Craig Haynie wrote:
I was having a similar conversation earlier... Here's the point I don't get: you want to 'spread the wealth', but why? Presumably, it's a moral argument: that people 'should' have the same access to wealth . . .
Read the book! Or the web site summation. First, no one is saying that people should have the same access. On the contrary, the book says there must be variation in wealth for capitalism to work.
Second, yes it is a moral imperative that people get enough money to live with dignity, but the more potent argument is that the modern economy is consumer driven and yet human labor is rapidly losing value because of robots and computers. Most recoveries are "jobless" and more will be. If too many people become unemployed because of automation, and other workers are scared they may lose their jobs and they stop spending money, the economy will collapse.
The whole basis of economics from Adam Smith to the present has been that most people trade their labor for money. When human labor has no value that system cannot work. We will need to replace it with something. The question is: What? How will it work? This is not only a moral question, it is also a practical concern.
But, and here's the but... if morality is your guide, then why isn't theft also included in your argument?
Because theft is economically dysfunctional, zero-sum, and immoral. That is like asking: "if economics are your guide, why not let people stave to death?" We need solutions that are both moral and workable.
The notion that taxes are a form of theft is ridiculous. If you don't want to pay taxes, vote for politicians who pledge to borrow from China, inflate the money, tax other people, or let the economy collapse instead of taxing you. Those are your choices.
- Jed
