Skip to content

1 Comment

  1. Fred Thornton
    November 22, 2021 @ 9:46 pm

    The answer to the question in this article is both easy, and optimistic. Since the other word for “redistribution” is “theft”, and usually government theft as a solid consequence of cronyism, the fact that voters tend to see through and reject such legislation is very encouraging for anyone who desires to live in an ethical society.

    There is an answer to the problem of wealth inequality, but it doesn’t involve defacto strong arm robbery by the government. That’s already being used… as part of the problem. You want to take a swing at this one? Take a page from Karl Marx’s playbook concerning “graduated income taxes”, and then A) turn the tables upside down (literally!) and then B) apply those upside down tables to the concepts of “time is money,” “risks justify profits,” and basic economic theory concerning inflation.

    Logic? The most a man can risk is being reduced to destitute poverty, destitution is a fixed and finite value that usually involves starvation. They say that an investor deserves a profit in return for his risks. Ok, fair enough. But does it not make sense the more money one has invested the smaller a percentage of the (finite!) risk of investment each unit of that money represents, and therefore the more money invested should generate a proportionately smaller rate of return on each individual unit thereof?

    Think about it. The guy who has twenty billion riding the markets isn’t going to miss any meals if something blows up. It’s the guy who gambled next years grocery money who took a real risk. Which one deserves the higher profits if the endeavor financed should succeed? You want to scare Wall Street into repented having fostered the Covert Evils of Slavery try introducing fiscal legislation based on a rational and personal risk assessment rather than the ego based version currently in service.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.