely to release their grip any time soon. I agree that what you advocate is what we need. It saddens me that we
already DID that and HAD a middle class, and organized labor, and reasonable prosperity until RR. The guy had a bad astrologer.
Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. Sam Harris
"The situation is far too dire for pessimism."
Bill Kauth
Carl Sagan said, "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
PEACE, LOVE AND FISH TACOS
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
vgabndo, you are definitely on the right track.
The thing about redistribution is that most all people are mistaken in that they think that redistribution can only happen by taking it away from
those that have it now, but, what they don't understand is that redistribution happened earlier in the economic cycle than they think. Redistribution
occurs when someone is underpaid in that the underpaid person should have gotten more compensation because of the inherent value of their
contribution. That person's wealth was withheld from them by under paying them in spite of the fact that they earned it. That's where the
redistribution actually happened. It is sort of like the distribution of wealth that slaves create with their labor, but was withheld from them and
thereby distributed from them to the slave owner. In my view, underpaying labor is the same as theft. In my view, the slave owners immorally
distributed to themselves the wealth that should have gone to the slaves by withholding fair compensation. Now THAT is serious redistribution of
wealth!
Also, commerce itself redistributes wealth. Ever have to pay $400 USD to a lawyer, or $200 USD for sporting events or a music concert? How about
having to pay for surgery? Any idea how much the surgeon gets per hour? Now we are talking about some serious redistribution of wealth.
But, in fact, the larger part of redistribution of wealth occurs in the little things that are so numerous that the bulk of cumulative lopsided
redistribution of wealth goes by unnoticed. For example, your cable bill, your phone bill, the price of crackers, your utility bills, gasoline,
Microsoft software, and the big ones...prescription drugs/medicines and bank fees.
Did you know that credit and debit card clearing fees that are charged by the banks to vendors are actually 100s of times higher than the actual cost
to the banks to do the clearing of the payments? We all know about the price gouging by drug companies; just look at the disparity of prices among
prices for drugs in other countries Vs the price charged in the good old US of A where free market price negotiation is often prohibited.
Redistribution of wealth you ask? Well, there it is in spades, to mention only a few.
Redistribution of wealth to many people is believed to be only taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor. But, the real lopsided
redistribution of wealth from the bottom 95% to the top 1% occurred in the very process of going from the bottom to the top, we just aren't paying
attention to it.
[Edited on 1-5-2014 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
