Bill and Melinda Gates on income inequality

[MikeHammer**]

...


I don't live in Greece . . . don't really care about what would've/could've been for Greece.

Did Obama's ARRA not put some form of life back into the economy? Or was it just another drag on productivity?

oh and to this...

You should care what happened in Greece as it is where most 1st world nations are tilting towards without a concerted effort to stem gov't growth. And while gov't job costs where not the only problem in Greece they were one of the biggest components of the problem.

it is the oldest way for a political party to buy votes. Load up gov't with workers and then be the party that supports taking more from the private sector and giving it to gov't workers. Voila...you have massive voter turn out in the group taking the money.

And do gov't programs like ARRA contribute to an ailing economy? sure.

If I had the force of gov't and could take Billions a year from FaceBook, Google and Microsoft, and spend most of it wastefully but when they get in trouble give them back a tiny percent of what I took...it is true that when I give them some back I am helping.

But that ignores the massive negative and drag on productivity I was prior by taking and wasting so much money.

And I am not saying that 100% of gov't spending is bad. Spending on major infrastructure can often be good. But gov't is almost always never efficient at taking money and reallocating it in an efficient way even if they do provide some benefits on occasion. There is almost always a drag or waste effect alongside, meaning the dollars could have been more efficiently deployed directly and without gov't taking them first.

 

[ultramanhyata]

But are they additional benefits or redistributed benefits?

You just continue to embarrass yourself.

Guy starts a profitable business using Kickstarter money (capital obtained through the small, voluntary contributions of many people): Grows economy! American dream!

Guy starts a profitable business using federal funds (capital obtained through the small, taxed contributions of many people): Net economic loss! American dream in jeopardy!

 

[spamking]

I'll make it as easy as possible to follow.

Lets pretend for simplicity that your pay from your government job is taken directly from me.

We each have one kid and we pay for their life needs with our earnings. Yours come from me.

Yes you having a kid and spending my money and your kid eventually working outside government and contributing does have some benefits.

But are they additional benefits or redistributed benefits?

IF the gov't did not take my money and give it to you then I would have been able to be more productive with the same amount money. I maybe have 2 kids instead of one and have more to spend in the economy.

So we end up with the same amount or more benefits if the gov't does not take my money and redistribute it as the money is almost always better directly spent without the drag or loss associated with gov't spending.

So . . . you wanna start paying my income tax then or what?

oh and to this...

You should care what happened in Greece as it is where most 1st world nations are tilting towards without a concerted effort to stem gov't growth. And while gov't job costs where not the only problem in Greece they were one of the biggest components of the problem.

I'll fully admit the Federal government is great at very few things and perhaps the biggest is setting itself up for failure . . . I have to see it everyday.

it is the oldest way for a political party to buy votes. Load up gov't with workers and then be the party that supports taking more from the private sector and giving it to gov't workers. Voila...you have massive voter turn out in the group taking the money.

You honestly think all government workers here in the US blindly vote to expand the government?

Many of us aren't any more pleased with how things go than the rest of you guys.

And do gov't programs like ARRA contribute to an ailing economy? sure.

If I had the force of gov't and could take Billions a year from FaceBook, Google and Microsoft, and spend most of it wastefully but when they get in trouble give them back a tiny percent of what I took...it is true that when I give them some back I am helping.

But that ignores the massive negative and drag on productivity I was prior by taking and wasting so much money.

And I am not saying that 100% of gov't spending is bad. Spending on major infrastructure can often be good. But gov't is almost always never efficient at taking money and reallocating it in an efficient way even if they do provide some benefits on occasion. There is almost always a drag or waste effect alongside, meaning the dollars could have been more efficiently deployed directly and without gov't taking them first.

ARRA was a major pain.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Sure if the kids actually do jobs that the parents would pay others to do because they would not do it themselves then yes.

That is not the case with gov't in the vast majority of cases.

The proper analogy for gov't in most cases is them mandating that you must allow the kids to do the dishes and pay them for it when the parents did the dishes and paid no one for it prior. It is pure, forced redistribution.

Ok. Call it forced redistribution. Why does that mean that gov't spending can't add to the wealth of an economy? In fact, how does any spending, public or private, add wealth to an economy?

 

[sickc0d3r]

You just continue to embarrass yourself.

Guy starts a profitable business using Kickstarter money (capital obtained through the small, voluntary contributions of many people): Grows economy! American dream!

Guy starts a profitable business using federal funds (capital obtained through the small, taxed contributions of many people): Net economic loss! American dream in jeopardy!

"Thanks guys. Give each other 20 dollars, and put it on the Underhill's bill."
"Why thank you senior!"

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

"Thanks guys. Give each other 20 dollars, and put it on the Underhill's bill."
"Why thank you senior!"

And bring the steak sandwiches and the head of Alfredo Garcia to Mrs. Stanwick's cabana.

 

[OldGoat]

You just continue to embarrass yourself.

Guy starts a profitable business using Kickstarter money (capital obtained through the small, voluntary contributions of many people): Grows economy! American dream!

Gal sits on her butt and pops out 5 kids from 5 dads and not one of those kids can do simple algebra by the time they get their "diploma" because every dumb life style choice they make is paid for by the productive class. Net economic loss! American dream in jeopardy!

Fixed it for you.

 

[OldGoat]

Ok. Call it forced redistribution. Why does that mean that gov't spending can't add to the wealth of an economy? In fact, how does any spending, public or private, add wealth to an economy?

A lot of government spending does add wealth to an economy. Quite a bit of government spending also promotes behavior that subtracts wealth from the economy and additionally puts a break on the rate of future growth.

The problem is government is largely insulated from rational feedback mechanisms to correct counter productive policy. Since the vote of someone from the uneducated, and quite frankly stupid, unproductive classes counts as much as the vote of someone with a PhD and who actually works.

 

[MikeHammer**]

You just continue to embarrass yourself.

Guy starts a profitable business using Kickstarter money (capital obtained through the small, voluntary contributions of many people): Grows economy! American dream!

Guy starts a profitable business using federal funds (capital obtained through the small, taxed contributions of many people): Net economic loss! American dream in jeopardy!

And yet you are the one who does not understand the argument.

Yes I could break into your home and steal your wealth and give it to someone else robin hood style and they could arguably go on and do great things with your money. More then you might do.

But to start any assumption based on the silly assumption like that is dumb.

Yes the gov't could take money and give it to someone who might start a successful business. But if the gov't did not take the money it also could have landed in the hands of someone who would have started a successful business (or in both cases the business could fail and the money lost). so since the range of outcomes is the same there is no net benefit. But there is always a drag on productivity when gov't takes money, there is always that loss, regardless of outcome. Much like a rake on a poker game. You can transfer the wealth and their winners and losers but overall all the players lost money to the casino due to the rake.

 

[sickc0d3r]

And bring the steak sandwiches and the head of Alfredo Garcia to Mrs. Stanwick's cabana.

Hah!

A lot of government spending does add wealth to an economy. Quite a bit of government spending also promotes behavior that subtracts wealth from the economy and additionally puts a break on the rate of future growth.

The problem is government is largely insulated from rational feedback mechanisms to correct counter productive policy. Since the vote of someone from the uneducated, and quite frankly stupid, unproductive classes counts as much as the vote of someone with a PhD and who actually works.

Are you under the impression that the unwashed, uneducated, welfare losers are actually voting? Or are you dissing the elderly again?

 

[MikeHammer**]

So . . . you wanna start paying my income tax then or what?

the taxpayers in the private sector already do pay your taxes.

You are given their money and from their money you give a share to taxes.

Sorry, I am not trying to make you a bad guy or anything. That is just reality.

I'll fully admit the Federal government is great at very few things and perhaps the biggest is setting itself up for failure . . . I have to see it everyday.

Yup.

You honestly think all government workers here in the US blindly vote to expand the government?

Many of us aren't any more pleased with how things go than the rest of you guys.

Voter turn out records show those in the public sector do turn out and vote and support the parties who promise them largesse in much larger numbers then the private sector.

Heck I would too if I was basically voting for my own raise.

That is the problem Greece found itself in as you just weren't going to get elected unless you were promising ever increasing benefits packages to the Public Sector.

Heck you had people in Greece in the public sector retiring at age 58 on 80% of their salaries. And who paid for it? The private sector who could not even forecast their own retirement with the money they were left. And when the private sector in record numbers started to hide their income from the tax man trying to preserve a little for themselves of course the cry from the public sector was to put them in jail. Not to ask why Greece had record numbers of people risking tax evasion due to the system being so unfair.

ARRA was a major pain.

k

 

[Johntreksmith]

The system is pretty messed up when the top 1% keep sucking in like a blackhole, the money from the rest at a faster rate every year.

When pointed out that something is very wrong "we may or may not give something back"

Kind people.

people think monarchies went the way of the dinosaurs. the past doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes.

People in the next ten year will be born into hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth, while everyone else will be born into debt.

huh

 

[MikeHammer**]

Ok. Call it forced redistribution. Why does that mean that gov't spending can't add to the wealth of an economy? In fact, how does any spending, public or private, add wealth to an economy?

I don't want to be solely dogmatic and say 'it cannot' add wealth at all but let me try and explain by taking this down to basics.

You, I and one other person are stranded on a desert island. We have our health but little else.

I am a productive worker and labourer and set about instantly building myself shelter and starting to plant crops and the means to sustain myself.

You are OK in those areas but not as motivated as me.

The third guy is not that motivated at all but he is a big guy who excels in protection.

I quickly build up a wealth of items that allow me to live more comfortably then both of you. Occasionally I pay the 3rd guy for security when an animal or other threats appear or when I need muscle. And you do OK but far less then me.

The two of you decide we need a gov't to reallocate the wealth more fairly. You vote and 2:1 decide to impose it on me. I have no choice.

Your argument is that we all do better if you and the muscle are treated better, more wealthy, etc.

That may indeed be true. We may all benefit jointly by taking some of my wealth and giving it to you two. It is not impossible.

But here is what we knew prior which was fact.

I was far more productive in building wealth then either of you given the same resources. So to assume that taking it and giving it to less productive sources can be beneficial is not smart.

Can a gov't add wealth? Sure. is it a logic or likely outcome when it is accepted a gov't is almost always a drag on productivity, no.

And there are some areas such as major infrastructure (bridges Highways,etc) and health care that I think the gov't does add value. I am not saying they are efficient but I am saying it is one way they can take our money and spend it on us that over time will likely return more benefit than it cost. A rarefy in gov't spending.

 

[WrestlinganJudo]

I might have to come back and try and read this when I'm not distracted. :wink:

I hope you didn't spend a ton of time writing that . . . :icon_lol:

This is a subject that is actually hard to condense. There are things that are are conditional, there are things that are absolute, and there are parts where there is legitimate debate.

Honestly it is a really big subject and cannot be done will in sound bites unless all parties have a background in it already.

Most of the things you hear from both the right and the left are half truths when it comes to this subject and I don't think it's always on purpose.

Just doing basic P&L analyses can take a huge amount of time.

 

[WrestlinganJudo]

You just continue to embarrass yourself.

Guy starts a profitable business using Kickstarter money (capital obtained through the small, voluntary contributions of many people): Grows economy! American dream!

Guy starts a profitable business using federal funds (capital obtained through the small, taxed contributions of many people): Net economic loss! American dream in jeopardy!

Do you have time to do some study at a local college? I can name some classes that would be good to start. It will not give you all the answers but it will make it easier to demonstrate some things and to talk about.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Yes the gov't could take money and give it to someone who might start a successful business. But if the gov't did not take the money it also could have landed in the hands of someone who would have started a successful business (or in both cases the business could fail and the money lost). so since the range of outcomes is the same there is no net benefit. But there is always a drag on productivity when gov't takes money, there is always that loss, regardless of outcome. Much like a rake on a poker game. You can transfer the wealth and their winners and losers but overall all the players lost money to the casino due to the rake.

You can make the exact same argument about what "might" have happened to all the money in the Kickstarter account if each of those individual contributors had decided to start their own businesses. Or buy pizzas. It's hypothetical nonsense. On the level of "if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle".

What you're doing is classic libertarian overreach. One can certainly make a distinction between, for example, the more directly voluntary nature of charitable giving and the less directly voluntary nature of being taxed. But it is absurd to then try and make the claim that, somehow, because of the difference in the way it was collected, the donated money can't buy the same office space and Aeron chairs as the taxed money.

And yes, Old Goat, I am sorry to report that those EBT funds increase the grocer's bottom line in the exact same way as your hard-fought, sweat-infused paper dollars.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Do you have time to do some study at a local college? I can name some classes that would be good to start. It will not give you all the answers but it will make it easier to demonstrate some things and to talk about.

You're just another guy too ignorant to understand that he's conflating one of his arguments with one (or more) of his others.

 

[kintana]

Government in general (not all) are great at creating equality but not wealth. In Venezuela the government did a great job to make sure more people are at the same income level. However it did not make people richer it just made sure most people got the same pay by nationalising industries.

Right now Venezuela is suffering the problems of lack of wealth creation.

I do believe governments can create wealth and have but people need to realise it that it might not be always easy.

 

[MikeHammer**]

You can make the exact same argument about what "might" have happened to all the money in the Kickstarter account if each of those individual contributors had decided to start their own businesses. Or buy pizzas. It's hypothetical nonsense. On the level of "if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle".

Yes you can and that was exactly my point.

You cannot say simply because it is possible that the gov't might give someone some of the money they took from someone else to start a business that because that business might do good, that is a benefit the gov't created.

Look whether the gov't takes the money and puts it into business or they leave it in the private sector and they put it into business the range of outcomes from that expenditure is the same. It could succeed, fail or be mostly neutral from an investment stand point.

If the range of outcomes are the same the gov't is not creating an ADDITIONAL benefit. it is pure redistribution at its finest. Same outcomes just from another source.

But what we do know is that when gov't takes money from us and gives it to someone else they diminish the money greatly before doing so. There is waste and a drag on that money.

so while the range of outcomes are the same the quantum of cash is smaller coming out gov't then it went in thus an overall loss to the economy then if the money was invested directly without the gov't taking it first.

What you're doing is classic libertarian overreach. One can certainly make a distinction between, for example, the more directly voluntary nature of charitable giving and the less directly voluntary nature of being taxed. But it is absurd to then try and make the claim that, somehow, because of the difference in the way it was collected, the donated money can't buy the same office space and Aeron chairs as the taxed money.

I said it could. That is redistribution and not wealth creation. And it suffers a drag effect or loss so net is less effective.

 

[OldGoat]

You can make the exact same argument about what "might" have happened to all the money in the Kickstarter account if each of those individual contributors had decided to start their own businesses. Or buy pizzas. It's hypothetical nonsense. On the level of "if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle".

What you're doing is classic libertarian overreach. One can certainly make a distinction between, for example, the more directly voluntary nature of charitable giving and the less directly voluntary nature of being taxed. But it is absurd to then try and make the claim that, somehow, because of the difference in the way it was collected, the donated money can't buy the same office space and Aeron chairs as the taxed money.

And yes, Old Goat, I am sorry to report that those EBT funds increase the grocer's bottom line in the exact same way as your hard-fought, sweat-infused paper dollars.

Now EBT is useful for society up until the point that it does not enable counterproductive behavior and attitudes. When you have 47%+ that are net parasites and show no inclination to change or improve, I'd say we are enabling an entitlement culture that is counterproductive.