News that makes you say WTF! (25 Viewers)

Ocelot

Midnight Marauder
Jul 13, 2013
18,943
i use redistribution since it needs an active agent
But to be redistributed it has to be distributed beforehand.

Government redistribution in today's welfare states is called redistribution because the money that gets redistributed has already been distributed beforehand in the form of profits, wages or interest to the people. Then the government comes in and redistributes this.

In a communist system, the surplus product wouldn't be distributed in the form of proft or interest in the first place, but straightforward to the proletariat as a whole.
 

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
70,789
But to be redistributed it has to be distributed beforehand.

Government redistribution in today's welfare states is called redistribution because the money that gets redistributed has already been distributed beforehand in the form of profits, wages or interest to the people. Then the government comes in and redistributes this.

In a communist system, the surplus product wouldn't be distributed in the form of proft or interest in the first place, but straightforward to the proletariat as a whole.
income =/= wealth and once again its always redistribution
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,750
It's appalling to read news like this. Worst thing is how many people that seem to not care. Tax havens :pado:
Let's not be ignorant of the past, however. People forget the human legacy of robber barons of the 19th century, living conditions for the common man in London, and pretty much a legacy of fiefdoms going back to the Dark Ages.

Which isn't to excuse it. Just that things haven't really changed all that much.
 

Ocelot

Midnight Marauder
Jul 13, 2013
18,943
income =/= wealth and once again its always redistribution
True for the bolded, but in a communist system there wouldn't be any redistribution of wealth either. Only in getting there.

And again, where is the RE in you definition of REdistribution? :p
 

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
70,789
True for the bolded, but in a communist system there wouldn't be any redistribution of wealth either. Only in getting there.

And again, where is the RE in you definition of REdistribution? :p
The use of the RE is to stress the non arbitrary nature of the action, distribution can describe the organic process of wealth getting distributed without government inebriated, and thus can be used to confuse when also used to describe the non organic process
 

Ocelot

Midnight Marauder
Jul 13, 2013
18,943
The use of the RE is to stress the non arbitrary nature of the action, distribution can describe the organic process of wealth getting distributed without government inebriated, and thus can be used to confuse when also used to describe the non organic process
I still disagree, because with redistribution, the money is first taken away from certain individuals, be it through taxes, social security contributions, even confiscation. In a communist system this isn't the case.

I know that this is essentially arguing semantics, and not even the prime reason why arguing for government redistributions isn't a (purely) communist idea, but still.
 

Raz

Senior Member
Nov 20, 2005
12,218
:agree:

All based on meritocracy, obviously those 62 guys contribute more to the world than the poorest 3.6 billion.
Tbh they provide shit compared to the poorest half. Bonds, hedge funds all other financial shit, while they produce zero real product, while the poorest half...

- - - Updated - - -

I played NBA 2k16, which featured his story mode "Livina Da Dream". If I were him I would be the quietest person on the planet on this topic after such racist, stereotypical filth.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,326
I still disagree, because with redistribution, the money is first taken away from certain individuals, be it through taxes, social security contributions, even confiscation. In a communist system this isn't the case.

I know that this is essentially arguing semantics, and not even the prime reason why arguing for government redistributions isn't a (purely) communist idea, but still.
It's not semantics. It is in fact a very big difference. And it makes you understand that in communism you can't really get wealthy (through appropriate means).
 

Ocelot

Midnight Marauder
Jul 13, 2013
18,943
Tbh they provide shit compared to the poorest half. Bonds, hedge funds all other financial shit, while they produce zero real product, while the poorest half...
Nah man, if it were that way the invisible hand would've taken care of that long ago...
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,326
how then do you explain the 5 richest people in the world being all self made
To be among the 5 richest you need to be very intelligent. You just don't get there without earning it to some degree. But the vast majority of the extremely wealthy are nothing like those people.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 23)

  • K10