Is a US Recession Inevitable as Soros Predicts the End of Dollar Dominance?

[EL]

But the universal truth with economics is one mans loss is another mans gain

This is definitely wrong...but...

The idea that wealth is a zero sum game is common among socialists

...(assuming you, as usual, by "socialism" mean market economies of western Europe style) what facts do you base this notion on?

 

[russ_watters]

No, I mean socialists (I said socialists). People who favor socialism/socialist policies. The very idea comes from Marx. Marx believed that the primary/only way for rich people to become rich was by pushing down the "working class". That's the fundamental tenet of Marxistm. "The rich get richer while the poor get poorer" fallacy that we see so often today from liberal politicians and modern socialists is the modern incarnation of that line of thought. Marx can be forgiven for it due to the times he lived-in (exploitation during the industrial revolution was so widespread it may have been tough to see the unviersal prosperity to come as a result of minor corrections to market economics). Today, it's just a lie that people like to believe even though it is clearly wrong.

More to the point, though, the comment was made by Anttech.

 

[Art]

Antech's statement said 'one man's loss is another man's gain' as a rule of thumb is generally true.

Russ seems to have equated this with 'one man's gain is another man's loss' (which is something entirely different due to wealth creation) to build a strawman argument.

 

[EL]

Antech's statement said 'one man's loss is another man's gain' as a rule of thumb is generally true.

Russ seems to have equated this with 'one man's gain is another man's loss' (which is something entirely different due to wealth creation) to build a strawman argument.

That's true Art. I misread the sentence too. Appologies to Antech.

 

[EL]

No, I mean socialists (I said socialists). People who favor socialism/socialist policies. The very idea comes from Marx.89

But Russ, havn't we discussed this before in a number of threads?
At first I equated socialism with the ideas of Marx, and hence claimed that e.g. Sweden is not a socialistic country. Then I got the impression that you (and many other americans) basically saw all European countries as socialistic. (I even started a thread about how to define socialism: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=204449 )
That's why I interpreted your use of "socialists" as someone who favours e.g. Swedish (or other western European) wealthfare policies.

"The rich get richer while the poor get poorer" fallacy that we see so often today from liberal politicians and modern socialists is the modern incarnation of that line of thought.

If you by "modern socialists" mean people who favours e.g. Swedish (or other western European) wealthfare policies, I don't get what you mean. I have never heard that kind of reasoning among those people.

Instead I think it is quite commonly agreed that both rich and poor prosper from an efficient market. However, efficiency of the market is not a goal in itself. Although taxation generally decrese the efficiency, it can serve as mean to redistribute sources between different groups in society. It all comes down to the subjective notion of fairness, and how much deadweight loss one is ready to accept in order to reach what one finds to be fair.

The "modern socialists" I know just happens to be ready to accept a higher deadweight loss in order to reduce the income differences between rich and poor. I have never heard anyone say what you claim they do.