If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Redistribution of money to combat income inequality feeds economic growth according to dirty pinko Commie socialists at International Monetary Fund   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 55
    More: Obvious, International Monetary Fund, pinko commie, redistribution of wealth, income inequality, Obama, economic growths, socialists, expanded access  
•       •       •

479 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Mar 2014 at 5:42 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-13 03:55:42 PM  
Newsflash: people with money to spend will spend money
 
2014-03-13 04:05:27 PM  
Guns and death
IMF

/obscure?
 
2014-03-13 04:11:49 PM  
General warning to both sides - be wary of studies which show that your morally preferred position align with the economically beneficial position.
 
2014-03-13 04:33:07 PM  

DamnYankees: General warning to both sides - be wary of studies which show that your morally preferred position align with the economically beneficial position.


The summary in TFA seems to suggest the report has policy suggestions to piss off both sides of the aisle.
 
2014-03-13 04:44:53 PM  

DamnYankees: General warning to both sides - be wary of studies which show that your morally preferred position align with the economically beneficial position.


Agreed. But this isn't really a debate among actual economists. It's pretty much universally accepted. The IMF dinged the brits on austerity for the same reasons.

There is an economic 'debate' about this is not dissimilar to the evolution 'debate'.
 
2014-03-13 05:05:37 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Newsflash: people with money to spend will spend money


and the poorest have no choice but to spend all of it.
 
2014-03-13 05:07:12 PM  
FTFA: "Among [the IMFs] suggestions:

Raise the retirement age for pension plans (think Social Security) and means-test them - that is, gradually phase out benefits for higher wage earners.
Shorten the maximum time allowed for collecting unemployment benefits, to encourage return to work or transition to other safety net services.
Improve access to education for low-income families, particularly college education.
Improve access to health services for low-income families.
Implement more progressive income tax rate structures.
Reform personal income tax exemptions and deductions, particularly the mortgage interest deduction."

I'd be willing to have that deal. Make the tax rate more progressive, increase Pell grants and other scholarship aid, and have the states expand Madicare/Medicaid in exchange for means-testing Social Security, limiting UI (with expanded SNAP), and eliminating some tax deductions.

That seems like a reasonable compromise. Too bad that's why it has no chance.
 
2014-03-13 05:32:37 PM  

mrshowrules: Lionel Mandrake: Newsflash: people with money to spend will spend money

and the poorest have no choice but to spend all of it.


You mean rich people and corporations just sitting on trillions of dollars doesn't help the economy?!?
 
2014-03-13 05:44:50 PM  
I now doubt that that's true.
 
2014-03-13 05:48:35 PM  

Ned Stark: I now doubt that that's true.


Poor people usually horde their money.
 
2014-03-13 05:56:13 PM  

CynicalLA: Ned Stark: I now doubt that that's true.

Poor people usually horde their money.


Its true. As a poorish person, I hoard all of 100$ a month after paying off bills and food. I know I am hurting the economy, but I cant help but want a RRSP.
 
2014-03-13 05:58:33 PM  

Tigger: DamnYankees: General warning to both sides - be wary of studies which show that your morally preferred position align with the economically beneficial position.

Agreed. But this isn't really a debate among actual economists. It's pretty much universally accepted. The IMF dinged the brits on austerity for the same reasons.

There is an economic 'debate' about this is not dissimilar to the evolution 'debate'.


Bingo. Inject money at the top of the economic ladder, it will stay atop the ladder. Inject it at the bottom, and it will go up every rung of the ladder at least once before it goes back to the top.

The rich keep it static by only moving it from one financial instrument to another. A minimum wage earner is not going to just leave cash stuffed in a mattress.
 
2014-03-13 06:00:59 PM  

DamnYankees: General warning to both sides - be wary of studies which show that your morally preferred position align with the economically beneficial position.


Except this is nothing new. I'm sure it goes back more than a few years, but shortly after the market crash in 2008 Moody Economics released a chart showing how much economic stimulus is gained per government dollar spent in various ways. The worst return on investment was tax cuts for the wealthy. The best were things like food stamps.

It's simple. Poor people will spend the money/benefits quickly because they need to do so. The wealthy are more likely to sit on it.
 
2014-03-13 06:01:32 PM  

CynicalLA: Ned Stark: I now doubt that that's true.

Poor people usually horde their money.


I know. They keep making all those long-term, carefully-planned investments. Like feeding dinner to their families. Selfish pricks.
 
2014-03-13 06:03:28 PM  
www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-03-13 06:07:58 PM  
And within a few years it all ends up back at the top.  It's a never ending somewhat natural cycle.

Imagine if the ocean didn't evaporate water, but somehow hoarded it.  The land would dry out, things would die, but the ocean would still be full of water.

Same basic concept.  If enough money doesn't get redistributed from those with the biggest reservoirs of money, either through increased wages or direct redistribution through taxes and government programs, the economy dries up, but hey, they still have all the money.

Previously, once you pissed off enough people by neglecting to make sure enough of your wealth actually helped them, they tossed your ass out of whatever power you might have held and redistributed your wealth that way, starting the cycle over.

I'd like to think humanity has evolved a bit though.  Now, we have figured out that if we tax people at a reasonable amount in proportion to what they earn, and make sure those that have the least have their basic needs met, we might be able to skip the whole violent revolution due to deprivation and hardship part.

And yes, I think the richest pay an unreasonably small percentage in proportion to their massive incomes, sadly by reclassifying most of that income as "not income".
 
2014-03-13 06:13:31 PM  
International? Like international bankers!? Or international workers?! I knew it! The IMF is a bunch of communist jewish homosexual nazi muzlims!
 
2014-03-13 06:14:18 PM  
Shortening the duration of unemployment benefits isn't bad anymore.

For more fun facts, read the full report.
 
2014-03-13 06:24:46 PM  

meat0918: And within a few years it all ends up back at the top.  It's a never ending somewhat natural cycle.

Imagine if the ocean didn't evaporate water, but somehow hoarded it.  The land would dry out, things would die, but the ocean would still be full of water.

Same basic concept.  If enough money doesn't get redistributed from those with the biggest reservoirs of money, either through increased wages or direct redistribution through taxes and government programs, the economy dries up, but hey, they still have all the money.

Previously, once you pissed off enough people by neglecting to make sure enough of your wealth actually helped them, they tossed your ass out of whatever power you might have held and redistributed your wealth that way, starting the cycle over.

I'd like to think humanity has evolved a bit though.  Now, we have figured out that if we tax people at a reasonable amount in proportion to what they earn, and make sure those that have the least have their basic needs met, we might be able to skip the whole violent revolution due to deprivation and hardship part.

And yes, I think the richest pay an unreasonably small percentage in proportion to their massive incomes, sadly by reclassifying most of that income as "not income".


The issue isn't even about money and hoarding. It's about control. The rich want to control how their money is spent, so they would gladly pay enormous sums to get their choices elected to Congress or elected to the White House. They want control that comes with money, not the wealth to spend on whatever they want. Heck, they don't even know what they want.

Look at the Defense Industry. It's a sector that is slowly dying out because we don't have wars that require the use of huge aircraft carriers and such. But why do these defense industry companies still make these useless things, despite the military saying they don't want it, and the government recognizing that they can't afford it? It's because those in the MIC want to keep control. They can control the politicians and thus their own revenue whereas if they actually went out to compete in the open market against the likes of Apple or Google, they'd be fighting a much harder batter for the money, even though the amount of money out there is far greater than what they can make in defense.
 
2014-03-13 06:29:53 PM  
Need help?
The IMF will gladly loan you some money.

/Because more debt is always the solution to money problems, rite!?
 
2014-03-13 06:36:24 PM  

Cletus C.: Shortening the duration of unemployment benefits isn't bad anymore.

For more fun facts, read the full report.


If you increase other safety net provisions at the same time. Among other things.

As part of a comprehensive plan to help reduce income and opportunity inequality.
 
2014-03-13 06:47:44 PM  

ZombieBear: CynicalLA: Ned Stark: I now doubt that that's true.

Poor people usually horde their money.

Its true. As a poorish person, I hoard all of 100$ a month after paying off bills and food. I know I am hurting the economy, but I cant help but want a RRSP.


I have a hoard of change about three inches deep in a mason jar.  I'm a monster.
 
2014-03-13 07:00:28 PM  

CynicalLA: Ned Stark: I now doubt that that's true.

Poor people usually horde their money.


How many people alliance their money?
 
2014-03-13 07:02:01 PM  

Tigger: DamnYankees: General warning to both sides - be wary of studies which show that your morally preferred position align with the economically beneficial position.

Agreed. But this isn't really a debate among actual economists. It's pretty much universally accepted. The IMF dinged the brits on austerity for the same reasons.

There is an economic 'debate' about this is not dissimilar to the evolution 'debate'.


This
 
2014-03-13 07:04:22 PM  

TwoBeersOneCan: ZombieBear: CynicalLA: Ned Stark: I now doubt that that's true.

Poor people usually horde their money.

Its true. As a poorish person, I hoard all of 100$ a month after paying off bills and food. I know I am hurting the economy, but I cant help but want a RRSP.

I have a hoard of change about three inches deep in a mason jar.  I'm a monster.


see, that is the whole deficit there, that change costs more to make then it is worth, forcing the government to mint more coins to cover those lost from circulation in the black-hole known officially in economist circles as the TwobeersOnecan Mason Jar of Doom.(TM)
 
2014-03-13 07:04:40 PM  
What is the X axis of "Redistribution" in that chart?
 
2014-03-13 07:12:46 PM  
Hey how about we stop pretending our ideologies on redistribution matter and look at the facts only?

Wow, what a crazy idea.
 
2014-03-13 07:38:12 PM  
So the old model of the king taxing the hell out of everyone and making his buddies rich by redistributing some of the wealth to them has been turned on its head?

Btw, just how long have we known this "new" idea? Decades? Hundreds of years? Since before the Greeks? I'm guessing at least 200 years.
 
2014-03-13 07:43:55 PM  

LasersHurt: Hey how about we stop pretending our ideologies on redistribution matter and look at the facts only?

Wow, what a crazy idea.


So, redistribution of money to combat income inequality feeds economic growth?
 
2014-03-13 07:47:42 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: LasersHurt: Hey how about we stop pretending our ideologies on redistribution matter and look at the facts only?

Wow, what a crazy idea.

So, redistribution of money to combat income inequality feeds economic growth?


Who would have guessed that allowing money to pile up in small groups instead of being spread out and spent was a drag on the economy?

But suppositions aside, it's good to have evidence to back it up.
 
2014-03-13 07:52:38 PM  

Tigger: DamnYankees: General warning to both sides - be wary of studies which show that your morally preferred position align with the economically beneficial position.

Agreed. But this isn't really a debate among actual economists. It's pretty much universally accepted. The IMF dinged the brits on austerity for the same reasons.

There is an economic 'debate' about this is not dissimilar to the evolution 'debate'.


You're confusing "economists in the media" with "economics." Virtually every school of economics disagrees with the vast majority of economic talking heads, and agrees that redistribution is parasitic and has an overall negative effect. You also don't seem to understand that economics, as taught at vitrually every university, is inherently schizophrenic. All agree (and can demonstrate) that theft is a negative-sum game; most then ignore that when it's government doing the taking, as if the legality of a coerced monetary transfer makes the transfer affect the economy differently. You also (wrongly) assume that the IMF and economic talking heads have no agenda to push and are disseminating unbiased information with no ulterior motive. You are correct that the debate is similar to the evolution debate, but you are wrong in thinking that the non-redistribution side of the economics debate is the same as the intelligent design side of the evolution debate; you've got it backwards.
 
2014-03-13 08:08:53 PM  

DrPainMD: you are wrong in thinking that the non-redistribution side of the economics debate is the same as the intelligent design side of the evolution debate


you're right, they're full bore creationists.
 
2014-03-13 08:11:19 PM  

DrPainMD: Virtually every school of economics disagrees with the vast majority of economic talking heads


What do they say about historic levels of wealth inequality, trapping huge amounts of resources in an extremely small number of hands? I cannot imagine anyone can support that with math.
 
2014-03-13 08:14:05 PM  
 
2014-03-13 08:32:05 PM  
Heil Obama?
 
2014-03-13 08:53:44 PM  

Tigger: DamnYankees: General warning to both sides - be wary of studies which show that your morally preferred position align with the economically beneficial position.

Agreed. But this isn't really a debate among actual economists. It's pretty much universally accepted. The IMF dinged the brits on austerity for the same reasons.

There is an economic 'debate' about this is not dissimilar to the evolution 'debate'.


The funny thing is the evidence there is no debate about this topic in reality was settled in plain sight, but everyone pretends it is still contentious. Just imagine in 2007/08, when the shiat hit the fan, the Bush government showed they know exactly how the economy works: no more of the trickle down bullshiat they use as a cover for funneling money to the people that bribe their party, and owns their propaganda outlets, etc. Instead they instantly pivoted and did everything exactly how left wing/socialist/neo-Keynesians (and virtually everyone who pays attention to reality) would have reacted (and did in other countries) - hike government spending to stimulate the economy and fill the gap left by the shrinking private economy, government takeover of key industries and banks where necessary, etc.
 
2014-03-13 08:58:57 PM  
Every great mind over the past 300 years has condemned wealth inequality, yet here we are still trying to pose ethical and rational arguments why it doesn't work. Let's just go ahead and acknowledge wealth equality is a festering cancer to society, and start taking significant action to alleviate it ASAP.
 
2014-03-13 09:07:18 PM  

xria: The funny thing is the evidence there is no debate about this topic in reality was settled in plain sight, but everyone pretends it is still contentious. Just imagine in 2007/08, when the shiat hit the fan, the Bush government showed they know exactly how the economy works: no more of the trickle down bullshiat they use as a cover for funneling money to the people that bribe their party, and owns their propaganda outlets, etc. Instead they instantly pivoted and did everything exactly how left wing/socialist/neo-Keynesians (and virtually everyone who pays attention to reality) would have reacted (and did in other countries) - hike government spending to stimulate the economy and fill the gap left by the shrinking private economy, government takeover of key industries and banks where necessary, etc.


So let me get this straight.  You think that Bush throwing trillions of dollars at failed banks is a model for successful wealth redistribution?

Wow.
 
2014-03-13 09:27:00 PM  
Really, you mean keeping more and more of the wealth from accumulating in the top 0.1% of the population might be a good thing?
 
2014-03-13 11:13:10 PM  

DrPainMD: All agree (and can demonstrate) that theft is a negative-sum game; most then ignore that when it's government doing the taking, as if the legality of a coerced monetary transfer makes the transfer affect the economy differently.


I know most of the posters here don't seem to appreciate what you're doing, but I've got to give credit where cred is due - that post of yours was some seriously good satire.
 
2014-03-13 11:15:04 PM  

BMFPitt: xria: The funny thing is the evidence there is no debate about this topic in reality was settled in plain sight, but everyone pretends it is still contentious. Just imagine in 2007/08, when the shiat hit the fan, the Bush government showed they know exactly how the economy works: no more of the trickle down bullshiat they use as a cover for funneling money to the people that bribe their party, and owns their propaganda outlets, etc. Instead they instantly pivoted and did everything exactly how left wing/socialist/neo-Keynesians (and virtually everyone who pays attention to reality) would have reacted (and did in other countries) - hike government spending to stimulate the economy and fill the gap left by the shrinking private economy, government takeover of key industries and banks where necessary, etc.

So let me get this straight.  You think that Bush throwing trillions of dollars at failed banks is a model for successful wealth redistribution?

Wow.


Conversations like that are what make fark great.
 
2014-03-13 11:23:37 PM  
Yeah, but it slows the accumulation of wealth at the top, with all that time spent being swapped around by the lower and middle class, and banks don't like it when they have accounts that actually want to take money OUT with these piddly transactions, that only go back and forth and through and about, as opposed to being properly invested. The more time money spends being traded back and forth, is less time it could go to paying some great bonuses for bank officers. Don't you folks realize, that by slowing down the accumulation of wealth to offshore accounts and overseas holdings, that you make wealthy people have to wait for things? Don't you have any shame? Why would you make these brave entrepreneurs have to wait, with your piddling needs for "food" and "shelter" and "retirement savings"?  These people have investments to think about. Investments far and away more important than your little business venture that isn't even going to go public. Why won't you people think of the investor class? Why?
 
2014-03-13 11:56:06 PM  

LasersHurt: DrPainMD: Virtually every school of economics disagrees with the vast majority of economic talking heads

What do they say about historic levels of wealth inequality, trapping huge amounts of resources in an extremely small number of hands? I cannot imagine anyone can support that with math.


He, like all of the "taxes are theft" crowd, is conveniently ignoring the decades of real-world evidence that shows precisely what happens when you let laissez-faire capitalism policies go into effect.  They don't want to acknowledge that it looks like this:
www.thesleuthjournal.com
 
2014-03-14 12:50:53 AM  
Soup lines are terrible photo ops.

We just slip them food stamps (or whatever we call it these days).

For the record, the soup line under Obama is the longest we've ever had.
 
2014-03-14 01:55:58 AM  
I read the headline too quickly and am leaving disappointed that this isn't about monkey combat.
 
2014-03-14 03:42:00 AM  

cchris_39: Soup lines are terrible photo ops.

We just slip them food stamps (or whatever we call it these days).

For the record, the soup line under Obama is the longest we've ever had.


I don't know about "soup lines" but I see/know many people in my small town at the church sponsored free meal nights and many more at the local food shelves.

I assume most are on snap as well. I am pretty sure most have jobs as they check me out at the grocery, help me at the bank, gas station etc. Many of them have two jobs.

Also, your comment about long soup lines and Obama? Was TFA about Obama or if your world view isn't shown to be 100% perfect to have a Nuh-huh Obama reflex?

If you don't like something- please suggest policy. I for one suggest raising the minimum wage. I am tired of subsidizing Walmart, pizza hut, subway, et al by paying for their employees meals and housing. I am happy to give of my time and money but I would rather give to the little kid in my community that just had a terrible accident. Her parents have to drive over 2 hours each way for her multiple reconstruction surgeries. I want to help her family rather than a able bodied, grown up, capable company that can do its part and pay its employees a living wage.
 
2014-03-14 03:54:14 AM  

DrPainMD: Tigger: DamnYankees: General warning to both sides - be wary of studies which show that your morally preferred position align with the economically beneficial position.

Agreed. But this isn't really a debate among actual economists. It's pretty much universally accepted. The IMF dinged the brits on austerity for the same reasons.

There is an economic 'debate' about this is not dissimilar to the evolution 'debate'.

You're confusing "economists in the media" with "economics." Virtually every school of economics disagrees with the vast majority of economic talking heads, and agrees that redistribution is parasitic and has an overall negative effect. You also don't seem to understand that economics, as taught at vitrually every university, is inherently schizophrenic. All agree (and can demonstrate) that theft is a negative-sum game; most then ignore that when it's government doing the taking, as if the legality of a coerced monetary transfer makes the transfer affect the economy differently. You also (wrongly) assume that the IMF and economic talking heads have no agenda to push and are disseminating unbiased information with no ulterior motive. You are correct that the debate is similar to the evolution debate, but you are wrong in thinking that the non-redistribution side of the economics debate is the same as the intelligent design side of the evolution debate; you've got it backwards.


Dear libertarian,

While you view taxes as theft, we view them as the price we pay for living in a civilization. We cannot convince you that your belief system is wrong. We do, however, hope you concentrate yourselves in a small state such as new Hampshire. When you achieve some small success In elections and the inevitable economic and social collapse happens we will all accept that we must pay more in taxes to go fix your catastrophic failure of an ideological experiment.

Sincerely-
O W Holmes

Ps- we like your ideas on guns and pot. We also complain about taxes, we are just grown up enough to see reality.
 
2014-03-14 03:55:47 AM  
BMFPitt:

So let me get this straight.  You think that Bush throwing trillions of dollars at failed banks is a model for successful wealth redistribution?

Wow.


I don't think that was the point he/she was trying to make.  I think the point was that when the crap really hits the fan, the neocons handle things using tried and true Keynesian methods and models instead of relying on their supply side trickle down ideology.  Proof, if you will, that even the neocons know that their economic ideas are full of shiat, but they just like putting the power and money in the hands of their supporters by trumpeting their ideology.

Though one might argue that the Tea Party wing nut brigade believes in their ideology, so if another crash would happen today, they would probably crash it worse by trying to implement their 'ideas'.  Case in point - the shut down and attempted defaults.
 
2014-03-14 04:05:48 AM  

Tigger: DamnYankees: General warning to both sides - be wary of studies which show that your morally preferred position align with the economically beneficial position.

Agreed. But this isn't really a debate among actual economists. It's pretty much universally accepted. The IMF dinged the brits on austerity for the same reasons.

There is an economic 'debate' about this is not dissimilar to the evolution 'debate'.


Lol except for the fact that economics is completely unscientific and full of bullshiat artists
At one time the IMF held up Argentina as a model of economic reform. Socialists love debt because it makes socialism possible; so they contrive a thousand theories ad to why debt doesnt matter and repaying debt is nota priority.
 
2014-03-14 05:37:08 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Newsflash: people with money to spend will spend money


Not True : People use money differently depending on who they are and what options they have.

People who have no money will spend ALL their money in fairly predictable ways.

Persons who have HUGE amounts of money tend to try to acquire power and influence.

The Economy and Democracy are better served when there is a gigantic middle class, and much smaller numbers of the poor (mostly people who can't work) and rich.

and by "middle class" I don't mean the people who happen to make the middle half or third of wage levels.

A middle class person can regularly save money, and make periodic investments. A Middle class person both needs to work regularly AND can afford to borrow money for investments that yield future dividends.

The Middle class Is supposed to dominate the body politic, and its values are supposed to dominate.

 The Middle class is supposed to hold the poor from destitution and death and rein in the upper class from becoming a dominating aristocracy.

The more people's monthly flexibility is constrained, the less freedom they have, and it's not taxes that hold people back from that level of freedom. Taxes are the price we pay to have a government that can defend our borders, fund the arts, support fundamental research, and keep the rest of the world from melting down And you bet your ass the middle class should pay for it - otherwise the Aristocrats will dominate the congress.
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report