[Coach]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Economics is about supply, demand, and allocation of resources. Maybe that all boils down to "efficiency," but I think it is more complex than just that.

Allocation of resources is another way to say efficiency. Supply and demand is supposed be controlled by the market. Even in a very pro-capitalist nation like the US, that's not true. As much as they try to say it is.

In any event, "all the purchasing power" of the United States is not "in the hands of less than 1000 people."

The total US income is ~$13 trillion. 2015 Forbes 400 hold a collective $2.3 trillion. That's 18% of the countries total purchasing power in the hands of 0.000125% of the population. That is NOT an efficient allocation of resources. Yes, the overall population obviously carries most of the funds, but how much of that is expendable income? While people like Gates and Buffett grow billions of dollars per year, everyone else goes into debt the opposite way. There is a finite amount of money, it can't be concentrated in this way and only getting worse.

But more to the point of my comment: Sanders can go to the "tax the rich" well as much as he wants, but the "rich" (whomever they might be) will likely end up simply allocating their resources (money, time, whatever) in such a way that will reduce the taxes to be collected, leaving Sanders (and many of his supporters) with little more than a dry hole in the ground.

Besides, Sanders is a one-man band. Some of his ideas may have merit. But the chance of him getting even 10% of his ideas through Congress (in its current make-up) is infinitesimal. He may move the needle as he plays his tune, but the record isn't being flipped.

I don't disagree with the bolded. But how come we give those people a free pass in that way? It's like people here in Calgary blaming the government for chasing the wealthy out of the province with marginally higher tax rates. No ill will gets allocated to the selfish asshats that can just go live in their fifth home in some other province/country and pay less tax to someone else. It's the economic equivalent of taking your ball and going home.

As for your last point, I agree, even if he IS elected he would be in tough to get his policies through. That doesn't make them wrong. All it does is show that it's really not the will of the majority controlling what is happening.