You make an assumption that "rich people" produce most of the stuff. I have to disagree with that.
You had to have found that assumption in my comments about ordinary people purchasing the goods/services rich people produce. What I mean by that is "the goods/services that help make those rich people rich."
While rich people may tend to have title to the means of production, they rarely are actually the ones doing the production. I can only assume that you think there is some sort of an economic need for rich people, personally I believe that the middle class is our producer class, our job creator class, our consumer class, and pretty much our inventor class.
An example of a company that has some rich bosses and some modestly paid floor workers that are all in the business of producing something makes sense here. Rather than give blanket credit to a class of people for doing everything, whether that's the upper class or the middle class, I think it's more realistic to realize the balance of investment of money, time and energy. It's easy for virtually anyone to pride themselves in the fact that "if it weren't for ME this whole place would fold" as some basis for being underappreciated and/or underpaid. But there are a million scenarios about what "production" really means. If I develop a business plan and implement it which involves making the investment in it, and hiring a guy to operate the eight hundred thousand dollar machine I own in the $4 million factory I own, is the production really all thanks to that guy I hired? Should I just had over the keys at that point? Well of course not.
Small businesses employ 60% of our workers, and small businesses create more than 60% of our jobs. Most large businesses grow from small businesses and 98% of our small business owners are middle class or poor (only 2% of small business owners are in the top income bracket).
This is an interesting factoid to keep in mind. I've oft wondered how many small business aren't self-sustaining, but rather basically someone's hobby, that some other income or wealth source keeps afloat...
Yes, I am glad to see that you agree that without a "counter-redistributing" mechanism, such as government, that the rich would infinately grow richer (until they have all the wealth) and the poor and middle class would eventually loose all wealth. thats the very nature of a free market capitalistic economy. It's normal. I just don't understand why you would prefer to live in a society which has only a few uber rich folk, and the rest of the society are dirt poor.
I don't advocate that. The government redistribution advocates do. Welfare statists do. And they fail to grasp that it's what they're advocating. Think about it. When you put government in charge of siphoning money back to the people, it pacifies them while eroding their economic sense, and it keeps the revenue coming to the big guys. The very nature of a free market capitalistic economy will result in wealth disparity, but that's ultimately unstable. So government stabilizes it via welfare. THAT is government's role, and no one left of center can see it:
to maintain an environment of wealth disparity that otherwise would backfire on the wealthy.
The free market always self-regulates, as long as you don't buckle and rewrite all the rules, in which case it distorts the entire thing.
Sure, I agree. Vote seekers will always pander to the masses. Thats the way a representative democracy works. Democracy is all about attempting to meet the needs of the majority. In the US, it's the majority who are the workers, the producers, and the consumers. Representative democracy may not be perfect, but it's far better than any alternative. Can you suggest a better alternative and point to a nation where they have such alternative?
Not really, but consumers as a whole have immense power outside of the so-called democratic process. If the rule of law were upheld that did not toss out handouts or manipulate tax policies on a whim or whatever other pacifying attempt is made to quell the masses, and people were left alone to solve their own dilemma, they'd just stop purchasing from the people they despise. Right now we'd rather have our cake and eat it to. All do business with a same few rich folks' companies, and then complain that they're rich.
you know, we both see the current state of things almost identically. Our difference is what we would like that state to progress to. I would like to see a world where most everyone works fairly hard and could have what we now think of as a upper middleclass lifestyle, with plenty of money to retire on, plenty of money to pay for healtcare bills, plenty to send their kids to private school if they desire, plenty to send their kids to college on, etc.
I have my own Utopian visions for the world, but I recognize them as fantasy. I'm not being sarcastic either. I honestly do have those. And I know our government cannot bring my visions into fruition, nor can it bring yours into fruition. The people have to act to create it all on their own.
I am not sure what you prefer to envision for America. To me it sounds like you would prefer a very small class of financial elites who are uber wealthy and who pass that wealth down from generation to generation, while the 99% become poorer and essentially become servents not for their own financial needs, but for the sole needs of the financial elite.
If you leave the game alone and let that happen (if it's in fact going to), as I said above, it quickly becomes unstable and backfires on the wealthy, one way or another. Government's goal is not to let this backfire happen, but rather to pacify any resistance. This prolongs the conditions of a land of the virtually impoverished ruled by the wealthy, as the little trickle downs from government programs keep the impoverished from ever getting too uncomfortable. I think we have to break our proclivity to look to federal government to solve all our complex problems. I don't think they ever do. I think they just prolong and distort them.
