Remember that their quest for equality of income is practically always worse than the alternative. From the article:
Putting aside poverty and immobility, what’s left in the concept of inequality? One simplified way to put it might be: How rich are the rich? In other words, is it a bad thing for a country to have some really rich people? Again, it depends on how they got rich. Sutirtha Bagchi of the University of Michigan’s business school and Jan Svejnar of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs studied how inequality correlates with economic growth. In general, more inequality meant slower growth, and less inequality meant faster growth. But in many countries, over various time periods, growing inequality had no effect on economic growth. The new study suggests that an increase in inequality hurt the economy when the rich were getting rich through political connections.
If you need proof that the connected profit the best when democrats are in charge, listen to president Obama’s own words:
President Obama is fighting a losing battle against the super rich in this country, and many of his moves have actually made made the super rich the super richer. During a Sunday sit-down on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the president admitted that the rich have been doing pretty well during his administration, despite his attempts to combat income inequality.
Stephanopoulos cited a Berkeley study which found that 95 percent of income gains from 2009 to 2012 went to the top one percent, which kind of defeats the purpose of the whole wealth redistribution thing. President Obama conceded the point, but insomuch as he admitted that he has been unable to curb the fattened coffers of the super rich, he implied that it’s not his fault.
This happening is neither an unintended consequence nor a coincidence. You have to be a moron not to understand that the lefts push for “social justice” and their “fight against about inequality (of any kind other than between their elite and the serfs)” are really about them choosing who succeeds and who doesn’t. The left has spent decades putting together a system that rewards cronyism and that puts the need to buy favors from the left front and center. In short, “social justice” is nothing but a clever excuse to help them create a world where they can, under the pretext of doing good, control the wealth and funnel it to the right people. In their world there is no room for the middle class or any people, rich or otherwise, that are not part of their tent.
This jibes with what we know about free markets. If people can get rich by providing valuable things at good prices, then society will get more valuable things at good prices—and people across the income spectrum benefit. But if people get rich by pocketing subsidies and using the state to crush competitors, then they gained their wealth at the expense of everyone else.
That’s what made America great once and is sending us down the shitter now. We have not had a free market for a while, and what we have now under Obama is about the most corrupt system this country has ever seen. They enforce the laws willy-nilly, mostly against their political opponents, and have no interest in creating new wealth or in any kind of real justice, but focus exclusively on redistributing wealth and hiding their crimes and ineptitude, with the lions share going to the already well off and then also well connected. Their signature law, the ACA, is nothing but more of that. Our economy is kept on life support through the worst leftists policies ever – QE and money printing, to keep the unavoidable and needed correction to decades of the left’s attempts to force it’s dreams of what reality aught to be, despite the way the real world works, from happening – while they plunder the wealth that exists.
The result is obvious. But we can’t get the supporters of these jackals to even see they are being played, because they are akin to religious fanatics when it comes to their collectivism. It’s a death cult, that’s what it is.