orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/15/85)
> About the ``everybody being better off'' proposition: > > I have yet to hear *anybody* say that ``the rich'' would be better > off if you took money away from them. > Laura VCreighton > utzoo!laura It *is* possible that the rich can be better off by redistributing some of their income to those less well-off. This can happen if people no longer have enough money to buy the goods produced by the factories and means of production owned by the rich. This was the case during the Great Depression: the nation was only using about 70% of its industrial capacity because the new mass-production industries could produce more than people could afford to buy. If people were given more money then they would be able to afford more goods, thus enlarging the market for capitalists. Enlarging the market for capitalists means they can utilize more of their existing industrial capacity and even expand it to meet the demands of the enlarged market. In the process they will wind up with more money in a matter of time. The same phenomenon was illustrated with the success of the Marshall Plan. The U.S. provided the allies with money to rebuild- in the process they needed and were able to buy more American goods. This expansion of the European market has turned out to be far more advantageous to the U.S. than the punitive measures adopted by the Allies after WW I when they forced the Axis nations to pay enormous indemnities for the War. These measures were bad for the overall European economy and also fostered the rise of Hitler. "Gotta stand and face it, Life is sooooo complicated!" The Kinks tim sevener whuxl!orb
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (02/16/85)
The argument that the poor should have more money to enlarge the enconomy has been tried, and tried again. Granted that if the poor are really, really disadvantaged it is in the interest of the rich to give them money -- otherwise civil war. In any other case you are playing insurance salesman again. The poor aren't going to sit on their money, they are going to be buying something that they want with it. The people who produce, distribute and retail these goods are going to become rich. If you take their money away from them, to redistribute, then they are going to find their money of less and less value to them and stop doing whatever it was that tehy were doing so well that enabled them to become rich. If you let them keep their money and merely inflate the money supply, then you have nailed everyone with inflation. The rich will be hit for the most net amount, but the poor will be hit hardest because they are the ones with the least amount of slack in their budget. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/16/85)
>> About the ``everybody being better off'' proposition: >> >> I have yet to hear *anybody* say that ``the rich'' would be better >> off if you took money away from them. >> Laura VCreighton >> utzoo!laura > >It *is* possible that the rich can be better off by redistributing some of >their income to those less well-off. This can happen if people no longer >have enough money to buy the goods produced by the factories and means of >production owned by the rich. ... (Tim Severner) Tim goes on to give examples from the Depression and contrasts the Marshall Plan "giveaway" that rebuilt Europe with the vengeful policies that followed the First World War. Laura's claim that she has yet to hear *anybody* claim the rich would be better off if you took manoy away from them just shows that she hasn't read "North-South" , the report of the Brandt Commission. Its central theme, reiterated in the most forceful way, is that the rich countries can never hope to have stable economies, or to stay rich, if they don't greatly increase their giving to the poorer nations. Foreign aid, like welfare, isn't charity. It is survival. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (02/19/85)
-Of the incentive for the Rich to give to charity... The Libertarian stance is that the Rich will provide a sort of social security: a) to prevent rioting & civil war b) to keep money in circulation c) to feel magnanimous Correct me if I'm wrong. This assumes that the Rich are centrally coordinated. Why should Rich Man A give anything to the Poorbox this month, when he knows that most other Rich Men will do so. Rich Man A could keep money in circulation by a) building a new factory b) increasing the pay of his employees c) spending some d) hiring a Security Force for the riot & civil war mentioned above. Having only those Rich Men with a desire to feel Saintly propping up the economy to the benifit of those who don't give a monkey's seems a little strange, to me. -Nigel Gale