Growth vs. Redistribution

["John Gelles" <indexed-savings@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Today's discussions include expressed or implied agreement
that the needy do not  BUY  enough to end poverty and want.

Also agreed is that the needy must have more money to cure
the above moral and economic problem.

The argument is between those who believe
       -   the needy can receive the money they need (without
            raising tax rates or the budget deficit -- but)  WITH
            beneficial effect on  BOTH   the  "purchase"  of
            necessities to end poverty  and  the  "supply"  of
            such necessities,
against those who believe
       -   if the needy cannot "earn" the money involved,
            they must do without.

The first team, who believe demand can create its own
supply -- in economies where technology can ramp up
supply at near-zero marginal cost, and that any necessary
added cost can be absorbed through modest price inflation
as supply adjusts to demand -- are, regrettably, not in charge.

In charge are political elites who will allow poverty to
last for no good reason -- or -- who will only try to cure it
with taxes to redistribute spendable private income.

Logic cannot resolve the disagreement. Only trial and error
changes in the law can arrive at greater temporary knowledge
of how to reduce poverty.  If no direct test of the disputed
ideas is attempted (and we can be sure none will be,)  all we
can do is wait for technology to advance under current and
future muddled laws until one day poverty will be gone --
because small, but necessary, changes were introduced in the
law AND marginal costs kept coming down to meet the
competition.

Down with axiomatic nonsense. Up with experiment. Keep
your eye on the law -- like the internal revenue code, and
the eventual triumph of debt-free spending of money into
circulation by sovereign nations.