Americans of all kinds would agree that wealth should be redistributed???

• BoatShoes

  Dan Ariely is a behavioral economist at Duke University. He's written a cool book called Predictably Irrational.
  
  He recently composed an experiment wherein he asked different Americans of all types to play out the famous political philosopher John Rawl's Veil of Ignorance and imagine how they would distribute goods and wealth in society should they not know what their class or socioeconomic status was.
  
  Here were the results;
  
  Here's the link to the blog: www.danariely.com/
  
  
  
  
  My opinion? Maybe we're not so different after all...let's have a conversation!
• majorspark

  

  I think the vast majority of Americans would agree that wealth should be redistributed to those in need. The argument we have is who should have the power to distribute the wealth? And who defines who those in true need are? Is it the government? Private groups of individuals? Or the individual himself? In the case of government redistribution of wealth at what level? Federal? State? or Local?
  
  As someone on the ideological political right I have always argued for individual and private group control. When and if necessary government can play a role, I just advocate that it is at the smallest level possible. I believe those closest to those in need are the better stewards of our wealth.
  
  People are naturally less cautious when spending other peoples money. And the farther people are from their money those spending it are harder to hold accountable. No matter if it is a public or private institution. The problem is when it is the government we are compelled by law. We just can't cut them off when we see bad stewardship.
  
  Can I see a federal role? Yes. If the states and locals can't meet the needs of those closest to them and decide it necessary to grant that great power to the central government that has power over hundreds of millions, codify it in the constitution with an amendment erasing all constitutional arguments and giving the authority of the federal government a solid foundation free of any constitutional doubt.
  
  If absolutely necessary to meet the needs of the people they will relinquish some power to the federal government. But only under the rules governed by the constitution. I know the amendment process is difficult. As it should be. Direct governance by the people should not be easily relinquished.
  
  Can you understand why many of us are resistant to hand over more power and dollars to a mismanaged federal government? They are driving us to insolvency. They use our wealth to buy votes and maintain there own power.
  
  Why would we want to grant one more ounce of power to a government that has squandered funds supposedly set aside for social security? Most of us want to redistribute our excess wealth to those in true need. I just don't want my power to do so diminished by unscrupulous politicians seeking political power.
• believer

  

  majorspark;508939 wrote:Why would we want to grant one more ounce of power to a government that has squandered funds supposedly set aside for social security? Most of us want to redistribute our excess wealth to those in true need. I just don't want my power to do so diminished by unscrupulous politicians seeking political power.

  
  That is the bottom-line isn't it?
  
  Contrary to popular liberal beliefs, conservatives are not opposed to helping those in society who need assistance. We're simply opposed to corrupt politicians and inefficient bureaucrats who trample on our personal liberties by reaching into our wallets by edict, squandering of confiscated dollars due to stupidity & greed, and then labeling us as greedy when we resist their temptation to confiscate even more.
  
  I'm more on the side of allowing private groups and the generosity of individuals lead the way. This doesn't mean that corruption and inefficiencies do not exist here too, but I'm far more inclined to donate of my own free will to private charities of my choosing rather than having more money confiscated by the government and to know that much of that money will never reach the folks who need it due to inefficient, bloated bureaucracy and political shenanigans.
• HitsRus

  

  Americans of all kinds would agree that wealth should be redistributed???

  That is an incorrect inference. What the figures show are that Americans are not aware of the wealth distribution in the country as defined by economic terms,... and that without education, think that the ideal would be "X".
  
  Most people, including college educated individuals, have no clue, don't care, and don't necessarily feel there is anything wrong so long as they have the freedom and the ability to better their lives. Moreover, nothing in these polls suggest that Americans feel the government "should redistribute" or that it needs to redistributed at all. I'm sure there are plenty of people that are jealous of the 'man' with the money and want a bigger piece of the pie. No kidding.
• QuakerOats

  The supposition "how they would distribute goods and wealth in society", differs greatly from "should they...". It is all in how the question is asked.
  
  Government has proven to be so utterly inefficient in its operations that they should not be entrusted with another dime. The people of are capable of taking care of those in true need, and those not in true need must begin to fend for themselves, now.
• BoatShoes

  HitsRus;508973 wrote:That is an incorrect inference. What the figures show are that Americans are not aware of the wealth distribution in the country as defined by economic terms,... and that without education, think that the ideal would be "X".
  
  Most people, including college educated individuals, have no clue, don't care, and don't necessarily feel there is anything wrong so long as they have the freedom and the ability to better their lives. Moreover, nothing in these polls suggest that Americans feel the government "should redistribute" or that it needs to redistributed at all. I'm sure there are plenty of people that are jealous of the 'man' with the money and want a bigger piece of the pie. No kidding.

  
  They don't feel there is anything wrong because look what people think America is really like...they think it is much closer to their ideal. People don't realize that the top 20% owns more than 80% of the wealth.
  
  I never said anything about the government redistributing. I just used the word in a general sense.
  
  Also, I'm confused as to why you suggest they've claimed their ideal without education? I don't understand what you mean by that.
  
  Even people who made more than $100,000 thought that people in their income brackets owned 20% less than what they owned....and in their ideal expressed that they ought to have 20% even less wealth...how is that just jealous people wanting more of the rich man's money?
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;509153 wrote:The supposition "how they would distribute goods and wealth in society", differs greatly from "should they...". It is all in how the question is asked.
  
  Government has proven to be so utterly inefficient in its operations that they should not be entrusted with another dime. The people of are capable of taking care of those in true need, and those not in true need must begin to fend for themselves, now.

  
  Even if this is true, perhaps a grass roots effort to mirror a society closer to the ideals presented in this study?
• BoatShoes

  I think the general idea is that, whether we think that the government is full of crooks and will squander our money or we think the government may possibly be able to do something (probably not)...most Americans do not really know how wide the wealth disparity is in America and desire a more equitable society in some way. Perhaps I should have titled the thread "Americans of all types desire a more equitable society???"
• Bigdogg

  BoatShoes;509198 wrote:I think the general idea is that, whether we think that the government is full of crooks and will squander our money or we think the government may possibly be able to do something (probably not)...most Americans do not really know how wide the wealth disparity is in America and desire a more equitable society in some way. Perhaps I should have titled the thread "Americans of all types desire a more equitable society???"

  
  I was trying to demonstrate that point in my previously now deleted post but I guess I will just add +1 to your post.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;508545 wrote:Dan Ariely is a behavioral economist at Duke University. He's written a cool book called Predictably Irrational.
  
  He recently composed an experiment wherein he asked different Americans of all types to play out the famous political philosopher John Rawl's Veil of Ignorance and imagine how they would distribute goods and wealth in society should they not know what their class or socioeconomic status was.
  
  Here were the results;
  
  Here's the link to the blog: www.danariely.com/
  
  
  
  
  My opinion? Maybe we're not so different after all...let's have a conversation!

  
  To be honest the graph just shows me that the average American, regardless of socio-economic status, gender, etc has zero clue about economics.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;509578 wrote:To be honest the graph just shows me that the average American, regardless of socio-economic status, gender, etc has zero clue about economics.

  
  What is this great insight that you're alluding to? What is it that you imagine the average American doesn't understand?
• HitsRus

  

  Also, I'm confused as to why you suggest they've claimed their ideal without education? I don't understand what you mean by that.
  

  Few people would be familiar with the term 'wealth distribution' or have anything more than a vague idea as to what it means. Which means that to really understand the question you would have had to some sort of education regarding it. Most people don't. Most people can't even pick Delaware out on a map of the United States.
  
  I posed this question to two college educated people...my wife and her friend...one Dem, one Republican...Education and computer science. Predictably, they came up with similar answers as the poll...guessing a somewhat middling estimate and then thinking the ideal would be for the poorer people to have a little more. However, when asked if the status quo should be changed, the answer was more questions....why? and how?
  Neither one 'desired' that an active attempt should be made to 'redistribute' anybody's wealth. Neither certainly didn't want any of their wealth redistributed....even if, hypothetically, they were millionaires.
• BoatShoes

  HitsRus;509751 wrote:Few people would be familiar with the term 'wealth distribution' or have anything more than a vague idea as to what it means. Which means that to really understand the question you would have had to some sort of education regarding it. Most people don't. Most people can't even pick Delaware out on a map of the United States.
  
  I posed this question to two college educated people...my wife and her friend...one Dem, one Republican...Education and computer science. Predictably, they came up with similar answers as the poll...guessing a somewhat middling estimate and then thinking the ideal would be for the poorer people to have a little more. However, when asked if the status quo should be changed, the answer was more questions....why? and how?
  Neither one 'desired' that an active attempt should be made to 'redistribute' anybody's wealth. Neither certainly didn't want any of their wealth redistributed....even if, hypothetically, they were millionaires.

  
  I mean, what did they estimate the status quo to be? Did they estimate it to be that what is considered to be middle class owns less than 10% of all of America's wealth? Because that is the status quo.
• majorspark

  

  The assumption that wealth is a fixed pie that must be divided up by those benevolent planners in the central government is just plain incorrect. Those greedy rich have just cut off too much pie and those more compassionate among us should cut off some the their pie and give it those whose slice is smaller. Of course greed does not flow through their veins.
  
  Wealth is created by value being added to raw materials to produce a tangible good, or organize labor that provides a service that consumers find of value. In other words we need to make more pie. If we had a system that was more free with free and open competition then naturally the wealth distribution curve would move toward a normal distribution by natural and free economic activity, not massive amounts of government interference.
  
  I would say if the middle class holds such a disproportionate amount of wealth it shows us that our economic system has a lot less freedom in it than we think. The idea that those in the public sector and those that hold political power are any less greedy and power hungry as some evil big CEO collecting his latest fat bonus check is simply false. A while back I posted and article that spoke of the "parasite" economy. Some of the best and brightest among us being sent to DC lobbying firms to beg for public cash. These people should be out using their talents to create new wealth. Instead they are in the "parasite" economy begging for handouts and political favors. If I have time I will dig it up.
  
  Basically the answer IMO leaner and meaner government. By that I mean smaller but effective and efficient government (this may be an oxymoron). That enforces basic laws the we feel are necessary. The current system that is in place with this massive bloated federal bureaucracy is killing us economically.
• BoatShoes

  majorspark;510001 wrote: ...If we had a system that was more free with free and open competition then naturally the wealth distribution curve would move toward a normal distribution by natural and free economic activity, not massive amounts of government interference.
  
  I would say if the middle class holds such a disproportionate amount of wealth it shows us that our economic system has a lot less freedom in it than we think.

  
  Forget about big government for a second...Let's forget about the possible effectiveness of a government redistributing money earned in the private sector...
  
  You claim that the reason for such disproportionate wealth distribution is because of too much government interference already and that a freer market will naturally distribute wealth more in line with the ideal worlds imagined by those in the study.
  
  What evidence do you have for this belief?
  
  The ideas of Milton Friedman and the like swept through our politics and we deregulated the financial markets, telecommunications, lowered marginal rates and capital gains rates to their lowest ever; etc. etc.....essentially freeing up the markets in dramatic ways and power and wealth has concentrated to levels it hasn't since the great depression.
  
  I'm not saying that the opposite is the answer as I'm not sure the answer....but surely the burden of proof is on you to suggest when you say that freeing up the economy is the answer when the evidence is to the contrary.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  BS,
  
  While we wait for Major's answer, what are your ideas/thoughts on how we can improve the situation?
• BGFalcons82

  

  BoatShoes;510045 wrote:The ideas of Milton Friedman and the like swept through our politics and we deregulated the financial markets, telecommunications, lowered marginal rates and capital gains rates to their lowest ever; etc. etc.....essentially freeing up the markets in dramatic ways and power and wealth has concentrated to levels it hasn't since the great depression.

  
  Boat - Tell us a time period since homo sapiens started taking over this rock when there were no poor people. Tell us when there was no poverty. Tell us how the largest central governments ever created by these same homo sapiens failed in "providing each according to their needs". If you can find the perfect economic system that provided for no poor, no hungry, and no squalor, then let's have that system.
  
  Majorsparks is correct in that we can't think of our economy as 1 pie. We need to create dozens of pies and this is what Friedman espoused. The problem with governments is that they don't let the failures fail and reward the successful...instead they punish the successful with confiscatory income taxes, capital gains taxes, and the Death Tax and save the failures with bailouts, low interest loans, and targeted tax credits. We can never learn from our failings if the government won't accept that failures occur.
• BoatShoes

  CenterBHSFan;510061 wrote:BS,
  
  While we wait for Major's answer, what are your ideas/thoughts on how we can improve the situation?

  Find the last Scion; you know, Jesus and Mary Magdalene's descendant and clone her and amend the constitution to elect only the spawn of Christ, a morally perfect man, and allow them to decide.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  BoatShoes;510095 wrote:Find the last Scion; you know, Jesus and Mary Magdalene's descendant and clone her and amend the constitution to elect only the spawn of Christ, a morally perfect man, and allow them to decide.

  Are there any Plantagenet's left???
• cbus4life

  CenterBHSFan;510123 wrote:Are there any Plantagenet's left???

  
  *raises hand*
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;510045 wrote:Forget about big government for a second...Let's forget about the possible effectiveness of a government redistributing money earned in the private sector...
  
  You claim that the reason for such disproportionate wealth distribution is because of too much government interference already and that a freer market will naturally distribute wealth more in line with the ideal worlds imagined by those in the study.

  How can I forget about big government when that was the premise of my argument? That is why you see the terms central, federal, bloated and bureaucracy in my descriptions of things that need to change in government. No offense Boat but in the very next sentence you brought my point back in by pointing out my claim that too much government is the problem. I am not sure how I can support my claims by forgetting about big government. Maybe I am misunderstanding what your are trying to say. Easily done on these types of forums.
  
  When I am talking about an economic system that is more free and competitive I am not advocating an economic system with little or no rules. I know full well the depravity of of some men to manipulate the system and exploit others. I am advocating a decentralized government role in actively policing those rules. The feds have a role to set basic rules to ensure fair commerce exists in and between all the states.
  
  From there leave it to the states and local governments to regulate as they wish. After all the people that live, work, and raise their children in a given part of this country care far more about maintaining their local environment and way of life than some dumb ass federal beaurocrat behind a desk in DC with a lobbyist of a major corporation kissing his ass and treating him like royalty.
  
  I think that competition between governments and private entities a better level of active regulation will occur. One that better fits the needs of the people and the needs of business.
  

  BoatShoes;510045 wrote:What evidence do you have for this belief?

  A concentration of power and money in one place will by nature attract immoral and corrupt individuals. Though these individuals represent a small minority in our society, when power and money is concentrated in one place they will gravitate there. If power and influence fall into their hands they now gain it over many. I have said this before many times.
  
  As I noted in my post an article I read a while back. The parasites are descending on Washington like a swarm of locusts. The will destroy this nations wealth and concentrate it into the hands of a few if we don't start dispersing a little power. Spread these locusts out and we can take them out. I think the author nails it on the head.
  
  http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5073
  
  Money spent in Washington is taken from the people who produced it all over America. Washington produces little real value on its own. National defense and courts are essential to our freedom and prosperity, but that's a small part of what the federal government does these days. Most federal activity involves taking money from some people, giving it to others and keeping a big chunk as a transaction fee.
  
  Every business and interest group in society has an office in Washington devoted to getting some of the $2.5 trillion federal budget for itself: senior citizens, farmers, veterans, teachers, social workers, oil companies, labor unions — you name it.
  
  Walk down K Street, the heart of Washington's lobbying industry, and look at the directory in any office building. They're full of lobbyists and associations that are in Washington, for one reason: because, as Willie Sutton said about why he robbed banks, "That's where the money is."
  
  It's not just money that's being sucked into Washington. It's human talent, the most valuable productive asset of all. Too much of the talent at America's most dynamic companies is now diverted from productive activity to either getting corporate welfare from Congress or protecting the company from political predation.
  
  Slow economic growth can be blamed in large measure on just this process — the expansion of the parasite economy into the productive economy. The number of corporations with Washington offices increased 10-fold between 1961 and 1982. The number of people lobbying in Washington doubled in the late 1970s — and it has doubled again just since 2000. The number of lawyers per million Americans stayed the same from 1870 to 1970, then more than doubled in just 20 years. The Federal Register, where new regulations are printed, now prints a record 75,000 pages a year.
  
  As the parasite economy grows, taxing some people and doling out favors to others, everybody gets sucked in. Even if you don't want a government subsidy, you need a lobbyist to protect you from being taxed and regulated by the other groups and their lobbyists.
  
  

  BoatShoes;510045 wrote:The ideas of Milton Friedman and the like swept through our politics and we deregulated the financial markets, telecommunications, lowered marginal rates and capital gains rates to their lowest ever; etc. etc.....essentially freeing up the markets in dramatic ways and power and wealth has concentrated to levels it hasn't since the great depression.

  I am arguing decentralization and active regulation when necessary to occur in a competitive and freer manner. At the state and local level. The feds play limited and basic role. The feds currently hold the cards. As I believe the article I cited shows the lobbyists know were they need to be. They know where the power is at.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  cbus4life;510262 wrote:*raises hand*

  It must be a heavy burden!
• fan_from_texas

  This survey simply reveals the fact that most Americans lack understanding of basic economic issues, not that they want to redistribute wealth. A full 40% of Americans have zero or negative net worth--many of those are students or young people. Do people really think that the appropriate response is to raid the retirement savings and pension plans of 70-year-olds to give to 21-year-old students with student loans? That's one way to level the playing field, but it's absurd because it fails to account for age.
  
  For a more personal example, I'm still in the red as a result of student loans and fall in the 40% with zero or no net worth. Do you think most Americans would think it a good idea to, for example, take money from a retired schoolteacher, who has a positive net worth (if you consider his pension, likely 7 figures of net worth) and give some of that to me, a 27 year old atty who makes a good salary? Odds are good that most attys will retire with more than a public school teacher, but if we're just looking at this from a wealth perspective, a 65-year-old teacher is "wealthier" than young attys or doctors. If we were to follow through on this survey and take it at face value, the response would be to make retired teachers and factory workers give up a portion of their wealth to doctors and lawyers who are young and still in debt. I can't imagine that anyone would really support this idea.
  
  But say we account for age--are the numbers different? Do 20% of 22-year-olds hold 80% of the wealth of 22-year-olds? Or does that gap grow as the people age, resulting from choices made? If the latter, do we really think we should redistribute wealth from people making good decisions to people making poor decisions?
  
  This survey is interesting, but it's important to read the results with an understanding of what it actually says. Without broader context, this certainly doesn't serve as an indication that people think we should redistribute wealth.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;509628 wrote:What is this great insight that you're alluding to? What is it that you imagine the average American doesn't understand?

  
  Well lets see...
  
  That table says that in most Amercan's "ideal" society..
  
  The top 20% have about 30% of the money.
  
  The 2nd 20% controls about 20% of the money.
  
  The 3rd 20% controls about 20% of the money.
  
  The 4th 20% controls about 15% of the money.
  
  The last 20% (poor) controls about 15% of the money.
  
  That is EITHER asking for a perfect socialist society (each getting equal portions), or is asking for many less rich and many more poor people than we have now so that the poor come "equal" by numbers alone.
  
  So please tell me, which do the people want, a completely ideal socialist economy, or far fewer rich and far more poor?
  
  Both are bad ideas.
• jhay78

  

  BGFalcons82;510093 wrote:Boat - Tell us a time period since homo sapiens started taking over this rock when there were no poor people. Tell us when there was no poverty. Tell us how the largest central governments ever created by these same homo sapiens failed in "providing each according to their needs". If you can find the perfect economic system that provided for no poor, no hungry, and no squalor, then let's have that system.
  Majorsparks is correct in that we can't think of our economy as 1 pie. We need to create dozens of pies and this is what Friedman espoused. The problem with governments is that they don't let the failures fail and reward the successful...instead they punish the successful with confiscatory income taxes, capital gains taxes, and the Death Tax and save the failures with bailouts, low interest loans, and targeted tax credits. We can never learn from our failings if the government won't accept that failures occur.

  
  It's called utopia, and liberals/progressives have been promising it for the past 100 years.
  
  I believe in wealth distribution- by means of free market exchanges of goods, services, wages, etc. taking place among free people operating in their own self-interest. I also believe in charity as a form of distribution- again taking place when free people choose to help their fellow man.