The Democratic/liberal economic concept is that wealth is not properly distributed. There is too much concentration of wealth in too few hands. If there was a more equitable distribution of wealth the world would be a much happier and safer place. Now I will not even mention how that sounds like Communism and goes against human nature. What I am going to do is crunch the numbers and ask if you can live on that.
The approximate GDP of the entire planet was 70 Trillion in 2011. Now they have ways to take in account cost of living differences and currency differences, it is called purchasing power parity. So the adjusted GDP of the planet was 80 Trillion US Dollars in 2011. Let’s say 85 Trillion in 2012 to help the liberal argument, even though I doubt it grew that much. Now the population of the world is 7.05 billion, estimate 30 days old. To help liberal argument we will say an even 7 billion. So we just simply divide 85 trillion by 7 billion and you get, $12,142.86 per person. That is just barely above the poverty rate for one person in the USA. How many people can live on that much money every year? I could and have, it is not pretty. Many of these holier than though liberals come from families that have always had 6 figure or more incomes. How quickly would their tune change if they suddenly had to live on 10% of what they are use to.
I can hear liberals now... I am not taking this or that in account. We do not have a world government, what about just the USA? Okay, let’s see what it is in just the USA. The USA’s GDP in 2012 will end at just under 16 Trillion (estimated), so for easy math we will call it 16 Trillion even. There are 315 million legal American citizens and residents in the USA. So once again let’s do the math. Now when we crunch those numbers we get $50,793.65 per person. It is nice to live in the land of plenty isn’t it? Now if you like the sound of that, why do you want to open up the borders to all these illegals? Immigration is a legal process to protect citizens from all kinds of backlash of open immigration, everything from disease, stress on infrastructure to job protection.
Now I admit the formula is very simple and many would not say realistic. Families will have one or two bread earners and then children. Well you are only thinking in your liberal suburban home. The reality is that many poor need the income from their children to help ends meet at the end of the month. You also fail to take in account how the economy would change massively after redistribution, goods that are luxury related would dry up. This would have a negative impact on the economy. For the sake of argument I kept the numbers the same, giving you the benefit of the doubt that some other industry would step up to take up that slack. However I really doubt the economy would be better in a liberal utopia. Luxury goods are high dollar and high profit margin, which means that it provides income to a lot more people that lower profit and costing goods.
Now when you start crunching the numbers per person and counting children it gets very difficult. Yet according to the liberal argument children (but not unborn ones) are people to, so they are entitled to their fair share. Yet the world is also overpopulated... so the liberal wants to provide benefits for having more children, while admitting there are too many people on the planet? To try to crunch the numbers in a way that takes in account the cost of living for families, single people and retirees is not worth the trouble of a mere blog. That project would be the equivalent of a PhD thesis, sorry I ain’t doing it.
What the numbers prove is that the Democrat/liberal agenda will accomplish two things. First it will drive down wages, pushing more people into poverty. Second is that it will not reward innovation and motivated people. What it will reward are those liberals in power, because do you honestly expect all of these wealthy liberals to give up their standard of living? Think about what they are worth and how they live, will they lower themselves to join you at the bottom?