You guys support some limit on wealth creation, or some level of redistribution of wealth?
I'd like for you to continue your logic a little farther, since my perception from your responses is that your thinking is itself rather socialistic.
However, I concur with your thoughts that as long as their is inequality, socialists and politicians will play on the envy of whotever occupies the bottom rung. But eliminating the bottom rung merely makes the one that was above it the bottom.
Nor, IMO, is the existence of envy, or the use of it by politicians, even remotely a justification for the elimination of the free market or for forced equality, if that's where you are heading.
Not what I said.
I was simply acknowledging a fact about human nature -- people tend to resent perceived inequality, and the perception is strengthened when those "above" defend their position in terms that make them sound greedy. Whether it's right or wrong to resent the inequality is somewhat beside the point: the feeling is there anyway.
Communists and leftists understand this feeling, and are very, very good at exploiting it.
Conversely, if the wealthy folks pay more than is strictly necessary, wealth is inevitably spread more widely, and they end up diffusing the resentment -- socialism loses traction as a result. Moreover, I think this probably also ends up increasing productivity and creativity, so that everybody ends up with more wealth.
I'm not "socialistic." On the other hand, I also think that we do have moral obligations to help those who aren't as well off as we are; and I think this ends up being congruent with long-term self interest -- which is about what you'd expect from a morally correct stance.
At the same time, I think those below have a moral obligation to work for their own improvement -- they should appreciate what help they get, but should not expect it as a right.
IMO, is the existence of envy, or the use of it by politicians, even remotely a justification for the elimination of the free market or for forced equality, if that's where you are heading.
I agree with you -- I think there's a lot of empirical evidence to back you up on this.
On a more esoteric level, I think we're seeing a dynamic in the US economy that could lead to some interesting, if unpredictable results along the lines described by this article.
"Outsourcing" is popular because, in manufacturing especially, Americans cost too much to employ. American workers want to maintain or increase their current compensation -- sometimes even to the ruination of their employers. American corporations want to decrease their overhead and increase their bottom line, so they get rid of their American workers. This is beginning to happen even in traditionally white-collar sorts of things, such as engineering and design.
My sense is that this is an unstable situation -- one way or another, American workers are going to end up making a lot less than they currently do; and American corporations are going to end up having a much smaller domestic market than they've come to expect, because their former employees can no longer buy as much.
The question is how this will be dealt with when (if) it occurs.
There should be no limit on wealth creation, as long as it is legally accomplished.
The second - "some level of redistribution of wealth". No society can exist for long without some redistribution.
I'd like for you to continue your logic a little farther,
You would like it, but I would not. Have you ever heard about Aristotle doctrine of the mean or moderation?
From the fact that it is good to heat the house in winter you cannot draw a conclusion that it is good to burn it. And reverse - from the fact that that it is bad to to burn the house it does not follow that heating it is bad.
A lot of Hush Bimbo "reasoning" is based on such false sophisms. He really bamboozles his audience. I guess he has a good laugh with his friends: "So what BS should I sell these suckers tomorrow?"