i wrote a really great answer to this question, but i guess i took too long, and got the "form no longer valid"1error. I'll get back to it though.b,121b,121edit: "great" should be read as "long".
I don't know shit about economics but after having observed this world for a little more than 40 years, I am under the impression1that the socio-economic concepts of the "first world"1have failed. Healthcare becomes more and more unaffordable, retirement funds are running so low, it doesn't leave people enough to retire on. Most people can't afford to live like they feel they should without owing every little shit they have to the bank. At least that's what things look like in Germany, I'd be surprised if it's any better around here. People lend more money from banks than they can ever pay back, somehow everybody makes decissions under the false expectation that things will get better (why should they?) and under a false sense of entitlement. We (the Western World) have been as wrong as the communists have been, we only got a little more time because we had a much better start.b,121b,121Where does wealth come from?b,121b,121-Buying resources for cheap:b,121Won't work forever, why should people give us what we want from them for close to nothing1at prices dictated by us?b,121b,121-Cheap labor:b,121Forget about it, can't put people in plant-owned shacks anymore and sell them groceries from plant-owned stores. Everybody wants a SUV, a nice house, a plamsa televion and a holiday in the sun.b,121b,121-inventive new products with a huge impact on the worldwide market:b,121Thing of the past. Our standart of living is so high, what do we still really need? Nothing! We already have more products than anybody could ever want. The only thing1everybody still really wants is more money for less work. Well, that's not going to make anybody wealthy.b,121b,121Leaves us with only one possible economic catcalyst:b,121b,121War:b,121b,121Renewable, effective, longlasting
font class="post"1b,121b,121Technically, taxes ARE redistribution.
billbradleyYou want BBQ sauce? Get the fuck out of my house. 2,890 Posts
Is wealth finite? b,121b,121No, the Federal Reserve can just print more money. img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" 21b,121b,121 img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/balla-22.gif" alt="" 21
Quote:/font1h,121b,121Is wealth finite? b,121b,121No, the Federal Reserve can just print more money. img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" 21b,121b,121 img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/balla-22.gif" alt="" 21 b,121b,121h,121
font class="post"1 img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/funnypost.gif" alt="" 21
The short answer is yes, wealth can grow without redistribution. Some examples:b,121b,1211) Black Plague option: huge population die off leaves more wealth and resources available for surviving1people to acquire. This happened during the Middle Ages.b,121b,1212) Classic trickle down theory postulates that people with wealth will not hoard it but reinvest it in private enterprise when a need is seen to be filled. This presupposes that private capitalists can see all needs and will act upon that need. Bill Gates foundation is an example of this.b,121b,121Beyond that, economics is a balancing1act between public and private enterprise. Each addresses different needs and have a place in the order of things. b,121b,121Basically the "invisible hand" of the market is a horribly inefficient at distributing1wealth, it is made for the accumulation of wealth not the distribution of it. This is why we have government and taxes. [[Shrug]]
Quote:/font1h,121b,121 Basically the "invisible hand" of the market is a horribly inefficient at distributing1wealth, it is made for the accumulation of wealth not the distribution of it. This is why we have government and taxes. [[Shrug]] b,121b,121h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121 img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cos3ve.gif" alt="" 21b,121b,121b,121b/wb,121b,121The Invisible Hand is really a closed fist.
Quote:/font1h,121b,121/font1Quote:/font1h,121b,121 what forces or actions can be taken in an economy to catalyze a more equal distribution of wealth-- because there are plenty of those. b,121b,121h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Yes, THIS is what I was getting at. b,121b,121So what are those forces or actions?b,121b,121And by "redistribution" I don't mean robin hood shit per se...but if wealth is finite then I don't see how you're going to improve the class standing of people on the bottom in a way that's not going to affect the holdings1of the people at the top. b,121b,121h,121font class="post"1b,121b,121You're construing a number of different questions here. As someone said early on wealth and capital are not the same thing. Wealth is, in a sense built into our society through charities, EBT, and the like because these 'services' help to ensure survival. Wealth is directly related to the probability of survival. b,121b,121A family with a self-sustaining farm in Arkansas is far more wealthy than a hedge1fund executive in a Manhattan penthouse.b,121b,121If your question1is about capital, and specifically monetary capital then you have to look at Marx's basic principles of value and labor (labor is not as important to your question). There is use value, which is an object's (money or otherwise) usefulness in your social setting. And there is exchange value, which is an object's value in a system of exchange. Diamonds have a very high exchange value, but almost no use value. b,121b,121In order to redistribute monetary capital you would have to shift exchange values. As far as government regulated changes it is unlikely. However, this type of thing happens. Think1of the people in Detroit that bought records in the 70s, and then sold them in the 90s or 00s. They are holding objects1with almost no exchange value, and then because of a change in the market these objects1skyrocket in value. Through it all their use value hasn't changed.b,121b,121Essentially, aside from small changes like this there is no way to just change the distribution of capital outright unless you were to say that money--in any form--is no longer worth anything.
Quote:/font1h,121b,121/font1Quote:/font1h,121b,121/font1Quote:/font1h,121b,121 what forces or actions can be taken in an economy to catalyze a more equal distribution of wealth-- because there are plenty of those. b,121b,121h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Yes, THIS is what I was getting at. b,121b,121So what are those forces or actions?b,121b,121And by "redistribution" I don't mean robin hood shit per se...but if wealth is finite then I don't see how you're going to improve the class standing of people on the bottom in a way that's not going to affect the holdings1of the people at the top. b,121b,121h,121font class="post"1b,121b,121You're construing a number of different questions here. As someone said early on wealth and capital are not the same thing. Wealth is, in a sense built into our society through charities, EBT, and the like because these 'services' help to ensure survival. Wealth is directly related to the probability of survival. b,121b,121A family with a self-sustaining farm in Arkansas is far more wealthy than a hedge1fund executive in a Manhattan penthouse.b,121b,121If your question1is about capital, and specifically monetary capital then you have to look at Marx's basic principles of value and labor (labor is not as important to your question). There is use value, which is an object's (money or otherwise) usefulness in your social setting. And there is exchange value, which is an object's value in a system of exchange. Diamonds have a very high exchange value, but almost no use value. b,121b,121In order to redistribute monetary capital you would have to shift exchange values. As far as government regulated changes it is unlikely. However, this type of thing happens. Think1of the people in Detroit that bought records in the 70s, and then sold them in the 90s or 00s. They are holding objects1with almost no exchange value, and then because of a change in the market these objects1skyrocket in value. Through it all their use value hasn't changed.b,121b,121Essentially, aside from small changes like this there is no way to just change the distribution of capital outright unless you were to say that money--in any form--is no longer worth anything. b,121b,121h,121font class="post"1b,121img src="http://yankees-chick.com/conan.jpg"1
Jeez, you would think1taking a term off wouldn???t impact my memory, but I forgot the most basic way wealth is grown in the economy??? DOH!b,121b,1213) How Banks Create Money/Wealthb,121b,121Because aprox. 11,000 of 25,000 banks failed in the 1930???s the US now requires banks to keep a reserve of 10% of their on demand accounts (checking, savings, money market, etc.). This 10% is either1vault cash or on account with the Federal Reserve.b,121b,121If you put $100.00 into a checking account at Generic Bank, said bank can use $90.00 to loan to others. This $90.00 then works its1way through the economy until it winds up in the banking system again. This $90.00 is again broken out into $81.00 to loan and $9.00 reserve. Rinse and repeat until you cannot loan out any more of the money coming back in. You do not redistribute the original $100.00, it is still available to the original person who put it in the bank.b,121b,121This increases the money supply (with the help of the fed) and is called the money multiplier[/b]. b,121b,121To simplify things, the observed multiplier in the US economy is x2 because not all money gets loaned or comes back to the banks. So if your money supply is 11 Billion, then you can multiply that money to 22 Billion, in an expanding economy. b,121b,121Good times:b,121 * More money depositedb,121 * More money borrowedb,121 * Higher money supply/wealthb,121b,121The multiplier also works in reverse???b,121b,121Bad times (like now):b,121 * Less money depositedb,121 * Less money borrowedb,121 * Lower money supply/wealthb,121b,121Without intervention by the Fed credit can get so tight the economy sizes up if allowed to spiral down during the bad times. This is what Economists found when WWII happened and the Government basically spent us out of the Great Depression.b,121b,121This is a basic concept in MacroEcon and I am sure there are more sophisticated models that get to the guts of it.b,121b,121I hope this helps. b,121b,121Consider this img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/know.gif" alt="" 21
Quote:/font1h,121b,121Wealth is, in a sense built into our society through charities, EBT, and the like because these 'services' help to ensure survival. Wealth is directly related to the probability of survival. b,121b,121h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121That's not a definition of wealth I've come across. The definition I typically see equates wealth with net worth rather than "probability of survival"1though the latter is an intriguing way to consider it. I don't find it useful as applied to a measure of class stratification however (and that's what I'm primarily interested in).
Regarding class stratification it would take a radical revaluing of objects already in existence in order to change the current distribution of monetary capital. I don't see any realistic way for this to happen. Hollywood could decide that poor people should be high-paid actors, and art galleries could decide that poor people should be high paid artists, but this isn't realistic. b,121b,121Perhaps a more accurate question would be, "Has this happened in the past, and if so, where, when and why?"
Quote:/font1h,121b,121b,121increasing equality would mean finding a way that the bottom 90% can increase their share of the total pie. b,121My question is whether that's realistically possible without the top 10% having to surrender their share. b,121b,121h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121 img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/melt.gif" alt="" 21
Quote:/font1h,121b,121A question to any economics-trained folks out there (Big Stacks?): in American society, is wealth more or less a finite resource or is it possible for total wealth to grow without redistribution? b,121b,121Thanks! b,121b,121h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Think for a second. 200 years ago the US population was roughly 3% of what it is today. If wealth was finite you'd expect the population to have got substantially poorer, yet1the opposite occurred.b,121b,121The limits to wealth are determined by the limits to human ingenuity much more than any other factor.
Quote:/font1h,121b,121Regarding class stratification it would take a radical revaluing of objects already in existence in order to change the current distribution of monetary capital. I don't see any realistic way for this to happen. Hollywood could decide that poor people should be high-paid actors, and art galleries could decide that poor people should be high paid artists, but this isn't realistic. b,121b,121b,121h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121Huh? Those are really strange examples. Even if such a thing happened, it would change the fortunes of only a1tiny handful of people relative to the gen pop. That wouldn't make an impact on general stratification. b,121b,121Also, art galleries don't play as major a role in determining who a high-paid artist is so much as the art market but whatever.
Tiny odd examples, but that's what I'm talking about. It doesn't seem like there is anything feasible that would just change everything without changing everything.
What about a bacteria that turns $100 bills to dust but leaves $5s alone? Or a mutation that turns Bentleys into pumpkins but leaves mid 90s domestics the hell alone, maybe even turns Sears wheel covers into rims?
Comments