Author Topic: Thomas Sowell explains Redistribution  (Read 2424 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Thomas Sowell explains Redistribution
« on: September 20, 2012, 09:32:49 PM »
The recently discovered tape on which Barack Obama said back in 1998 that he believes in redistribution is not really news. He said the same thing to Joe the Plumber four years ago. But the surfacing of this tape may serve a useful purpose if it gets people to thinking about what the consequences of redistribution are.

Those who talk glibly about redistribution often act as if people are just inert objects that can be placed here and there, like pieces on a chess board, to carry out some grand design. But if human beings have their own responses to government policies, then we cannot blithely assume that government policies will have the effect intended.

The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.

In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler's Holocaust in the 1940s.

How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth -- and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.

People in industry are not inert objects either. Moreover, unlike farmers, industrialists are not tied to the land in a particular country.

Russian aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky could take his expertise to America and produce his planes and helicopters thousands of miles away from his native land. Financiers are even less tied down, especially today, when vast sums of money can be dispatched electronically to any part of the world.

If confiscatory policies can produce counterproductive repercussions in a dictatorship, they are even harder to carry out in a democracy. A dictatorship can suddenly swoop down and grab whatever it wants. But a democracy must first have public discussions and debates. Those who are targeted for confiscation can see the handwriting on the wall, and act accordingly.

Among the most valuable assets in any nation are the knowledge, skills and productive experience that economists call "human capital." When successful people with much human capital leave the country, either voluntarily or because of hostile governments or hostile mobs whipped up by demagogues exploiting envy, lasting damage can be done to the economy they leave behind.

Fidel Castro's confiscatory policies drove successful Cubans to flee to Florida, often leaving much of their physical wealth behind. But poverty-stricken refugees rose to prosperity again in Florida, while the wealth they left behind in Cuba did not prevent the people there from being poverty stricken under Castro. The lasting wealth the refugees took with them was their human capital.

We have all heard the old saying that giving a man a fish feeds him only for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime.

Redistributionists give him a fish and leave him dependent on the government for more fish in the future(referring again to the method behind the madness)

If the redistributionists were serious, what they would want to distribute is the ability to fish, or to be productive in other ways. Knowledge is one of the few things that can be distributed to people without reducing the amount held by others.

That would better serve the interests of the poor, but it would not serve the interests of politicians who want to exercise power, and to get the votes of people who are dependent on them.

Barack Obama can endlessly proclaim his slogan of "Forward," but what he is proposing is going backwards to policies that have failed repeatedly in countries around the world.

Yet, to many people who cannot be bothered to stop and think, redistribution sounds good
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Thomas Sowell explains Redistribution
« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2012, 10:54:39 PM »
Redistribution of wealth worked quite well in Scandinavia, where almost no one lives in poverty. The same happened in Benelux as well.

Sowell ignores actual proof of the fact that he is full of it.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Thomas Sowell explains Redistribution
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2012, 11:16:36 PM »
How was confiscation and nationalisation done in Scandinavia?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Thomas Sowell explains Redistribution
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2012, 04:08:53 AM »
Redistribution: What it Means and Where it Leads

We now have exhibition 4,003 to prove that, at bottom, Barack Obama’s agenda is and has always been socialistic to the core.

The most recent piece of evidence confirming what, by now, everyone should know all too well is an audio recording of a speech the President delivered at a Loyola University conference back in 1998. It was there and then that Obama called for Americans to “pool resources” in order to “facilitate some redistribution [.]” He unabashedly declared: “I actually believe in redistribution.”

When we couple this with Obama’s now notorious claim that the successful did nothing to deserve their success—“You didn’t build that!”—a larger worldview begins to come into focus.

Yet to see that worldview spelled out, we must go beyond the sloganeering of the leftist politicians who promote redistributionist ideas to the leftist intellectuals who give rise to them.

Philosophers John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin are among the contemporary academic world’s biggest stars. And they are recognized as such because of their ingenuous and tireless efforts to construct an intellectual apparatus for “social justice”—i.e. redistribution.

Rawls devises what he calls “the original position.” In the original position, individuals gather together to determine what kind of society they shall inhabit together. In this regard, it is roughly comparable to what philosophers of an earlier era called “the state of nature.” However, in the original position, individuals stand behind a “veil of ignorance” that blinds them to every one of those characteristics—race, sex, class, religion—that distinguish them from one another in the real world.

Now, because no one knows what his circumstances will be in the society chosen, parties to the original position arrive at a consensus that their society shall be governed by two principles of “justice.”

The first asserts that everyone is to have as expansive a right to liberty consistent with the same right for everyone else.
But the second demands that all inequalities that arise from the observance of the first principle must be “arranged” or redistributed in order to benefit “the least advantaged.”

Parties to the original position would agree to this, Rawls thinks, because no one knows whether or not he will be counted among the least advantaged in the new social order.

Notice, society here is treated as a lottery in that no one has done anything to deserve either his standing in it or “the advantages” or “disadvantages” that attach to his standing. (Translation: “You didn’t build that!”) Yet it is unlike a lottery in that—just because one’s fortunes and misfortunes are undeserved—the just society requires of life’s winners that they share their earnings with life’s losers.

Dworkin follows Rawls down this path.

Dworkin contends that a distribution is equal and, thus, just, if it passes what he calls “the envy test.” When a person envies the resources of another, he is willing to exchange his own resources for them. When no one envies the resources of others, then “equality is perfect,” Dworkin says.

A person has two kinds of resources, “personal” and “impersonal.” Personal resources are mental and physical traits—health, strength, talent. Impersonal resources are material goods. The latter depend upon the former, but since no one did anything to earn his personal resources, no one is entitled to keep the impersonal resources that they made possible as long as there are others that envy them.

Unlike impersonal resources, personal resources cannot be redistributed. However, Dworkin is a clear enough thinker to know that if it is permissible for the government to redistribute one’s impersonal resources, then it is no less permissible for it do whatever it can possibly do to make good for inequalities in personal resources when envy extends to them.

Dworkin writes that if the distribution of personal resources fails the envy test, then there must be “compensatory strategies” set in place to “repair…inequalities in personal resources and luck.”

To know the true character of Obama’s redistributionist policies and where they logically lead, we need to know about the theories underwriting them.
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Thomas Sowell explains Redistribution
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2012, 01:38:13 PM »
In Scandinavia there was no nationalization, other than perhaps some utility companies, which were purchased by the government. There is no confiscation, there is simply a progressive income tax.

Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland are not identical. Each is a democracy, so it the people do not like the government, a majority can change it, as they do frequently. But few want to return to having poverty.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Thomas Sowell explains Redistribution
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2012, 01:53:48 PM »
Does Scandinavian Socialism Work?

By Steven Plaut - Aug 12th, 2011 

There is nothing like a good stock market bear run to get all the media wags out and chattering about the "death of capitalism."  Invariably the same folks take to lecturing the rest of us about how the only hope for humankind is "social democracy" in the form of Scandinavian-style "socialism."

It would be hard to understate the extent of romanticizing and fantasy concerning Scandinavia's economic and social systems to be found among the Western "intellectual classes," and that clearly includes the left wing of the Democrat Party.   Scandinavians themselves are often not as convinced that Scandinavian socialism is all it is cracked up to be, and Sweden's own ex-Prime Minister Carl Bildt (current Foreign Minister) has pronounced it a failure.

Scandinavian countries are "socialist" in some senses and vibrantly capitalist in other senses.  They are "socialist" in the sense that they have very high taxes with very generous social welfare services provided by the state, the famous "cradle-to-grave" welfare state.  They are vibrantly capitalist in the sense that they have low levels of interference in markets by the government, low levels of regulation, low levels of nationalization of industry and capital, and almost no protectionism.  Interestingly, Scandinavian countries, especially Sweden, manage to maintain those levels of taxes and expenditures while achieving high levels of national wealth and production, and a standard of living among the world's highest.  As a result Western groupies of Scandinavia hold its "socialism" up as the model for the rest of the world and certainly for the bastions of capitalist inequality and class conflict, especially the English-speaking nations.

The wealth and riches of Sweden of course are at least in part the byproduct of Swedish cowardice and moral depravity.  Sweden sat out both World Wars, and emerged from them with its economy completely in tact.  In fact, "neutral" Sweden made money trading with Hitler's Germany and providing the Nazi war machine with war materials, even while its fellow Scandinavian nations were being overrun, brutalized and devastated.

Be that as it may, Sweden in particular and Scandinavia in general are hailed as the great champions of humanism and egalitarianism, as the countries that have cured poverty and eliminated hardship and material suffering.  Here is not the place for an overall assessment of Scandinavian societies, which "like all countries "have their positive points and also their problems.  The question here is whether Scandinavian ?socialism? is really the panacea for poverty.

Sure enough, poverty rates are comparatively low in Scandinavian countries compared with most of the rest of the world.   In fairness, it should be noted that they are not the ONLY countries with low poverty rates.  Ultra-capitalist Switzerland, which no one would mistake for a socialist country and which has a population similar in size to that of Sweden, appears to have poverty rates lower than those in the Scandinavian utopias.  But there is a serious analytic issue that must be addressed and it is this:  Are poverty rates in Scandinavian countries low because Scandinavian-style "socialism" works, or are they low because Scandinavians work?

Let us begin by noting that while the dimensions of poverty are relatively small by international standards, Scandinavian countries definitely do have poverty.  Scandinavian "socialism" has not eliminated it.

Poverty rates of course are highly dubious things to compare across countries.

The definition of "poverty" and its measurement are both highly problematic, and both vary dramatically, making inter-country comparisons difficult.   In all countries there are serious problems with the measures.  Wealthy people are sometimes counted as part of the population below the poverty line, as long as their current income happens to be low.  Examples are retired people and students.  The poverty statistics are based on reported incomes, meaning that lots of people living high on the hog are counted as poor because they do not report their income at all to the tax authorities, earning income from the "shadow economy."  Poverty is generally measured by income, not consumption.  It is often measured as a percent of median income, not by material hardship, or by the rather silly "Gini coefficient."  If every single person discovered a petroleum well in his yard, poverty rates would not change much.

Even if we accept the definitions and measures within each country at face value, there are still problems in making comparisons across different currency zones.  And some countries, including some Scandinavian ones, just do not report an official poverty rate of any sort.

Having noted all of that, by most estimates the Scandinavian countries are in relatively good but not remarkable positions relative to the rest of the world in terms of the dimensions of poverty.  Denmark's poverty rate, with its bloated welfare state, is 12%, the same as the poverty rate in the US according to this source.  And poverty in Denmark is growing, it was estimated at 6% back in 1997 in a EU study.  (It should be noted though that Denmark has no official poverty measure.  Neither does Norway.)   Most other estimates put the US poverty rate higher than 12%.  Other estimates of poverty rates for Sweden, Norway and Finland run at about 6%, although some sources put it much higher.  The sources that estimate the US poverty rate as 18% also estimate the rates for Sweden and Norway at 9%.   A Finnish source estimates Finland's 2010 poverty rate at 14%.  We will leave Iceland out of the comparisons, since the entire population of that country has been driven into insolvency by events in recent years.

While Scandinavian countries have relatively low poverty rates, Switzerland's, as noted, is evidently even lower.  (I say evidently because Switzerland has no official measurement of poverty.   This web site puts it at 6.9%, slightly more than half that of Denmark's.)   A summary of other estimates of poverty rates from different sources can be found here.  "Child poverty rates" are a separate story, but are low in Scandinavian countries, in large part because there are so few children there being born.

So Scandinavia has not eliminated poverty.  The interesting question is whether the low poverty rates there are thanks to the economic system or thanks to Scandinavians being hard-working thrifty disciplined people.  That Scandinavians are hard-working is evident from the fact that in spite of enormous benefits in Sweden for the unemployed and for those who do not work, creating incentives to avoid work, Sweden has a labor force participation rate that is one of the highest in Europe.

One way to test our question is to examine Scandinavians who do not live in Scandinavia.  There is a large Scandinavian population that lives in the bad-old-selfish-materialist-capitalist United States.  Well, it turns out that Scandinavians living under its selfish capitalism also have remarkably low poverty rates.  Economists Geranda Notten and Chris de Neubourg have studied Scandinavians living in the US and in Sweden and compared their poverty rates.  They estimate the poverty rate for Scandinavians living in the United States as 6.7%, half that of the general U.S population.  Using measures and definitions of poverty like those used in the US, the same analysts calculate the poverty rate in Sweden using the American poverty threshold as an identical 6.7% (although it was 10% using an alternative measure).   So low poverty among Scandinavians seems to be because Scandinavians work, whether or not Scandinavian "socialism" can be said to work.

But an additional reason for the low poverty rates in Scandinavian countries is that these are countries that have very few immigrants.  Poverty rates are high almost everywhere in Europe among migrants into those countries.  Scandinavian countries with the exception of Sweden have very few immigrants, both in absolute numbers and in terms of the portion of the overall population.

Here are the numbers:

Foreign born as a percent of total population by country:

Country Migrants as Percent of Population
Finland 2.7%
Denmark 7.4%
Norway 8.3%
Sweden 14.4%
 
UK 9.4%
France 11.7%
Germany 12.5%
USA 14.5%
Canada 22.4%
Switzerland 25.1%
Australia 27.4%

Source: OECD data (based on period close to 2000)
International Migrants in Developed, Emerging and Developing Countries: An Extended Profile ? December, 2010

Because the US, Canada, UK, France and Germany are large countries, the absolute numbers of their immigrants are also very high, not just in percentages.

So is poverty low in Scandinavian countries because their "socialism" works, or because they have relatively few poor immigrants entering?  And if poverty is low because Scandinavian "socialism" works, should it not be working for migrants in those countries as well?

Separate poverty data for the migrant populations in Scandinavian countries are available and there are numerous indications that these are quite high.  According to one study, "While first and second generation immigrants constituted 44% of the poor children in 1997, they were 65% of all poor children in Sweden in 2008.  Only 5% of native Swedish children live in poverty. For immigrant children with both parents born outside of the Sweden, the child poverty rate is 39%."  Poverty rates have also been shown to be high for immigrants in Denmark.  According to a recent study of poverty rates among immigrants in all Scandinavian countries, "While native children face yearly poverty risks of less than 10 percent in all three countries and for all years investigated the increasing proportion of immigrant children with an origin in middle and low income countries have poverty risks that varies from 38 and up to as much as 58 percent."

So Scandinavian "socialism" is doing a remarkably poor job in eliminating poverty among non-Scandinavians living in those Scandinavian utopias.

The conclusion can only be one thing.  The low poverty rate among Scandinavians in Scandinavian countries is thanks to the fact that Scandinavians work.  It is NOT because socialism works!

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/steven-plaut/does-scandinavian-socialism-work/
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 01:59:53 PM by Christians4LessGvt »
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Thomas Sowell explains Redistribution
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2012, 10:59:51 PM »
Scandinavians work, and pay their taxes. There are many, many fewer poor people in Scandinavia than in the US, percentage wise.

Frontpage magazine is an ultra right wing propaganda organ whose writers are weenies who think of themselves and gynormous big swinging dicks. They are about as credible as the clowns on infomercials.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Thomas Sowell explains Redistribution
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2012, 02:09:14 AM »
Are Scandinavians paying worse taxes than we are?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Thomas Sowell explains Redistribution
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2012, 03:05:06 AM »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Thomas Sowell explains Redistribution
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2012, 12:44:22 PM »
It is difficult to determine who benefits more when you compare two systems.

Scandinavians do not have to save money for higher education: it is free to those who show themselves to be qualified.

Scandinavians rarely see any need to send their kids to private schools, because the public schools are excellent.

Scandinavians do not have to save for retirement, as pensions are adequate for a comfortable lifestyle.

Scandinavians pay much less for car insurance, because medical care is provided to all victims of accidents.

Scandinavians do not have to spend money on healthcare: it is provided.

Employment does not fluctuate as much as in the US. When people are laid off, unemployment insurance and retraining are better than in the US.

Public housing is affordable and pleasant, as a rule.

What is comes down to is that instead of paying tons of money for education, healthcare, insurance to various profit-making companies, they simply purchase the same services from the government. Few Swedes, Danes, Finns or Norwegians believe that "Government is the problem".

If you have a problem with a bureaucracy, you call your ombudsman, who knows how to set things right.

There was a Swedish couple in my Silver Sneakers class. He worked for a Norwegian cruiseline for a dozen years and he and his wife are both US citizens. They have a choice of where to retire, and have chosen Sweden. They may come back for a while in the Winter.

He said that what he liked most about the US more than Sweden was the weather here in Miami. Sweden is cold and gray all winter, he says.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Thomas Sowell explains Redistribution
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2012, 03:19:49 PM »
They have a choice of where to retire, and have chosen Sweden.

racists!
lily white sweden of course!
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987