Posted on 02/15/2020 5:39:07 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg said in 2018 that shifting too much money from the rich and giving it to the poor posed a bigger problem than income inequality.
During a Q&A session at a forum with International Monetary Fund managing director Christine Lagarde, the former New York City mayor was asked about the future of job creation with the emergence of artificial intelligence.
In a lengthy answer, Bloomberg said encouraging the movement of money away from the wealthiest people would slow economic growth.
"I think income inequality is a very big problem. But the bigger problem is, you can take money from the rich and move it over to the poor. If you do it too much then the rich stop producing and everybody loses," the billionaire media executive said.
Bloomberg also said that increased taxes on the rich and raising the minimum wage were barriers to job growth. The Daily Beast first reported the comments.
Julie Wood, a spokesperson for the Bloomberg campaign, defended the former mayor's record and pointed to his mayoral achievements in a statement to Business Insider.
"If you want to know what Mike Bloomberg thinks about income inequality and taxes, look at what he did as mayor: he raised taxes on the wealthy, he kept poverty rates flat while they went up in other cities and kept the economy working for everyone," Wood said.
"Everyone in this race says they want to fight income inequality, but Mike Bloomberg is the candidate who has actually done it," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The primary reason for income inequality is people inequality.
People are not equal and will never have equal income if they are living free
Freedom yields the ability to excel
Is he sitting or standing on a box.
Hey that was a great and true answer.
It’s why communism can Never work on a large scale.
So now Bloomberg has this statement, his statement that whites were overly frisked and his statement that the mortgage crisis was started by giving mortgages to folks in poor neighborhoods who shouldn’t have qualified.
That’s a lot of splaining to do..
Equal opportunity is a good thing.
Equal outcome is tyranny.
That was back when he was trying to be right. Now he runs under the guise of the left. And I’m not sure he knows, or cares about, the difference.
rwood
The great thing is that all these remarks are on video or recorded, great for sound bites. After Bloombox’s Super Tuesday strong showing you would think Bernie and Petey would start using this ammo.
- the principle of freedom of economic inequality is the result of rationality, which means it is compatible with reality, reason, human nature, God-given natural rights, freedom, private property, and pursuit of happiness
- it emerges naturally simply because it is a fact of reality that people are unequal in intelligence, talent, skill, ability, ambition, effort, thriftiness, frugality, parsimony, and all other virtues and vices.
- it is compatible with the law of causality because it is a consequence of the fact that different individuals enact different degrees of economic causation. (Some individuals are more productive than others)
- the abolition of economic inequality is incompatible with the law of causality. It means the abolition of all connection between an individual’s efforts and his resulting income. It would be tantamount to the abolition of causality in the receipt of income, which would destroy his motivation to produce.
- the abolition of economic inequality destroys true justice because true justice is the process of giving people what they have earned and what they deserve, and social justice means giving people the unearned, the undeserved, and something for nothing, which motivates people to do as little as possible
- the abolition of economic inequality and replacing it with egalitarianism motivates people to demand as much as possible, which means the abolition of cost in the spending of income. This is why leftards are clueless about the cost of their redistribution programs such as socialized medicine and guaranteed income
It's simple. He "woke."
He was a Democrat, then a Republican & now he’s a Dem again.
Which ever way the wind blows & Mike can get on a ticket.
It is nice to see them going after the greatest source of money for the left today.
I sure hope our party researchers are taking note on all that Bloomberg has said in the past and passing on to President for debate items.
We really fail in our research. Look at the SOTU where that little girl was already attending a charter school, one of the top schools in the area. She started in Sep. They interviewed the Mom and she said she had no idea why they picked her little girl when she was already going to a charter school.
Wow- how did that happen?
Bloomberg was also correct in his comments supporting stop and frisk. He was a successful mayor of NYC, and he supports the police, unlike his successor.
Bloomberg is off the charts looney liberal on enough issues to put him beyond the pale in my book, but I think he would be a formidable opponent for Trump. If he were smart enough to see the opportunity (TBD, though he's pretty smart), he could start by relentlessly mocking Trump's fortune and business record. Bloomberg can out-billionaire Trump, and I think Trump would go ballistic over an opponent who needled him about being poor white trash who inherited enough money to play Jed Clampitt. I don't know if Bloomberg has the knack to troll Trump, but if he does, watch out.
He’s right of course. But it’s gonna be super fun to beat him over the head with it. Lol
If I had a shred of decency I’d stand up and defend him and say he’s right. Like I said... if lol
I didn’t see it. What was that about? thanks
Here’s the story:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.