undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmarcosdumay10y ago0 comments

> The moral is that redistribution won't bring prosperity

Except that it does - up to a certain point.

That's one of the few repeatable, tested, and validated economical principle from the XX century. Counter intuitive as it is, there's just no point denying it.

0 comments

StephenConnell10y ago

If prosperity is "having wealth", then redistributing wealth does bring prosperity. But then you could also say that stealing brings prosperity. Could you not?

Retra10y ago

You could, but you should be aware that "stealing" is not an act per se, but a moral qualification of some other act. Namely, the redistribution of goods.

The only difference between theft and charity is your personal moral inflection.

StephenConnell10y ago

A couple more definitions from Google. Charity: voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need. Stealing: to take without permission

I am an advocate for charity. But redistribution through taxation feels like stealing to me.

1 more reply

chc10y ago

AFAIK places with high rates of crime don't tend to be very prosperous on average. The same is not true for places with systems that help the poor.

anaolykarpov10y ago

Like north Korea, venezuela and Vietnam?

2 more replies

marcosdumayOP10y ago

So, let me clarify.

Redistribution increases the total wealth, and it is not a small effect at all.

But only up to a certain point. Complete communism still completely sucks.

iQuercus10y ago

Source?

marcosdumayOP10y ago

Well, the first theory is by Keynes, it's on his book.

It's been revised and remodeled several hundreds of times, if you want to search Google Schoolar or something like that, look for "demand side" theories, or crisis of "aggregated demand". Also, if you search for NGDP, the biggest share of the papers will be about this.

There are many other terms that will lead to less results. It's a really widespread concept.

tarikjn10y ago

Mainstream yes, as in the majority believe so. But not without controversy. The Austrian School of economics is an opposing view which has brought just as many results of being the correct philosophy, and one may argue, is a simpler and more elegant approach of economics. And as one may say, clear ideas are easily expressed.

hluska10y ago

The IMF makes the same argument.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

StephenConnell10y ago

If prosperity is "having wealth", then redistributing wealth does bring prosperity. But then you could also say that stealing brings prosperity. Could you not?

Retra10y ago

You could, but you should be aware that "stealing" is not an act per se, but a moral qualification of some other act. Namely, the redistribution of goods.

The only difference between theft and charity is your personal moral inflection.

StephenConnell10y ago

A couple more definitions from Google. Charity: voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need. Stealing: to take without permission

I am an advocate for charity. But redistribution through taxation feels like stealing to me.

1 more reply

chc10y ago

AFAIK places with high rates of crime don't tend to be very prosperous on average. The same is not true for places with systems that help the poor.

anaolykarpov10y ago

Like north Korea, venezuela and Vietnam?

2 more replies

marcosdumayOP10y ago

So, let me clarify.

Redistribution increases the total wealth, and it is not a small effect at all.

But only up to a certain point. Complete communism still completely sucks.

iQuercus10y ago