People don't seem to understand this

[A18]

Or at least, liberals don't seem to understand this. This just came up in another topic, and I can't take it anymore, so - YES, there are people struggling to make a living while CEOs collect their $9 million paychecks.

But those $9 million are meaningless.

There's this huge myth that there are billions of dollars sitting in banks right now that could be used to pay for this, that, and whatever else. It's just not true. A dollar is a share in the country's productivity.

You can shift more of an economy's productivity to be spent on one area rather than another, but you can not actually help anyone with dollars.

Because of the way prices are set, those 9 million shares in the nation's economy do not exist. Every rich guy collecting billions of dollars he won't spend is making every one of your dollars WORTH MORE.

[John Dibble]

Yup. Bury a million dollars in the ground and it ceases to exist.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

that's why we don't want to destroy money or remove it from the marketplace, but rather sieze and redistribute it.

[A18]

No, the point is that it doesn't matter if money is destroyed.

It's actually good, in a sense; it makes the value of the dollar go up.

[opebo]

What utter balderdash.

Except for the hole in the ground comment, and I don't think anyone, rich or poor, does that.

[A18]

Less dollars = worth more

More dollars = worth less

The difference between the bank and a hole is minimal.

[opebo]

Less dollars = worth more

More dollars = worth less

The difference between the bank and a hole is minimal.

You're making a false distinction between saving and spending, since the same dollars are immediately loaned out and spent by someone else.

[A18]

No duh. Bank loans make the price of the dollar go down.

[freedomburns]

So if we take those nine million dollars from a fat cat CEO and redistribute it to nine thousand of the poorest, most destitute vitually-homeless American families, this then would be a pointless excecise because the CEO would simply raise his pay by another nine million the following year by taxing the families via higher product costs?  Is that the problem?

[A18]

Freedomburns, you're lost

Government redistribution causes inflation the same way a bank does

[David S]

that's why we don't want to destroy money or remove it from the marketplace, but rather sieze and redistribute it.

Sieze and redistribute sounds a bit like theft.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The real theft is that of the highest class from the working people.

[opebo]

No duh. Bank loans make the price of the dollar go down.

No, your example suggested that the rich fellow's savings represented a reduction in spending.  They do not, as they are immediatly loaned out and spent.  There is nothing more inflationary about that than if he had, instead of saving his nine millions, spent them himself.

[opebo]

The real theft is that of the highest class from the working people.

Well, do you see theft and fraud as identical things?  How about 'exploitation'?

[freedomburns]

Better Red Than Dead is right.  The real problems is not that some people might not understand the inner workings of the universal, hegemonic paradigm that is in effect right now.  The real problem is that not enough people are studying and understanding the glaring failures of it and what the best solutions to it are.  

Nine million dollars is way too much income for one individual to make on an annual basis.  No one needs more than three million.

freedomburns

[A18]

No duh. Bank loans make the price of the dollar go down.

No, your example suggested that the rich fellow's savings represented a reduction in spending.  They do not, as they are immediatly loaned out and spent.  There is nothing more inflationary about that than if he had, instead of saving his nine millions, spent them himself.

That's the point. The money gets shifted to another part of the economy either way.

I was explaining that it doesn't change a country's productivity to have dollars not spent.

[David S]

The real theft is that of the highest class from the working people.

Sounds like you believe in the constant pie theory, meaning that there is only so much wealth available. If one person takes a bigger slice for himself then everyone else gets a smaller piece. But what if someone makes the pie bigger. Yes he still gets a huge part for himself but everyone else also gets more than they had before.

Lets use a really rich guy, Bill Gates, as an example. He made himself extremely rich, but in the process he built a company that makes useful products that most of us use everyday (and some of us even like using them!) In addition his company employs about 15,000 people, last time I checked. So he's also created jobs for lots of people.
Besides that he's a philanthropist and has donated millions of dollars to good causes. Whats so bad about that? Seems to me that everyone is better off.

[WMS]

Except for the hole in the ground comment, and I don't think anyone, rich or poor, does that.

True Story: One of the fires Albuquerque had this summer occurred in an unincorporated area, caused by a few guys trying to grind metal themselves, or something odd like that. I've seen a before picture of the area burnt, and one of the firefighters involved showed me that some of the structures in the picture were destroyed...

...including one housing $750,000, stashed there because the owner of the money 'didn't trust banks'...yep, it was all torched.

So it can happen...

[ATFFL]

Ok, BRTD, you convinced me.  Gather up all the money and I will redistribute it to each according to their needs.  Now, not everyone will recieve cash, some will receive goods or services of equal value.

I have even figured out how much everyone who opposes me doing the distribution is entitled to:  .27$.  That is the price for a good bullet for a .357 magnum.   That is what anyone who opposes me needs.

This will leave mor emoney for me and those who support me.

I suggest you call get on board now before it is too late.

BRTD likes to say he is not a Maoist or Stalinist.  I say you cannot support a communist regime and not be.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ok, BRTD, you convinced me.  Gather up all the money and I will redistribute it to each according to their needs.  Now, not everyone will recieve cash, some will receive goods or services of equal value.

I have even figured out how much everyone who opposes me doing the distribution is entitled to:  .27$.  That is the price for a good bullet for a .357 magnum.   That is what anyone who opposes me needs.

This will leave mor emoney for me and those who support me.

I suggest you call get on board now before it is too late.

BRTD likes to say he is not a Maoist or Stalinist.  I say you cannot support a communist regime and not be.

we already have wealth redistribution in the US. I just want to expand it.

Actually, the best thing would be to redistribute it before it gets in the hands of anyone. That's why I support doing away with the minimum wage, and putting a wage cap in instead. Say that no one in the company can be paid any more than say 10x the lowest paid employee in the company. No more of the people working 8+ hour sweat filled days while the CEO sits in his air conditioning office signing papers and taking 1000x as much. If the CEOs want a raise, the lowest workers get one too. That's what's fair.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

If production is independent from distribution, is most efficient way to distribute income is equally to all people, assuming a diminishing marginal utililty of wealth.  So assuming the CEO is still willing to contribute the same amount to society no matter what his tax rate is, the size of the pie will be just as large, and social welfare will be maximized if that pie is redistributed through progressive taxation.

The result may not be efficient if the CEO is not willing to do his job at a certain rate of taxation.  But then you just need to make sure to pay him just enough after-tax income that he will continue to work.  If the CEO is saving vast portions of his income and never using it, this suggests that his salary is much higher than it needs to be  to create proper incentive.   

I would favor placing effective maximums on yearly salaries so that no one can save vast fortunes, and thus everyone will have an incentive to continue working and not just living off savings (of course combined with social security/general insurance/disability payments for people who are unable to work).

[David S]

Lets take another example. In the early 1980's Chrysler Corporation was on the verge of bankruptcy. This would have put many thousands of employees out of work and resulted in huge losses for the stockholders. Lee Iacocca stepped in and turned things around. Within a few years the company had paid off its debts and returned to profitability.  For the first year or two Iacocca  took no salary, but once the company became profitable his compensation went up to obscene levels.

So he saved the jobs of thousands of employees, paid off the debts that the company would have defaulted on, and prevented huge losses for the stockholders. Did he deserve his huge salary? I say yes.

[John Dibble]

I swear, sometimes you redistributionists don't even think about what you're saying. Ok, so you put a salary cap on CEOs, then what, you think that money they would otherwise be getting would go to nowhere? Hah - it'll go to dividends for the stockholders, and the main stockholders are already rich. You want the CEOs not to amass wealth, but you are only putting it in another rich guy's pockets. Defeats the point, doesn't it?

Furthermore, if a CEO is at the cap, what's his motivation to make the company larger(meaning more people employed, meaning less people in poverty) and more profitable? He just has to keep it at the level to where he stays at the cap, which is easier to do than growing it. These people are usually in this for the money, and they work hard for that money. Just because you think they earn too much for what they do is no reason to tell their employers(the stockholders/board of directors) that they can't pay their CEOs oodles of money, because they DO think that their CEOs earned that money, down to the last penny.

[A18]

CEOs getting raises don't matter. They don't spend it - it goes out in loans to other people in society.

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

BRTD sounds like Huey Long now.