| > Ignoring the fact that there isn't just $1 trillion cash sitting in a vault somewhere, When my team of 100 crack assassins/financial shenanigan wizards target the richest 100 Americans individually in their own homes, I don't think this will matter too much. We'll get the money. >after your 20 million American's burned through their $50k, they'd be back to square one. Sure, but their standard of living would meanwhile have increased. Obviously, it's a reductio ad absurdum, but I'm using it to prove a point. Your use of Somalia merely proves that a certain level of productivity (shall we call it GDP?) is required for this thought experiment to even make sense. Yes, a certain level of society-wide wealth is necessary for redistribution to even be possible. And indeed, one could try to improve productivity instead of or in addition to redistribution. But none of that means that in a society with as much productivity (a high GDP, if you like) as the USA, redistribution could not also be used to increase the standard of living. |