Why is wealth redistribution inherently wrong?

[Padishah]

There's nothing neo-Liberal about Austrian Economics Gurey. Its the actual Classical Liberalism that built the foundation of European and American success. Private Capital, Private Entrepreneurs and Trade built European and American success, not government, not public works, not International loans from the IMF or other.

[Voltage]

Padishah, I know full well the developed world has left Keynesianism and has been trying to shove Chicago school down the throats of the under-developed but the fact of the matter is Russia, Chile, Poland, all have helped to turn the tide against Chicago school/extreme capitalism/neo-liberalism. Ironically the IMF and World Bank you seem to hate are the ones shoving down Chicago School down throats and this is why the IMF, World Bank, as well as WTO are being left behind. Couple days ago the whole talks failed, it is was long in the making I tell ya. THe only thing that makes me hopeful is the world now knows the differences between THEORIES and REALITIES. What you are quacking about are theories that reality has shown to be counter-productive, favoring a single super-rich minority, is hurtful, causes high inflation, a devalued life. THe world is awake and vigilant now, because of that I am hopeful!

[Navy9]

Nice, good to see that you agreed that there is no free market. Since human beings are not inherently saints, then absolute freedom, corrupts absolutely! There should be a system of checks in place to correct any deficiencies .

Personal ideologies are not involved here. This is cold, hard, economic fact. There is nothing just, nor economically advisable, about government seizure of property and its redistribution.

Do you know the difference between positive and normative economics?


You keep saying immoral government, well if the government is immoral, then it was elected by an immoral society and thus they deserve each other!

[It is precisely because of Government Intervention that the Super Rich get richer, and everyone else gets poorer. Let me explain. Since 1913, when it was inaugurated, the Federal Reserve has had an Inflationary 'Monetary Policy'. Inflation acts as a tax on the Middle Class, because it steadily, over many years, reduces the value of savings, pushing everyone but the Super Rich into poverty. The Federal Reserve System was created by an Act of Congress.

The Feds was created by an act of Congress but that does not mean its controlled by it. The Feds is totally an independent agency from the government. The role of the Fed is to stabilize the economy throught its varying instruments to combact the high inflation.

[Padishah]

The only thing that makes me hopeful is the world now knows the differences between THEORIES and REALITIES.

Really? The world knows the difference between theories and realities, do they? That would explain why there has been a wholesale abandonment of Socialism as a failed, and flawed theory? No? You notice these Latin American countries busy throwing out their horrible, pro-Big Business, subsidy obsessed Corporatist Governments and replacing them with just as horrible, anti-business, regulation obsessed Socialist Governments, don't you? You notice the consistent factor behind these two situations, don't you? Yes, both systems involve extensive government interference in the economy. Well, what do you know!

What you are quacking about are theories that reality has shown to be counter-productive

Oh, so you can point to a country where a truly Free Market economy was a liability? Really? I'm just shocked that a truly Free Market economy existed, let alone failed. Would you care to enlighten us with this information?

favoring a single super-rich minority

This is what happens when Politicians have the power to influence and direct the economy, like Keynesian theory would allow for. You get well-connected, wealthy individuals using their monetary assets to influence politicians to use the power of the state in a way that is advantageous to their ends and profits. This happens with any system where Government has power over the economy, such as the neo-Liberalism, Socialism, etc. You only need to have a look at the US with their Enron scandals, no-bid contracts to Halliburton and other such covert political corruption to see the truth of my words.

So then, becoming wealthy is no longer a matter of starting a business, providing a quality product or service and making an honest profit. Its no longer about voluntary trade between individual parties to each parties benefit. Its a function of how you can influence and direct the coercive power of the state to one's own benefit, and to someone else's detriment. No longer Market Entrepreneurship, but Political Entrepreneurship.

is hurtful, causes high inflation, a devalued life.

Actually, Fractional Reserve Banking, and Inflationary Monetary Policies are hurtful, cause high inflation, destroy the Middle Class, and devalue life. Inflationary Monetary Policies are the product of government intervention, whether the (legislated) power is invested in the Treasury, or a state owned Reserve Bank, or a private institution like the Federal Reserve. The Free Market does not have a monetary policy, period, let alone one of an inflationary nature. Nor does the Free Market accept the idea of Fractional Reserve Banking, unless their intention is theft. All these things are accomplished through the coercive power of the State legislating and interfering the economy, ostensibly in order to ensure 'economic security', 'full employment', both things it has never been able to produce.

The world is awake and vigilant now, because of that I am hopeful!

Nay, the world is sound asleep, if it still puts stock in Socialism and Keynesianism after the disasters of last century.

Nice, good to see that you agreed that there is no free market. Since human beings are not inherently saints, then absolute freedom, corrupts absolutely!

There is no Free Market country currently today. That does not mean that it cannot exist, or has not existed before, as it has. The most peaceful and productive period of European History was between the time after Napoleon's defeat, and the turn of the 19th Century. 100 years of peace, prosperity, economic growth brought on by the abandonment of Mercantilism (State 'Capitalism') in favour of free trade, minimal taxes and the abandonment of War as a Foreign Policy tool. Ironically, this System began to break down when Bismarck set about uniting Germany, again using War as a Foreign Policy tool, imposing trade barriers, raising taxes and creating the beginnings of a Welfare State. Protectionism breeds protectionism, and pretty soon, every other European country had done the same, increasing their belligerency towards each other, forming entangling alliances, needing only one spark to ignite the conflagration of WWII.

There should be a system of checks in place to correct any deficiencies.

I'm all for correcting deficiencies. I just cannot see how one can consider government to be the one to do this. Giving politicians power is always a recipe for disaster, with the exception of Singapore.

Do you know the difference between positive and normative economics?

Positivism is a blasted farce. How can one believe that Statistics and Modelling can provide a basis for valid economic theory, when one studies something as unique and unpredictable as Human Action?

You keep saying immoral government, well if the government is immoral, then it was elected by an immoral society and thus they deserve each other!

Coercion, aggression and the arbitrary use of force are all immoral things. This is elementary. Government is institutionalised force, that is, it has a monopoly on the use of force within the confines of a geographical area. Governments are only tolerable, morally, when they exercise the use of force as little as humanely possible, which does not include intervention in the economy.

The Feds was created by an act of Congress but that does not mean its controlled by it. The Feds is totally an independent agency from the government. The role of the Fed is to stabilize the economy throught its varying instruments to combact the high inflation.

You're right. The Federal Reserve was created by Congress, to 'manage' and 'stabilize' the economy, and 'combat' high inflation. It does not matter that it is not controlled by Congress; it wouldn't exist without the requisite legislation. What is truly horrifying is a private organisation with this control over the lifeblood of the economy; money. The problem with the notion behind the Federal Reserve System is that economies cannot be managed, otherwise Socialism would work, and the Federal Reserves Monetary Policy is the cause of Price and Currency Inflation, through an 'increasing credit' scheme (creating money willy nilly). The depressing things is, both Keynesianism and the Chicago School rely on the Federal Reserve System, with its Inflationary Monetary Policy as an integral component of their conception of Economics.

Go figure!

[gurey25]

Private Capital, Private Entrepreneurs and Trade is what builds wealth and is fully within islam.

but i am just telling you that development and industrialization requires government direction.
All you have to do is follow the history of industrialization and you will not find many countries that developed and industrilalized through the free market.

i can only think of netherlands and hongkong.

u name it every other industrial nation developed through government direction.

free trade was practiced after industriliazation, and after maturity of local industries.

[Padishah]

Development and industrialisation does not require government direction, just as much as the market does not require direction to satisfy the needs and wants of the consumer. Just because most governments, in justifying their existence, have imposed themselves on their respective economies, corralling and directing them, it does not follow that it is impossible for a country to develop and industrialise without government intervention.

History vindicates the idea that private property, free trade, low taxes and no regulation go are the only requisites to developing an economy, promoting peace and providing prosperity. Europe, during the Classical Liberal era, between Waterloo and WWII went through this and had nothing like the prosperity since Roman times. This is the continent that was at near constant war for close to a thousand years!

I don't need to mention the American example, do I?

[AbdiWahab252]

Without adequate wealth redistribution, the gap between the rich and poor grows. As the lot of the poor worsens, there comes a breaking point where the poor masses rise up & revolt. With that revolt, there comes forced wealth redistribution, taking from the wealthy and reallocating it to the poor.

So it is in the interest of the society to have fair wealth redistribution that satisifies the wealthy and the poor otherwise it leads to extremes which do not benefit the wealthy nor the poor. Too much wealth redistribution stifles commerce & trade and makes the society less well off. Too little causes the society to be less stable.

[Padishah]

Bah!

[gurey25]

Development and industrialisation does not require government direction, just as much as the market does not require direction to satisfy the needs and wants of the consumer. Just because most governments, in justifying their existence, have imposed themselves on their respective economies, corralling and directing them, it does not follow that it is impossible for a country to develop and industrialise without government intervention.

History vindicates the idea that private property, free trade, low taxes and no regulation go are the only requisites to developing an economy, promoting peace and providing prosperity. Europe, during the Classical Liberal era, between Waterloo and WWII went through this and had nothing like the prosperity since Roman times. This is the continent that was at near constant war for close to a thousand years!

I don't need to mention the American example, do I?

Netherlands and Hongkong.(which are unique cases)

i challenge you to find another case of industrilization Without government direction.

[Padishah]

You will have to justify this idea that the Netherlands and Hong Kong are unique cases that need to be dismissed.

Britain, from 1846 to 1910, underwent rapid industrialisation through its unilateral Free Market and Free Trade Policies. Funnily enough, Britain was the superpower at this time.

[Grant]

The Netherlands was the major beneficiary of the trade developed by the Hanseatic League, which later morphed into the East India Company. Hong Kong was the Eastern entrepot for the British trade network that included India. Both were essentially hubs for great merchantile empires.