The Unfair Distribution Of Economic Freedom

Posted by khalling 9 years, 2 months ago to Economics
7 comments | Share | Flag

"When economic freedom, even in a political dictatorship like the People’s Republic of China, brings wealth to hundreds of millions, it also brings to them access to education, health care, and security. And in the end, it brings aspiration to political freedom and the power to fight for it." Walter Donway's latest
SOURCE URL: http://www.thesavvystreet.com/the-unfair-distribution-of-economic-freedom/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by coaldigger 9 years, 2 months ago
    Wealth doesn't exist as a fixed commodity that falls out of the sky like rain. It is created by the mind of a person or group of persons that want to produce a product or service that can be used as a medium of exchange for other products or services that they desire.
    The greater the freedom to engage in this activity and the freedom to maintain and use the benefits, the more wealth will be created. It is astounding that the leeches that have no capacity to produce anything would be so resentful of those that do that they keep throwing roadblocks in their way and confiscating the capital that they use for production.
    Among those that spend everything that they earn or can borrow, there is no concept of savings or investment. When they hear of someone having millions of dollars they think that is more than they need and that it should be shared with others. In some ways they are right in that it is more than someone needs to spend for a good life. While not giving the money away, they put it to use to their benefit and to the benefit of others by putting it into a bank which the bank lends to others or by investing in businesses that employ others. If all income gets spent there is none available for lending or investing. The damnable 1% are providing the capital that provides basis of creation of wealth that the rest of us live on, but only if they have the freedom to do so. When the government takes that money, it is being stolen from someone that has a demonstrated capability of producing wealth and placed in the hands of someone that has never successfully operated a lemonade stand.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 2 months ago
    Regarding the stuff in the article about income inequality, I see automation creating more wealth for the few people who make the best formula, program, system, etc, but not for anyone else. This creation of value is wonderful thing, but it will make people inclined to socialism. If we somehow stopped this value from being created, it would be "good" for wealth disparity but bad for humankind. I'm generally optimistic but I see a socialist response to technology as a possible threat on the horizon.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 2 months ago
      Automation, like any other creative production, is supposed to create more wealth for those who do it when they have the freedom to do so. The percentage difference in wealth is morally irrelevant. This didn't start with today's innovations in automation.

      Economic conditions do not cause people to either fight for freedom or demand socialism, which is a Marxist notion of economic determinism. What people choose depends on their philosophy of life.

      The general response to "unequal distribution of freedom" we can expect today is demands to "level the playing field" by controlling everyone. It's a generalization of the latest demands to impose internet taxes because sales taxes on "brick and mortar" stores are unfair. They imposed the taxes, then claim -- in full "level the playing field" rhetoric -- that it's "unfair" that someone else does not pay them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 2 months ago
        "Economic conditions do not cause people to either fight for freedom or demand socialism, which is a Marxist notion of economic determinism. What people choose depends on their philosophy of life. "
        This is desirable but doesn't ring true to me. It seems to me that increased income inequality would make socialism more appealing, at least superficially, compared to times with lower disparities in income and wealth.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 2 months ago
    "And in the end, it brings aspiration to political freedom and the power to fight for it."
    I suspect this is true, and I strongly hope it's true. The Chinese gov't hopes they can have economic freedom without political freedom.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ben_C 9 years, 2 months ago
    As the saying goes, "Three fifths of all statistics is made up." Interesting post. Of great significance for me is one of the comments after the piece that questions whether or not the average IQ of a nation has any bearing on wealth accumulation. I for one am convinced that most of the social and economic problems can be explained by IQ. Smart people tend to be productive and figure out how to accumulate wealth - even beyond the government's efforts to stifle them. At the other end of the spectrum liberal people profess that not so smart people are entitled to the wealth accumulated by the smart people. It is this sense of unfairness that fuels the flames of social unrest. No, we are not all as smart as Alan Turning - I know I am not! But then we all can't run the 40 yard dash in 4.0 seconds. I can't do that either. But I have very good fine motor skills and I am very good at what I do. Its genetics and DNA - and alot of hard work. Just ask Dr. Ben Carson.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 2 months ago
    "our species, since the year 2000, has doubled its wealth from $117 trillion to $263 trillion in 2014"

    What a surprise that this happens when banksters massively increase supply of currency while supply of durable assets barely changes.
    That is not a proper measure of wealth.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo