War as a Wealth Redestribution Scheme

[Bono]

If in a war the destruction of life is much greater than the destruction of capital, the survivors might very well end up wealthier than before.


Just a thougt.

[A18]

A lot of 'capital' is intellectual.

Kill everyone else in the world, and you might not be as wealthy as you imagine.

[opebo]

If in a war the destruction of life is much greater than the destruction of capital, the survivors might very well end up wealthier than before.
Just a thougt.

Yes, this was the argument that the Black Death benefited the surviving labouring class.

However modern wars are primarily a means to transfer tax money to the wealthy through military expenditures.  Loss of life is not large, except of course among the subject peoples.

[WalterMitty]

opebo, no one is stopping you from redistributing your wealth.

practice what you preach.

[A18]

To be fair, he only preaches spending other people's money.

[opebo]

opebo, no one is stopping you from redistributing your wealth.

practice what you preach.

To be fair, he only preaches spending other people's money.

Correct Philip, and thanks for pointing that out. 

[??????????]

To be fair, he only preaches spending other people's money.

Correct Philip, and thanks for pointing that out. 

In other words, a hypocrite. lol

[opebo]

To be fair, he only preaches spending other people's money.

Correct Philip, and thanks for pointing that out. 

In other words, a hypocrite. lol

No, I'm only moderately well off.  In fact the extent of my income is hardly different from yours - I just don't have to work to get it. 

The real source of money for redistribution will naturally be those that have most of it - the extremely rich.

[WalterMitty]

To be fair, he only preaches spending other people's money.

Correct Philip, and thanks for pointing that out. 

In other words, a hypocrite. lol

No, I'm only moderately well off.  In fact the extent of my income is hardly different from yours - I just don't have to work to get it. 

The real source of money for redistribution will naturally be those that have most of it - the extremely rich.

that is the problem with liberalism....it is always 'other people' (ie 'the rich') that should be picking up the tab for the silly programs they advocate.

[opebo]

To be fair, he only preaches spending other people's money.

Correct Philip, and thanks for pointing that out. 

In other words, a hypocrite. lol

No, I'm only moderately well off.  In fact the extent of my income is hardly different from yours - I just don't have to work to get it. 

The real source of money for redistribution will naturally be those that have most of it - the extremely rich.

that is the problem with liberalism....it is always 'other people' (ie 'the rich') that should be picking up the tab for the silly programs they advocate.

What an absurd criticism.  In case you haven't noticed, our capitalist society is organized in the form of a heirarchy, in which nearly all benefits flow to the owning class.  Naturally they are the ones to tax in order to redistribute, as they have the money.  Certainly not people who have meager middle class incomes - even if that income comes from return on capital rather than work.

[DanielX]

To be fair, he only preaches spending other people's money.

Correct Philip, and thanks for pointing that out. 

In other words, a hypocrite. lol

No, I'm only moderately well off.  In fact the extent of my income is hardly different from yours - I just don't have to work to get it. 

The real source of money for redistribution will naturally be those that have most of it - the extremely rich.

that is the problem with liberalism....it is always 'other people' (ie 'the rich') that should be picking up the tab for the silly programs they advocate.

What an absurd criticism.  In case you haven't noticed, our capitalist society is organized in the form of a heirarchy, in which nearly all benefits flow to the owning class.  Naturally they are the ones to tax in order to redistribute, as they have the money.  Certainly not people who have meager middle class incomes - even if that income comes from return on capital rather than work.

Opebo, just one problem: this 'strict hierarchy' is fluid. My parents are proof of that.

My father, for example, was rather poor in his childhood in Israel. His parents raised him and his three younger siblings in a one-bedroom apartment. They never missed a meal, but they couldn't afford a car or a motorcycle - they traveled by foot or by bicycle. He left after three years in the IDF, moved to America, and married my mother (who was from your 'working class' - grew up in Brooklyn, the daughter of a clerical secretary and a railway mail clerk). They managed, via a series of means, to work their way up to a comfortable middle class lifestyle (two fairly nice, rather new cars; a large 3-bedroom townhouse [would be a house but property - even rental units - in Maryland is expensive thanks to leftist regulations],  two TVs, a new Computer, and a well-stocked pantry) for themselves and their children - my brother, my sister, and myself. And they did that during the past 30 years - a time when you would insist was a poor time for the American 'working class' (economically ravished 1970s, 'corporate', 'rich richer/else poorer' 1980s, etc). Of course, dad owned a small gas station during the 1973 crisis that made a killing by being the only gas station with fuel in Coney Island... but that's another story. Plus, it only lasted about eight weeks or so.

The story is the same all over. Back before government had a hope of intervening, people moved up - sometimes rapidly indeed. Andrew Carnegie was an immigrant from Scotland and was born poor. And yet, his name is reviled as one of the great robber barons of the late 19th century - and revered as one of the greatest philanthropists (creating hundreds of public libraries and co-founded Carnegie-Mellon University with his millions). Henry Flagler was the son of a poor minister - and he became a wealthy tycoon who almost singlehandedly founded south Florida, including the city of Miami (my birthplace). Henry Ford, the son of Irish immigrants, brought the car to the middle class (opebo, you probably hate him for that reason... ). Cornelius Vanderbilt, John  Jacob Astor, Sam Walton, Charles Schwab... all started from modest means. Heck, even Bill Gates wasn't nearly as wealthy as he is now. Same with Paul Allen. Steve Jobs was once a pathetic college drop-out. 

Examples are manifold. A poor capitalist who uses his money wisely can, with both effort and luck, become middle class or rich. A rich person who does not use his money well will lose it fast. And i can guarantee you one thing: none of those men would earn nearly as much as they did if they lived in a suffocating socialist system.

Compare with socialism. Methods of advancement are rare in Sweden - which has not generated a single new job in fifty years (the US has generated, in that period, over 50 million. Of course, US population has grown substantially faster then Sweden's - partially due to a healthier job market). In 1980, per capita income  and unemployment in the US and West Germany were approximately equal. Today, even discounting the poorer east Germany (communism for you: did you know that pre-1950, North Korea was substantially wealthier then South Korea? Look where things are now...), unemployment is nearly double, and per capita income nearly half, in western Germany today. Difference? In that period, Germany moved in a 'socialist' direction, while the US became more conservative. In 1960, Ghana had a higher per capita income then Singapore. Why is it today hugely reversed? (Singapore, while not exactly a great place to live, has embraced Capitalism and has had a reasonably stable government - neither is true for Ghana. Also, US investment in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war era actually stabilized nations such as Singapore, Taiwan, and yes, even Thailand - and i don't just mean customers for prostitutes... ). And that's a general question: today, the market economies of east and southeast asia are much wealthier then the non-market economies of Africa and the Middle East... why? And why was South America much wealthier, relative to the rest of the world, in 1950 then today, despite the fact that there was more exploitation by imperialists then? (I'm ignoring central America, which was always a mess). Argentina and Brazil, at one point, had wealth rivalling even the United States... before men like Peron (a fascist who favored redistribution schemes) took over. Why is Ireland, until the 1980s one of Europe's poorest states, today one of its richest? Why did the economies of the Baltic states boom in the post-Soviet era while Russia's itself declined dramatically? Why were China and India, until recently, some of the world's poorest nations, and why are their economies growing so rapidly today? Heck, why did the United States receive  tens of millions of immgrants back before 'welfare' was even a pipe dream?

Opebo, the answer is: capitalist nations generate wealth very efficiently; socialist states are less efficient; states with no private property are extremely inefficient. That's one more thing: wealth is not a constant. Each time the price of an item goes down due to a new process (negating deflation, which nowadays rarely happens), wealth has increased. Each time a useful invention is invented, wealth has increased. Each time a new source of minerals is found, wealth has increased. The reverse is also true. Marxists cannot accept this - they see wealth as a constant, to be stolen and distributed at will (be it by the rich or the poor). The Capitalist knows the real secret - it's now who steals the money [via redistribution or revolution], it's who produces it (inventors, researchers, industrialists, engineers, prospectors, etc.), that really matters. They may be wealthy or not. Yet they - not you, Opebo, not me (at the moment, at least), are who run the world.

Want more? Check out some real economists: Hayek or Smith for hard-core capitalism, Friedman or Greenspan for lighter fare.

And no, today the US is not lasseiz-faire.The US government of today is far larger then the US government of 125 years ago, and has a huge role in the economy!

[opebo]

That is a very long collection of anecdotal 'evidence' DanielX.  But you needn't have typed it, as I am familiar with the Horatio Alger Story that is used to dupe the worker into thinking he can rise.

[DanielX]

That is a very long collection of anecdotal 'evidence' DanielX.  But you needn't have typed it, as I am familiar with the Horatio Alger Story that is used to dupe the worker into thinking he can rise.

You realize i was talking at one point about my parents, right? They did rise.

And workers can rise - and have.

EDIT: Incidentally, until you started mentioning him I had never heard of Horatio Alger.

[opebo]

That is a very long collection of anecdotal 'evidence' DanielX.  But you needn't have typed it, as I am familiar with the Horatio Alger Story that is used to dupe the worker into thinking he can rise.

You realize i was talking at one point about my parents, right? They did rise.

And workers can rise - and have.

EDIT: Incidentally, until you started mentioning him I had never heard of Horatio Alger.

Actually my own parents 'rose' as well - due to Keyensian redistributionism.  People who rise due to liberal economic policies are of course prone to the absurd claim that they pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps.  Claims of personal responsibility for one's good fortune or one's government-created economic well being are the very kind of working-class hubris which has led to persons below the top 5% voting Republican.  Even in my own parents case, though they have risen into the top 5%, and therefore have their actual interests served by the GOP, it is rather poor form and definitely short-sighted to vote against the programs that raised them up to that position in the first place.

[DanielX]

That is a very long collection of anecdotal 'evidence' DanielX.  But you needn't have typed it, as I am familiar with the Horatio Alger Story that is used to dupe the worker into thinking he can rise.

You realize i was talking at one point about my parents, right? They did rise.

And workers can rise - and have.

EDIT: Incidentally, until you started mentioning him I had never heard of Horatio Alger.

Actually my own parents 'rose' as well - due to Keyensian redistributionism.  People who rise due to liberal economic policies are of course prone to the absurd claim that they pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps.  Claims of personal responsibility for one's good fortune or one's government-created economic well being are the very kind of working-class hubris which has led to persons below the top 5% voting Republican.  Even in my own parents case, though they have risen into the top 5%, and therefore have their actual interests served by the GOP, it is rather poor form and definitely short-sighted to vote against the programs that raised them up to that position in the first place.

Difficult to relate, at least for my parents. My dad used very little from the government - he's a businessman. He's been owner or co-owner of the following: a gas station, two construction companies, a technical/design company, and a lawn-care business. He's also worked in car dealerships and was at one point Vice President of a small truck-manufacturing business. As far as I can tell, government has done fairly little for him and has been chiefly a hurdle (ie income taxes, regulation, etc). My mother, incidentally, works for Maryland's Child Support Agency - and she makes far less then my father, and has frankly told me that 90% of it is a sheer waste of money, and that it would be quite possible to work without the entire department (yes, child support can be done with only one government employee - a judge or magistrate).

Granted, my grandparents benefited somewhat from the government (chiefly because my grandfather was a government employee - a railway mail clerk for the Post Office). Still, they never advanced beyond working-class (and consider this: when my mother was little, my grandparents were raising her and my uncle in a one-bedroom apartment; they later moved to a dumpy complex called 'Luna Park' because it had the only affordable 3-bedroom apartments in Brooklyn. My parents have lived in houses or townhouses since the 1970s - and have afforded it). 

Also, the government wasted a good deal of money on my grandparents - the City of New York spent thousands of dollars to get my grandfather a degree in Physics from Brooklyn College; he became a railway mail clerk. And incidentally, the Great Depression (which indirectly caused this waste) was caused by the Federal Reserve overinflating the money supply (they kept pumping paper reserves into the marketplace, which caused overspeculation and turned a mild recession into a world-spanning depression.), NOT by capitalism.

And my parents pay hugely in taxes. They earned $80,000 last year and paid out well over $30,000 in taxes. Income tax: 28% Federal, 7% state, and 3% county income tax (a whopping 38%). And that's not counting other taxes. I daresay, my parents (not even in the top 20%, certainly not for DC), spend half their income in taxes. You would probably assert that they would pay less if the rich paid more. I can tell you this - the current tax system royally screws the people who are in between the top 2% and the bottom 80%. The top 2% find loopholes or move their money into other countries, and the bottom 80% pay less thanks to progressive taxation. The problem? The most productive individuals in society are in that 18%: small businessmen, doctors, lawyers, engineers, managers (both private and public sectors), and similar professions. 

[Jake]

I agree almost totally with DanielX. Just remove post office employee with Baltimore City employee and it's almost exactly the same.