You may not have noticed I said “If we’re going to have wealth redistribution…” The rest was sort of tongue in cheek, though there is acknowledgement that “trickle up” works: the rebate checks. “Trickle down” is what we mostly get because big companies would prefer the money to go straight into their coffers rather than having to compete for it in the marketplace. Is that capitalism?

I’d wager a million US pesos that were all wealth redistribution to stop, the loudest hissing would be right at the top of the capitalist food chain.

I don’t give a fig that some have gotten uber wealthy. My concern is whether the majority of everyone else has also improved over a similar time frame. There is solid data out there to say that, of late, people have not done so.

The question then is what can we do to improve the performance of those who have not benefitted? Not how much can we rob the top to give to the middle. Firstly because the ‘top’ never actually gives up much and secondly because those who do get taken to the cleaners are, by definition, those who are most productive. Not a great way to grow the pie.

Naked Wealth Redistribution is a decent name for a blog, and maybe it should be this one’s. That it already occurs is not a valid argument in support of more. It is collectivism, pure and simple.

I’m going to follow the advice of some here and steal something from someone else, just to give it to you.

‘The distinction between “President of General Motors” and “People’s Minister for Vehicle Production, Great Lakes Region” is one of semantics based on wishful thinking. It’s the entrepreneurs and the productive who take it in the shorts under any form of collectivism.’

So, by all means continue in your re-distributionist fantasies, just remember where it leads you; to an ever shrinking pie. Oh, and those on the top? They never go away, why do you think Warren Buffet is an Obama fan?

Which part of the name? Capitalism? That is the false name the system gives to itself. Wealth redistribution by government occurs in both directions and it is not capitalism in either case. What would the “capitalists” say if their handouts and “corporate rights” stopped and the winners and losers were left entirely up to the marketplace?

If we’re going to have entitlements, why not give them to people instead of companies? We’ve tried “trickle down”, let’s try “trickle up”! People spend money – let’s let the companies compete for those dollars instead of taking handouts.

Wow, judging from that snippet, and many other comments, Yves really needs to rethink the name of this blog.

CathyG

Any data on the polls leading up to this “significant” latest Harris Poll?

When was the last time the majority of respondents did NOT consider income equality to be too great?

What is meant by the term “too great”, anyway? Is this just an arbitrary figure…or a bunch of arbitrary figures established by each respondent in accordance with that respondent’s notion of “too great”?

And what skills exactly would those be? Those skilled in the IT profession have seen their jobs outsourced as readily as those of a punch press operator. Accountants, customer support representatives and many other white-collar professionals are finding themselves right behind the programmers on a quick trip to the Indian subcontinent, you can be sure.

Many of the retraining suggestions, while a boon for the education industry, are really ludicrous. “Retrain for the health-related professions”, we’re told. Yeah, we’re all going to feed our families and put our kids through college changing bedpans, drawing our salaries from a health provider and insurance system that’s already creaking.

The truth is that there are darned few jobs that absolutely cannot be outsourced to someone who will do them more cheaply, especially if the employer doesn’t really understand or care about quality.

What happened to the idea that those who have money and do create jobs have a moral obligation to the country that supported their climb into the financial stratosphere?

Oh sure they can do it by force – through taxation, or revolution – but both are inherently destructive. Or they could do so by improving their skills/abilities and therefore their productivity. Then the money must flow their way, unless we get really stupid and start throwing up more regulations/economic barriers like the Europeons.