Well if no one produces any wealth you wont have any to redistribute. Read Atlas Shrugged some time.
2007-05-30 08:23:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by sociald 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Production.
Without production, there is no redistribution.
With redistribution, the incentive to produce is diminished.
Redistribution of wealth is an evil in society. It is akin to Lincoln's statement in his second inaugural, "It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces"
2007-05-30 15:16:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
Step one is production, of course.
But what do you mean by redistribution? If for instance, I invested my capital and hard work to develop a business, would I then be expected share all of my earnings equally? Where is the incentive?
2007-05-30 15:21:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The redistribution of wealth
2007-05-30 15:11:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Production.
Without it, redistribution doesn't exist.
2007-05-30 15:12:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by DeadManWalking 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Redistribution. Without a doubt, wealth is improperly distributed in the world. It is simply unconsciounable that some would have so much while others have so little.
2007-05-30 15:11:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Qwyrx 6
·
0⤊
4⤋
Production and investment.
2007-05-30 15:10:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
You need the first to do the second.
2007-05-30 15:11:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
I think you mean production or /distribution/. Re-distribution already assumes that distribution must be altered.
2007-05-30 15:12:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Neither. Health and Love are important. Money is necessary.
2007-05-30 15:10:49
·
answer #10
·
answered by Bush Invented the Google 6
·
1⤊
3⤋