# Democrats should thank Trump for one thing: he showed that money isn't necessary **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 16, 2017, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296 "2017-01-16T06:05:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/61 "2017-01-19T01:21:38Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > No matter what you and Starving Artist think, those attempting to obstruct Trump’s agenda will use the fact he lost the popular vote by such a large margin as a justification for their actions when appealing to the media and the masses, and they should. This is politics and everything (thats legal) is fair game. And no one that voted for Trump really cares. The Donald is president and the congress is Republican. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/62 "2017-01-19T06:20:30Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > So we seem to be in agreement that the cited statistics show that over the past 20 years or so, including during Obama’s administration, income and wealth have become more concentrated in the wealthiest 1% and 10% of the population, while the share of wealth held by the bottom 50% has decreased. As I said already, ‘share of wealth’ is meaningless. The nation’s money supply is not a finite amount to be divvied up amongst the populace. People pay the wealthy in order to gain access to the goods and services the wealthy provide. Thus that money flows to the wealthy in a way that benefits both the wealthy who provide said goods and services, and those of more modest means who enjoy or benefit from those goods and services. I would quarrel also with your use of the term ‘concentrated’ to describe the percentage of wealth held by the wealthy. It suggests some sort of unfairness is at work, as if the amount of money they’ve been voluntarily paid by those who want what they have to offer is somehow illegitimate and unfairly and wrongfully acquired. > [@Kimstu](#): > > (At the same time, poverty rates have risen. I’m not in agreement with you here either…or at least not necessarily so. Poverty rates may have risen or they may not. I haven’t researched it and I don’t intend to because it’s beside the point. The money being earned by the wealthy is in no way keeping others from earning as much as their value to the labor marketplace will allow. > [@Kimstu](#): > > And you’re arguing that this upward wealth concentration trend is a natural and beneficial economic phenomenon. Okay. I’m arguing that the wealthy owe their wealth to providing things people want to pay them for. I don’t view their wealth as being ‘concentrated’ any more than you have is somehow concentrated with you vs. those who have less than you do. > [@Kimstu](#): > > In that case, **SA** , why is it that, according to you, there are so “many” people upset about liberal-imposed (downward) “wealth redistribution” **which has not actually been happening**? Again with putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about the direction of travel of redistributed money, whether up or down. What I did was dispute your claim that the money earned by the wealthy had been ‘redistributed’ to them rather than distributed, which is not only a more accurate term but one with less prejudicial implications. > [@Kimstu](#): > > :dubious: I agree that this alleged liberal imposition of _“ever-increasing wealth redistribution”_ has indeed been going on for a long time _“in the minds of many”_. > > It just hasn’t been happening in **reality**. Again, we are not in agreement here since I haven’t said or implied any such thing. > [@Kimstu](#): > > In fact, for the past several decades wealth redistribution (as in, from the rich to the poor) has **not** been increasing under liberal administrations (or conservative ones either, for that matter). On the contrary, it’s been **decreasing** , as higher percentages of total wealth become concentrated at the top, and poverty rates increase. As I’ve said before, the money the wealthy possess has no impact whatever on the earning ability of everyone else. Please demonstrate exactly how it is that the money of the wealthy is increasing poverty rates, as your comment seems to suggest. > [@Kimstu](#): > > So where’s all this resentment and unhappiness “in the minds of many” about “ever-increasing wealth redistribution” coming from, since (downward) wealth redistribution has actually been **decreasing** for quite a long time? It sounds as though these “many” have an ideological grievance that they’ve simply decided to stay mad about, irrespective of whether it bears any relation to the facts. No, they’re simply aware that liberal efforts to alleviate poverty by taking money from them and spending it on the poor are never-ending despite fluctuations in their success at doing so. The more cynical among us might claim that in so doing the Democrats in government are seeking to buy votes with other people’s money, whereas liberals not in government buy into the fallacious notion that because the rich are rich it causes the poor to be poor, and they use this as justification for attempting to fleece the rich in order to provide for the ever-increasing number of people who, thanks to liberal social policies over the last 50 years, are either unable or unwilling to do the things they need to do to get ahead and provide for themselves. And let’s face it, the more people there are who can’t hack it in life, the more Democrat votes there are. So there’s also resentment among the wealthy over the fact that they’re being expected to pick up the slack for the decades of liberal educational and lifestyle policies that have resulted in so many not being able to earn a decent and livable income. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/63 "2017-01-19T06:53:27Z")
Is it your contention that _highly_ wealthy people are immensely more innovative and productive than the median? Because that is astonishingly naïve. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/64 "2017-01-19T07:22:43Z")
I haven’t made such a contention and have no idea what makes you think I have. I suspect this is just a backdoor attempt on your part to suggest that the wealthy don’t ‘deserve’ their wealth because they may not necessarily be all that when compared to everyone else. But that argument also is also misses the point. The wealthy aren’t rich because they’re super beings of some kind. They’re rich because they provide goods and services that people want badly enough to trade money for them. Once that happens, the rich guy has the money and the other guy (rich, poor or average) has his house, apartment, car, computer, cable tv service, furnishings, appliances, clothing, etc. It’s a fair trade and one that benefits everyone. To focus all your attention on the rich guy having all the money while ignoring the benefits his customer gains through the transaction is biased, unfair and wrong. The rich guy earned his money fair and square and he deserves it every bit as much as his customers deserve the things they received on their end of the transaction. If not for the activity and produce of the wealthy, everyone in this country would be living shit lives. By rights people ought to be thankful and appreciative of the wealthy and praising them for their efforts to brings us the things we want and need to make our lives better and more enjoyable. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/65 "2017-01-19T07:48:20Z")
Do you understand what monopoly power is? I mean, yes, if somehow there were no natural monopolies, and anti-trust law were capable of being perfect, were perfect, and were perfectly enforced, and (most importantly) _we were living in a sample thought experiment in a textbook written by Pareto or one of his disciples,_ then, _maybe._ But in the real world, wealth flows to those who can take monopoly-like control of markets or resources, often because of a grant of political favor. And since Reagan, we have seen an explosion in laws trying to make our economy more monopolistic, not less. The rich of today are in a very different regime than when you were a kid. But even without a period of thirty-five years of lawmakers actively trying to shrink the public domain and destroy competition, your model would be overly idealistic. In a “free market,” the richest get richer not because they keep being more awesome, not because they work more, not even because they invent more. They have more disposable resources to invest, and thus buy more capital, whether by buying out competitors, diversifying into other sectors, or just expanding operations and running at a slight loss until their competitors give up. Real economics is often like the slow-motion war between some plants. It may look orderly and peaceful, but they keep trying to choke each other. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/66 "2017-01-19T11:23:50Z")
“Democrats should thank Trump for one thing…” So far I have realized exactly one thing that I can thank Trump for: The Trump Pome Pit thread. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=816607](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=816607) ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/67 "2017-01-19T11:49:22Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > As an alternative, maybe you can knock it off your own self? Please? > > There is such an election. The popular vote doesn’t determine the winner, but it’s absolutely a statistic about the election that’s gathered, and it’s important for folks’ perception of how much of a mandate a person has who wins the electoral college, and a lot of people have detailed and sophisticated arguments about why the popular vote SHOULD determine the winner of the election. Your repeated insistence that the popular vote is a fantasy is ridiculous. It’s a fantasy in that it’s _totally irrelevant_. It’s akin to the claim by Hillary supporters that she won more votes than any white man, conveniently forgetting that the size of the electorate grows with each election. If you adjust for that Hillary is actually in the bottom half of those who got the greatest popular vote. I really do understand and even sympathize with the need of liberals to clutch at any straw they can however insubstantial but in the end reality is reality. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/68 "2017-01-19T12:06:54Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > First of all, what you’re talking about is not ‘redistribution’ but ‘distribution’. As such, it’s organic and natural and is a good thing. You mean a situation where real wages stagnate for decades while the richest 1% make a killing, followed by a recession (brought on in no small part due to the super-rich taking advantage of loosened regulation) which the super-rich didn’t have to suffer through like the rest of us, followed by a slow recovery made only slower by the dogged refusal of the rich to pay their employees a decent wage is a good thing? I mean, I’m not going to act like it’s not organic and natural; in fact, it’s very much a thing in economics. But a good thing? Really? > [@](#): > > Further, there’s nothing wrong with the fact that a relatively few people hold the majority of the wealth. This ‘wealth’ largely takes the form of manufacturing facilities where the research, development and creation of these products and services take place, and in the delivery systems required to bring them to market. It’s not like the wealthy are a bunch of Scrooge McDucks holding mountains of dollar bills in a mansion-sized vault somewhere. Right-wing talking points do not tend to coincide with reality very often. [This is not one of those exceptions](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-economy-tax-havens). [They certainly aren’t spending it on wages and letting it trickle down](http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-employee-food-drive-2013-11?IR=T). And it doesn’t matter how cheap the money is, if there is no demand, people won’t invest. > [@](#): > > Still, the fiction persists that for the rich to get richer the poor must get poorer. This idea is usually promulgated by the left, for whom childish and petty resentment over the fact that some have more than others is so strong that it led to the creation of communism and some of the most brutal, murderous and worst forms of government the world has ever known, where efforts to create a ‘classless society’ inevitably resulted in millions being killed or starved and millions upon millions of others forced to live lives of privation, oppression and misery, totally devoid of hope to improve their lot in life. Keep setting that straw on fire, I guess. > [@](#): > > But I digress. In short, the only way the wealthy negatively impact the poor in this country is by fighting efforts by the government to take more of their money to spend on everyone else (i.e., ‘redistribution’, according to its genuine meaning). Yeah. And when you have a situation where capital clearly matters more than labor when it comes to income. that sort of redistribution is necessary and beneficial. I hope I don’t have to explain why. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/69 "2017-01-20T01:08:11Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > “Democrats should thank Trump for one thing…” > > So far I have realized exactly one thing that I can thank Trump for: The Trump Pome Pit thread. > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=816607](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=816607) :dubious: \*Drupes \*have pits. Pomes have cores. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/70 "2017-01-20T02:15:31Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > The nation’s money supply is not a finite amount to be divvied up amongst the populace. Yes, everybody knows that, and nobody here is claiming otherwise. [QUOTE=Starving Artist] Poverty rates may have risen or they may not. [/quote] [They have](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/07/11/poverty-in-the-50-years-since-the-other-america-in-five-charts/?utm_term=.5780b41988ad). The poverty rate dropped sharply during the 1960s, largely due to the “War on Poverty” social safety net programs, and rose significantly again starting in 1980, fluctuating for a while and then in the early 1990s beginning a decline that reached its minimum in 2000, since when it’s been climbing fairly steadily. The poverty rate for most of the years since 1980 has been significantly higher than it was in the 1970s, and is currently in a rising trend that’s nearly reached the 1983 peak. [QUOTE=Starving Artist] I would quarrel also with your use of the term ‘concentrated’ to describe the percentage of wealth held by the wealthy […] As I’ve said before, the money the wealthy possess has no impact whatever on the earning ability of everyone else. [/quote] Sure it does. For one thing, the non-wealthy use money in a more productive way that’s better for the economy. Not because they’re nicer or more altruistic than the wealthy, but simply because when they get money, they need to spend it, which stimulates economic activity and thus earning ability. A much higher percentage of money possessed by the wealthy is money they **don’t** need to spend, and as a result, [a large part of it stagnates in savings](http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/the-worlds-richest-people-are-sitting-on-gigantic-piles-of-cash-that-arent-earning-them-anything): > [@](#): > > The world’s richest people are sitting on gigantic piles of cash that aren’t earning them anything > > […] The richest have always tended to hold relatively high levels of cash. Liquid holdings are preferred for wealth protection, tax-avoiding mobility, inheritances or gifts. […] > > A survey of more than 4,000 rich investors – those with more than $200,000 to invest – conducted at the turn of this year for asset managers Legg Mason showed 26.5% held in cash. An estimate by Wells Fargo puts cash holdings among the wealthiest clients as high as 40%. When a smaller percentage of people holds a larger percentage of money—which is all that’s meant by “wealth becoming increasingly concentrated among the richest”—then less of that money actually gets spent, which contributes to economic stagnation. Moreover, our economic system is stacked in favor of the wealthy, because the relation between income and expenditure isn’t linear. Housing, medical bills, higher education, childcare and eldercare, etc., are all things that tend to be easily affordable for the wealthy but can be financially crippling for many of the non-wealthy. Yet they’re just as necessary to the latter as they are to the former. So when we **don’t** have wealth redistribution, in the form of tax revenues funding universally accessible benefits like housing assistance, free tuition, health insurance and care support, then **this fundamental asymmetry tends to increase wealth concentration**. A significant portion of the non-wealthy are falling into poverty just due to the expenses of everyday life, which the wealthy for the most part can easily afford while still increasing their wealth. So the wealthy continue to accumulate an ever-increasing share of total wealth. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2017, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/71 "2017-01-20T03:40:14Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > It’s a fantasy in that it’s _totally irrelevant_. You honestly think the number of votes a candidate gets is _totally irrelevant_ to how much money they spend on their campaign? Let’s say Trump had only raised $300 million. In your world, he would have gotten the same number of votes? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296.md?page=3)