Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus1124
Oh, I am well aware of the various definitions of the word. But in this context it clearly demonstrates an underlying belief that it is somehow directed (or at the very least not the result of a free and just market place), otherwise, why care how it is "distributed" in a free society?
But I should give you the benefit of the doubt. Please explain to me why the "distribution" of wealth matters to you? Why do you seem to think it is inherently bad or wrong if (while wealth at all levels is basically increasing) that some are getting wealthier faster than others?
|
Maybe a course in economics, and a little "Free Market Theory" would help too.
Concentrated wealth is considered an indication of a distorted market, an undistorted market is supposed to produce the widest distribution of wealth, and the least inequality of distribution. A grossly unequal result is an indication of a distorted market, with underlying inefficiencies that produce less net wealth for the society as a whole.
An efficient market will produce unequal results, but on the order of some people making twice as much as others, even ten times as much as others, but when some people are making a million times as much as others, that is an indication that there are distortions that are leading to inefficiencies in the market.
This was something that FDR saw, and he knew that a grossly unequal market system didn't lead to prosperity, it lead to communism.
By implementing market reforms and regulations that addressed the structural defects of the market, a relatively efficient market was put in place that delivered growth, increasing prosperity and an equitable distribution of wealth.
FDR saved capitalism from itself, and unlocked it's power to deliver wealth to the broadest numbers of people.