Flat Wages for the middle and working class - what to do?

[ludin]

You think that people who inherit money earned it? Really?

can you not honestly read what I said and respond?

 

[ludin]

You indicated that money was a resource, implying that it is in limited supply. I explained that money isn't limited, it's unlimited. It's like points at a ball game.

I never made such an argument why are you being dishonest? Money isn't unlimited though. Not in a practical sense. you can only have so much money exist at one time.
unless you want to destroy your currency.

I explained that we have unutilized and underutilized resources that could be but to use.
How were my statements not responsive to what you said?

Because I asked how they were underutilized not that they were.
the only underutilized money is money that is stuffed in a matteress.

not that many people (there are some outliers) do that.

 

[FieldTheorist]

One major reason for this is wages are not going up like they use to be and buying power is not going up to make up the difference. Youth unemployment and longer required education periods is also leading to later and later entry into the workforce delying everying.

My question is what do you see as the policies (left or right) which will start to see either wages raising or prices dropping to allow for a comfortable middle class?

It's overtly left-wing policies. Firstly, there's economic/social-safety nets that need to be addressed (medicare-for-all, free college, etc) that are going to help with these issues. As you rightly point out, it takes longer to educate people nowadays for the advanced jobs that should exist in a modern economy, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the real issues surrounding this. Young people are not able to take risks and invest in their own start-ups, they are saddled with debt that keeps their money from circulating in the economy (e.g. buying new cars, homes, investing, etc), and thus helping drive a leading economy both in terms of job creation through creating businesses and through failing to buy products from existing businesses.

Secondly, we have to address the lack of reasonable, good-paying jobs in the US. Outsourcing and mechanization have crippled huge sectors of the manufacturing sector of our economy (similarly, having 1/3 of our economy going into our failing healthcare system is very poor planning). Renegotiating NAFTA and nixing all attempts at the TPP are starts (as a general rule, we should not under any circumstance tolerate de-industrializing, it's always poor long-term planning). But even outside of the manufacturing sector, the general trend is still, as Sanders said, "longer hours for lower wages." Some people, ironically the right-wing economist Milton Friedman (and for good reasons, he had less than noble machinations behind his support), have suggested a universal income to deal with mechanizations and de-industrialization. I'm not certain where I fall on this issue, but we may need that plus minimum wage laws. The reality is that in the long term, there are going to be fewer and fewer jobs for things we "need" to do (manufacturing, farming, etc). That will necessitate something like universal basic income, but with the caution that some powerful people will always be trying to turn the UBI into an ever worse replacement for social safety programs.


Thirdly, all of this skirt around another important point: Our society is becoming increasingly unequal. And wherever one stands on the ethical issues this raises, it is indisputable that this will lead to a more politically unstable society. A society where the rich just start taking everything for themselves is a society that is going to endure extensive political and social unrest. We have started to experience it now, but it is going to get worse. 1920's Germany is a warning from history about the possible outcomes for unstable Western societies with advanced militaries and a history of racism.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

What to do? Hows about we try this for once. Don't do anything, stop meddling.

There are no solutions in economics, there are only costs and benefits to economic intervention. Anyone who claims to have a trick that always works, a magic bullet, is lying or ignorant.

 

[Renae]

Unless you are a government worker and your next raise is determined by how many different ways you can tax the people out of their money.

No, that's just the nature of bureaucracies, they spread and become bloated hideous thing sunless routinely pruned.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

No, that's just the nature of bureaucracies, they spread and become bloated hideous thing sunless routinely pruned.

Our government is way past due for that pruning.

 

[Renae]

Our government is way past due for that pruning.

The problem is bureaucratic inertia is as unwavering as the tide.

 

[Absentglare]

Of course the "economy is not equal to investment". So why even say it? But investment has a place in economics as do the reasons the investment is placed here or there. That is one of the things the study is trying to convey. I thought it did it quite well and there does not seem to be much reason to doubt its general statement, as that is totally consistent with economic theory and had been expected from the beginning. This is only confirmation.

Supply is important, but so is demand. Do you understand how investment is important for supply but not for demand?

 

[joG]

Supply is important, but so is demand. Do you understand how investment is important for supply but not for demand?

In a dynamically interconnected system like an economy everything is, well, interconnected. Supply and demand are interdependent and cannot really be analyzed independently outside of the dynamic situation. But that was not, what i did. I pointed out how the external shock of a legal action could affect the dynamics of the system.

 

[Mach]

As discussed before, when you run a system that is as capitalistic and free as the U.S. for the capitalist class (top 0.1%?), you use progressive taxes to re-distribute that wealth back to the economy to drive revenue, and a healthy and educated populace (work force, and capitalists, globally competitive). A much more self sustaining loop, than our currently out of control system.

It's not like poor people hide the money we give them in their filthy rags and it decomposes like compost. They spend it to live. And low and behold nearly every dollar they get goes into revenue....largely into the revenues of large corporations and capitalists, which in turn drives their profits.

This is not about spoiling a child by handing anything they want, whenever they ask for it. Largely we're talking about working class, someone working 40+hours at a low wage job, struggling....if they happen to also have good access to health care and education...do we really think this SPOILS them? Of course it doesn't, they will struggle just as much, they will likely have better education children though (the next generation of workers and capitalists), and live a longer, healthier life.

Welfare systems can get too complex, it's why Finland is trying out their basic income
https://www.forbes.com/sites/france...income-but-its-still-worthwhile/#193ae7c31bcf

The pros/cons are numerous, and a lot more nuanced than "free stuff!" nonsense that some espouse.

Lots of work and thinking is done on this all the time, around the world. In my experience, many Americans are entirely ignorant of it, and opposed to it without understanding it...hard to change things for the better when we have that mentality.

 

[Absentglare]

In a dynamically interconnected system like an economy everything is, well, interconnected. Supply and demand are interdependent and cannot really be analyzed independently outside of the dynamic situation. But that was not, what i did. I pointed out how the external shock of a legal action could affect the dynamics of the system.

Ah, i missed your point, sorry. I do agree and share your concern about applying a drastic change that will shock the system. However, i am of the school of thought that the shock is not a valid reason to continue down the wrong road.

 

[joG]

Ah, i missed your point, sorry. I do agree and share your concern about applying a drastic change that will shock the system. However, i am of the school of thought that the shock is not a valid reason to continue down the wrong road.

Absolutely. But I am unsure, which is the wrong road you mention.

 

[Conaeolos]

Well, its going to part of future tech. With 3D printers and robots going down in price over and over economy of scale is going to change drastically, because its partly based in logistics, labor, and building resources.

Good point…now back to teaching kids the soft engineering skills that input designs into a 3D printer :-| "No, it will not design itself." "Why are you stealing everyone design, nooooo" LOL

Don't do anything, stop meddling.

That be my personal preference…but do you see that even being viable as long as we hold on to democracy[one citizen one vote]? And do you think that would be likely the view of someone who ended it such bedrock of our identity?

you use progressive taxes to re-distribute that wealth back to the economy to drive revenue, and a healthy and educated populace

Still have to address how progressive tax doesn't solve the "old money verse new money" issue unless your doing a death tax to periodically reset. Is that your suggestion, because I can see the economics right up until the point of deciding how we can effectively get a government to re-distribute without ending up right back where we are later down the pipe.

do we really think this SPOILS them? Of course it doesn't, they will struggle just as much, they will likely have better education children though (the next generation of workers and capitalists), and live a longer, healthier life.

Maybe for 3-4 generations than I guarantee you they are getting a worse education, living less with a lower quality of life.

Any guesses as to why I might say that?

In my experience, many Americans are entirely ignorant of it, and opposed to it without understanding it...hard to change things for the better when we have that mentality.

That is a big part of what we are all fighting no matter what our beliefs isn’t it

 

[Conaeolos]

Why do you think starting a dynasty of wealth will be good for your children? I can understand wanting them to be secure but after that too much money can be destructive.

That comes down to values. Equality, hard-work, meritocracy, generosity, etc. are all wonderful things we need to foster and encourage but they don’t hold a candle to personal freedom. Freedom is the most valuable thing one can give anyone. Can it hurt? Sure if one can’t handle it. Why when children are young we restrict their freedom so they can learn the responsibility and characteristics to utilize their freedom as adults. What happens though if you leave those restrictions too long? The death of the human soul! Therefore it is never good to restrict freedom but sometimes its a necessary evil to preserve that freedom.

Transferring money to my descendants gives them more opportunity at more freedom then I had. It makes their world better. It a huge motivator. Yes they can screw it up and let it become destructive but I hope the values legacy I leave guilds them to not.

The same way our form of governance would be meaningless if we just used and moved it to Nigeria[a radically different culture]. Nigeria can benefit hugely from our investment no doubt, but we generate our level of wealth by means of our culture values. Culture inheritance and material inheritance are symbiotic. The former being the more important granted, but the latter coming out of the former. This is why when we see foreign aid doing so much harm, a wonderful idea ending up a destructive force in economically developing nations…it simply too paternalistic. They are not children. Just because we are wealthier or more powerful doesn’t make us better than them. We our judged on our character! You want to help someone less wealthy though you engage them as an adult in dialogue and invest where you have agreement. This is the principle that get my charity dollars to have huge impacts for very reasonable sums.

So would a death tax help some people gain more freedom? Of course. But that like the people who leave their inheritance evenly spit between 30 descendants. It does nothing for no-one. You spread your resources too thin and you go from holding something to nothing. If you targeted that inheritance it causes change to a persons life! Why mine(barring an early death) will skip a generation unless of course my government decides to seize my assets to pay for new social programs, which I don't put past them.

I hope it is not like Trumps "charity" where he gives away other peoples money and takes the credit for himself. This is typical of many of the wealthy, I'm afraid.

You’ll be happy to hear not. Most rich people are awful at charity…it’s not their thing. Either too arrogant or not arrogant enough.

As to your Trump example, I see his legacy in his kids and I believe he has a strong will to make the world better. What more proof do you need then leaving the protection of an American billionaire to put his life, reputation and comfort on the line to became the president of the United States. Some view it as a power grab, by in my view considering his case I view it as a sacrifice.

So toward the charity point. I am sorry you see greed instead of ignorance. In that lens the world is going to look like a harsh place.

 

[Conaeolos]

There's economic/social-safety nets that need to be addressed (medicare-for-all, free college, etc) that are going to help with these issues.

A fair argument my inquiry would be how do we create a single payer medical care or free collage(or any schooling) where it has control of it cost/benefit : market pressure and is not on longterm path to fall off a cliff in comparison to its open market completion? If you don’t know what I mean pick any example of a government public service anywhere. I will use there numbers to demonstrate.

Its a math question by the way. Services can be broken into cost/benefit. When affected by market pressure they do well or poorly based on environment. Mathematically then difference between public & private systems in general is one verse many except if you get a market created monopoly in which case you will see it act public until collapse than it acts private again. Market pressure fluctuation creating various level of risk and inefficiency including those that equal collapse. In the private market, bad ratios die good ratios grow, in public/monopoly option it bounces around, decays and eventually collapses. It is in essence market entropy.

Young people…are saddled with debt

Ideas on how to address?

Outsourcing and mechanization have crippled huge sectors of the manufacturing sector of our economy

As prices of these goods have collapsed. How do we produce at these new global prices when we have first world costs?

having 1/3 of our economy going into our failing healthcare system is very poor planning

World wide problem its just hidden more.

Renegotiating NAFTA and nixing all attempts at the TPP are starts

I agree that protecting our trade barriers slows the global market forces giving us time to address the social issues.
But if others aren’t following suit, at what point do we get concerned of being leapfrogged?

a universal income to deal with mechanizations and de-industrialization.

Of everything I’ve heard this is the best worse option. Now how to pay for it :-|

some powerful people will always be trying to turn the UBI into an ever worse replacement for social safety programs.

The tax pressure has become insane. I speak as someone who paid for a lot of people raw tax bill. I can. I not saying I can’t I just saying upward pressure on that has its limits before I choose the costs outweigh the benefits.

Our society is becoming increasingly unequal.

Depend what your measuring. More people the ever in history are out of what can only be describe as slavery+ which has been the norms since we started city states. As a nation we are on the downslide though I agree.

this will lead to a more politically unstable society.

My worry as well. My opportunities are used against me. Look at how trump’s billionaire status made some of the nation believe he should be barred from public office due to his many inevitable “conflicts of interest”. (They dealt with this in Europe before barring royal/noble families from public office)

A society where the rich just start taking everything for themselves is a society that is going to endure extensive political and social unrest.

You mean a rollback of the progress the masses have made? Let’s not pretend our little democracy is the historic norm. We are fighting natural pressure for the nobles, plebs & slaves to live in different spheres.

1920's Germany is a warning from history about the possible outcomes for unstable Western societies with advanced militaries and a history of racism.

And the French Revolution, Russian revolution etc examples of the opposite swing. It could get scary quickly that’s for sure.

 

[iguanaman]

That comes down to values. Equality, hard-work, meritocracy, generosity, etc. are all wonderful things we need to foster and encourage but they don’t hold a candle to personal freedom. Freedom is the most valuable thing one can give anyone. Can it hurt? Sure if one can’t handle it. Why when children are young we restrict their freedom so they can learn the responsibility and characteristics to utilize their freedom as adults. What happens though if you leave those restrictions too long? The death of the human soul! Therefore it is never good to restrict freedom but sometimes its a necessary evil to preserve that freedom.

Transferring money to my descendants gives them more opportunity at more freedom then I had. It makes their world better. It a huge motivator. Yes they can screw it up and let it become destructive but I hope the values legacy I leave guilds them to not.

The same way our form of governance would be meaningless if we just used and moved it to Nigeria[a radically different culture]. Nigeria can benefit hugely from our investment no doubt, but we generate our level of wealth by means of our culture values. Culture inheritance and material inheritance are symbiotic. The former being the more important granted, but the latter coming out of the former. This is why when we see foreign aid doing so much harm, a wonderful idea ending up a destructive force in economically developing nations…it simply too paternalistic. They are not children. Just because we are wealthier or more powerful doesn’t make us better than them. We our judged on our character! You want to help someone less wealthy though you engage them as an adult in dialogue and invest where you have agreement. This is the principle that get my charity dollars to have huge impacts for very reasonable sums.

So would a death tax help some people gain more freedom? Of course. But that like the people who leave their inheritance evenly spit between 30 descendants. It does nothing for no-one. You spread your resources too thin and you go from holding something to nothing. If you targeted that inheritance it causes change to a persons life! Why mine(barring an early death) will skip a generation unless of course my government decides to seize my assets to pay for new social programs, which I don't put past them.


You’ll be happy to hear not. Most rich people are awful at charity…it’s not their thing. Either too arrogant or not arrogant enough.

As to your Trump example, I see his legacy in his kids and I believe he has a strong will to make the world better. What more proof do you need then leaving the protection of an American billionaire to put his life, reputation and comfort on the line to became the president of the United States. Some view it as a power grab, by in my view considering his case I view it as a sacrifice.

So toward the charity point. I am sorry you see greed instead of ignorance. In that lens the world is going to look like a harsh place.

So you deny that Trump is using his office to enrich himself and his family or is that OK with you despite the Constitution?

 

[pdog]

My challenges are inquiry, I am interesting in flushing your idea out. So no need to take any of these questions as hostile.

Awesome. It's sad that such a preface needs to be said on a debate site, but here it is needed and I appreciate it.

How would the local companies compete against Asia(others) where there is no chance of overtime hours approaching anything close to what we have here? Overtime is a pretty common practice so it not in an insignificant amount of productivity loss and burden on companies.

Great question. But honestly it's the exact same question presented with automation. Frankly it might be THE question. Because for me, the only option is a dramatic shift in what we value as "work". Automation/Globalization cannot be looked at as a bad thing - one of the fruits of our labor should be LESS LABOR. To me, on the long term that means a society more driven by education, research and development, and even the arts to round it all out. The only hope for us maintaining the dollar as something valuable into the future is to produce things that nobody else can - not complete with things that everybody else can.

Which industries would these be in? Would they aim to be profit neutral or a new government service? Do you think they should get a monopoly in the industry in order to compete or are they just a player in the market? If they take a huge lose one year is that covered by the taxpayer or is the taxpayer only a part-shareholder? Can these public companies fire employees for normal misconduct? Are they forced to hire other undesirables? Do you limit time in the public service or can one spend you whole career in it?

Infrastructure is the no brainer. After that it's science, r & d, and education. As far as government ownership, I'm not sure. I'm for a free market when ever it makes sense. But I wonder if it makes sense sometimes. I think when a state has an industry that the economy deems being "valuable", its a tough call. Some states have oil and some states have farming. Should the oil states really fair better just based on their resource? I'm not worried about "loss". I support MMT - we could separate bond sales from government funding tomorrow with a simple pen stroke. If we build a trillion dollars worth of roads we have a negative trillion on one side of the balance sheet and a trillion dollars worth of roads on the other. There's nothing else to say after that.

Do you worry in a potential loss of jobs as managerial types especially in small firm hire less low-cost labour to maximize their own salary? Does the rule hold true for contractors (one service I’ve contracted pays their employees as low as $2.75/h as that is good in their country)? Does this apply to local sub-contractors or only labour who meet the definition of an employee? How do you deal with industry that deal in commission or piece work compared to management who are salaried[is it just average]? What kind of penalties do you so for companies found not to be in compliance? How long do they have to adjust if the ratio is distorted?

I guess I'm tempted to shirk this question a bit. My thought is why does it matter? My expectation is that a company does what is best for it's customers or the free market dictates that somebody else will). If somebody is going to play games with their business they can do that, but it seems like if they are able to do that the positions you are talking about either weren't needed or the person is doing damage to his own business.

Do you think a collage education helps most employees be more skilled in the workforce? Do you think education is where our best R&D is coming from?

Maybe I didn't make a good choice with the word "college". Training would be better. I don't think our best R&D comes from colleges but I would guess it comes from people that are educated. Combine that with the decline of the "bell labs" of the world and we have a problem.

Does that mean tariffs against Asia/South America? Do you worry about being leapfrogged considering much of the growth is in those regions and many American companies would have to completely restructure or flee?

From an economic standpoint I could certainly remove this idea. But from a moral standpoint, "optimization" should not mean a race to the bottom.

cont...

 

[pdog]

Does it not seem shortsighted though that “low marginal propensity to consume” people (like myself) are spending less on investment and growth well “high marginal propensity to consume” create all the problem, that is to say, shortsighted to encourage a culture of high consumption low production?

I will concede that investment has it's place in an economy if you concede that like every other sector there is an optimum balance. While it is entirely possible for an economy to be "supply starved" it is also possible for it to be oversupplied to the point of inflating the value of capital instruments. Cash balances, profits, and acquisition prices of companies at this time DO NOT indicate an investment/supply shortage. So I am left to believe that the unbalance is currently disfavoring demand.

As far as encouraging high consumption with low production, the only thing I can think that does that is credit which is not only temporary but also a private sector business.

I don’t mean to sound insensitive. I will fully admit I could afford tax hikes with out big impacts on my lifestyle unlike many. My concern is waste…I realize not everyone in my situation is me, but do you really think the alternative use of my investment dollars as tax dollars creates economic prosperity? We are talking governments who collect huge sums of money yet continue to run insane deficits and ridiculous levels of underfunded liabilities. I don’t have a problem with Socialistic dream of Healthcare, Free Education, Universal income, Homes for all etc. the problem becomes in every example these systems are design to fail in the longterm[for short-term benefit]. Look at any current system of single payer — which one running for any length of time isn’t reducing services year on year or has skyrocketing costs? Same for education.

You don't sound insensitive at all - you may be the first conservative or libertarian that I've managed to have a conversation with. I truly appreciate that. I genuinely want to understand the libertarian perspective without being called stupid about my own ideas.

I do understand your concern about waste. I'm certain that we could find redundant departments in government. But frankly I think you are already biased against the public sector (you should be as a libertarian). But why are we not so concerned with private sector waste? Why is dog grooming, taro card reading, homeopathy, gimics, etc, not wasteful? And in the end, does it matter? Somewhere between some "perfectly" efficient use of money and Keynesian broken glass, is the real world, and in that world people earning money means people spending money. I'm not suggesting we turn your abundance into taxes. I'm suggesting that your position in life already gives you an EXTRA-ordinary ability to extract money from our economy and I'm suggesting a mechanism to turn that into demand instead of letting it go to you and contribute to overly abundant supply.

And here's the rub, it doesn't have to be taxes. It can be MMT - which I'm gathering you don't like since you describe deficits as "insane". But the reality is the u.s. dollar is a PRODUCT of the u.s.a.

I would be curious to hear your example of failures so that I can point out how the situation might not mirror our own.

What I do know though is that our own fed chair said it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdOsybbBVEU

And to me the real mind blower wasn't that he said we can make as many dollars as we need to. It was that he said what will be available to buy later if we are not running at our maximum capacity today. What won't be available because we chose an arbitrary balanced budget compared to increasing productivity? What will the dollar buy if the only thing we encourage is burger flipping?

cont...

 

[pdog]

Lowering taxes might not create jobs. It’s obviously not a direct relationship, but one does need to admit that is us wealthy people who are creating the jobs yes?

No I'm afraid I don't admit that. People grow business to meet a demand. Demand creates jobs. And when the volume justifies automation, that same demand destroys jobs. Taxes actually should encourage employment. Businesses are taxed on profits and people are taxed on income. If you make that income or profit a little less valuable, and make expenses (to lower tax liability) a little more enticing, it should prompt the person of putting a little more into the business rather than let it come out as profit.

I originally thought you were joking, but just so you know 100% of my wealth creation is for my children and future grandchildren and if a government takes it away ~ your going to lose rich people in droves or have a real war on your hands. You want to talk motivators, leaving a better world for our child is right near the top!!

I have kids of my own and I totally understand. But from a logical perspective (again, I will gladly entertain a debate about fairness later), I can't square this with any principle of democracy. As a successful person, my kids already have a pile of advantages, from education to healthy food to health care to over all life experience. While I'd love to leave them what I have left when I die because I love my children, they did not earn it in anyway. Further, a death tax could be done in lieu of income tax so what you don't provide for them at the end, you could be providing for them while you are alive.

 

[Conaeolos]

So you deny that Trump is using his office to enrich himself and his family or is that OK with you despite the Constitution?

This is a vastly different topic then the one discussed in this thread, I should have let it go before but I'll indulge a small bit. I feel your question is phrased in a way as to trap me in a defensive position. As such let me break it down:
Is Trump and his family profiting from the office of president? Yes, as did every other president & their family
Is Trump violating the constitution? Not that I am aware, if he does that is unacceptable and we have the system in place to enforce that: no witch trials needed(*Cough* Monica *Cough* )

Toward the context of my statement: I think everything very clearly shows that Trump is choosing to be president despite his personal best interests.I strongly think he would personally be better off to to have run for president(and rather supporting someone more polished). I truly believe him when for the last what 30 years he said: it wasn't his thing, he's not that guy, he would love to support that guy ~ he's a business guy. In the end, he got fed up and decided "that guy" didn't exist, so tried himself Trump style, all in. This circus we see today is the aftermath and the political class hates him with every ounce of their sinew and they will either suck it up and cooperate or take him down.

All that said. I respect that because of personal lens, the strong partisan divides and inter-party divides: trump's brand of ideas are disgusting to some people, that his method of business looks evil to people, that his motives are suspect to people, his colloquial speech considered offensive and lies and that his lack of political manners disturbs a good number of polite society and even deemed un-presidential. There is a reason the Simpson joked of him being a bad president back in the day. And they are welcome to investigate and slander (in the non illegal sense of the word). He isn't playing safe politics and does ask for it. That said, it doesn't make it true and it certainly doesn't demand as a supporter I have to defend the odd circumstances we find ourselves. Any American is allowed to run and be elected president, even crude rich ones with strait forward simple ideas. I didn't necessarily expect him to win for these liabilities, but he did and I personally find it awesome as it stands a good chance of doing some good.In the end, lot of good guy don't get much done, it is easy to be a lame duck, we'll see.

I also personally find it sad that people choose to read the events in ways where he is a greedy and basically an inhuman caricature one might find in a cheesy movie or novel. You think those are the children or that ex wives treat you that way, when you are just greedy-evil? Have you looked at the children of socio-paths? People can fall for lies, myself included but that doesn't mean truly deceptive people "fruits" don't reveal them. What in the fruits of Donald trump support say he not just a very hard working guy who like to win, a lot? People take his words wayyy too literally ~ its a role he play to hype himself up, common with a lot of good people. Keeps the vultures away as they can't tell a genuine from a fake.

 

[Mach]

Still have to address how progressive tax doesn't solve the "old money verse new money" issue unless your doing a death tax to periodically reset. Is that your suggestion, because I can see the economics right up until the point of deciding how we can effectively get a government to re-distribute without ending up right back where we are later down the pipe.

I don't understand this "issue" you mention, please give me a little more on it.
Yes, an estate tax is helpful in ways that matter. Under a certain amount I'm just not that concerned, it's the big ones that hurt the system. Tax should be a drain on very large concentrations of wealth, more so than it is today. How its spent is just as important, if it's taxed well but then squandered in ways that aren't engines for the economy, it could be worse. No doubt.

And it's not like it's unheard of, look at Buffet, Gates, Zuckerberg, all promising to drain their own coffers voluntarily for society. Part of them hates the idea I'm sure, but part of them also likely feels that if it's done *fairly well*, it could be an incredible boon to the world. Cynics can go **** themselves, they always exist.

Maybe for 3-4 generations than I guarantee you they are getting a worse education, living less with a lower quality of life.
Any guesses as to why I might say that?

As long as their is sufficient social, financial, and economic incentive to hold on average, productive jobs that advance our society and economy, I can't imagine more education and a strong safety net, will do anything but help.
If you mean government will eventually corrupt it? Sure if you let them design ****. Social security hasn't exploded, medicare, aid....it's hard but it's not rocket science. But that all goes back to education. If people have a clue, they would not (as a majority) want to have anything except a well run, efficient, system, that neither nannies people, nor crushes them.

That is a big part of what we are all fighting no matter what our beliefs isn’t it

And apparently no matter the time in history. That's why it seems so many progressive arguments always come back to education.

 

[Conaeolos]

Thank for taking the time to answers all those questions.

Demand creates jobs.

I suppose that is a matter of perspective as that is certainly not a wrong statement.What I refer to with “rich” creating job:

Let me start with a story, one of the first ways I made money was a simple one. I found items sold in garage sales, auctions, thrift stores and sold them online which had slightly higher average prices and between handling fees and those I made bit of a margin. So from there, I made a list of items that worked, hired my high school classmates for minimum wage to go out and acquire the items and wrote a simple program to post the listing they could input into. Making my input time minimum and generating me a modest passive income.

Demand is certainly what created that opportunity but was it not me who utilized it? And because I did my classmates had jobs they otherwise wouldn’t as there were no jobs hiring them otherwise. I profited, they got jobs. Now I agree there nothing stopping my old classmates from getting wise and doing my system[they even were in on how I got the initial money without any startup]. They didn’t though and I am sure that was not just because I may had underrepresented the profit being made. They just had other priories and were content with minimum wage and dreaming of more.

So yes, demand creates economic opportunities. And yes, not all rich people create jobs; however, due to the extreme ROI disparity between “business creation” and "taking advantage of current offers". The former usually equates to the later.

a death tax could be done in lieu of income tax so what you don't provide for them at the end, you could be providing for them while you are alive.

Considering how stupid income tax really is when you get to the heart of it. If really an either/or thing people stomach it. We mostly talk about both, which physically angers me as it basically takes any illusion about who won the argument of who owns the money. More government trying to play God IMHO. Much like high property tax and eminent domain pretty much seals up any doubt in my mind about who owns land. I mean if I just renting just call a spade a spade. Why for my self I rent my homes from a company(I have full ownership of). A little f-me expense, to get me through the day (it basically whenever you take a financial hit for the principle)

why are we not so concerned with private sector waste?

All very wasteful from a holistic point of view. I also would say most big companies today suffer all the same problems of what I talk about when analyze the public sector. The reason I don’t give to big charity is they build insanely large war chests and spend most of that money talking and framing the “problem” rather than you know addressing the problem directly.
The answer of why it worries me less than the alternative is redundancy.

Private approaches overproduce-underdeliver. Public (monopolistic approaches) underproduce-overdeliver. That makes public sound better until you look at the effect overtime. Overtime the lack of production affects ones ability to deliver so even if they are underproducing overdelivering compared to a given small firm they are overdelivering on a much lower productive capacity meaning: there is a boost then everyone gets poorer the longer it holds till it crashes.

There is still an environmental problem from overproduction. I just don’t see public option offering much to that problem.

in the end, does it matter?

Shhh we not suppose to mention whether poor or rich, life is just life.

It can be MMT - which I'm gathering you don't like since you describe deficits as "insane”

I am very caution about. If you look at post #87 I go over how I to think we should approach money creation. That said, MMT hardly addresses the real issues of an underlying premise that continuous explanation by stimulus can grow forever…which I do think has a hard limit even if we are far away from it. MMT may be a better option. If we can trust it used tactfully. But considering our current valuation bubbles that will crash, MMT likely makes this worse. That said if I was in control tomorrow, I too would probably use MMT as a transition tool to a sustainable economic backbone. My fear it not me, more often than not it goes bad, I don’t trust them!

As for most of the rest of what was said. I am mulling on it, it certianly has points of consideration.

 

[pdog]

Thank for taking the time to answers all those questions.

Gladly, you have no idea how much I crave thoughtful interaction with the counter point.

I suppose that is a matter of perspective as that is certainly not a wrong statement.What I refer to with “rich” creating job:
Let me start with a story, one of the first ways I made money was a simple one. I found items sold in garage sales, auctions, thrift stores and sold them online which had slightly higher average prices and between handling fees and those I made bit of a margin. So from there, I made a list of items that worked, hired my high school classmates for minimum wage to go out and acquire the items and wrote a simple program to post the listing they could input into. Making my input time minimum and generating me a modest passive income.
Demand is certainly what created that opportunity but was it not me who utilized it? And because I did my classmates had jobs they otherwise wouldn’t as there were no jobs hiring them otherwise. I profited, they got jobs. Now I agree there nothing stopping my old classmates from getting wise and doing my system[they even were in on how I got the initial money without any startup]. They didn’t though and I am sure that was not just because I may had underrepresented the profit being made. They just had other priories and were content with minimum wage and dreaming of more.
So yes, demand creates economic opportunities. And yes, not all rich people create jobs; however, due to the extreme ROI disparity between “business creation” and "taking advantage of current offers". The former usually equates to the later.

Such a simple but great example...it can be sliced so many different ways that it's making my head hurt, but I'll do my best:
"Demand is what created the opportunity" - the irony here is where you seem to be conceding that demand comes first which I appreciate, but i'll actually give this to you and say that you're venture came first in a way. What you did is find an efficiency in our economy by providing more goods by saving them from the landfill or a anemic market. This IS what the private sector can do really well. But you required some technology like the Internet that made that efficiency possible? What if Arpanet took another 50 years to come to be? Would the margin in your venture been worth your time if you were posting classifieds instead? In many if not most stories like this there is a strong relationship between what somebody discovered in the private sector and the government project that created what was discovered.
But efficiency is fickle - efficiency might mean that somebody elsewhere lost a job because of your ingenuity. I'm a software developer. It's my job to create software that might hire one programmer, but fire 10 people. But we can't let that stop us from continuing to be more efficient. The only question is who should get the gains of that efficiency? The exec that hires a finance guy? The finance guy that finds a high labor ratio? The manager that asks me to create software to eliminate the manual process? The programmers that work for me? And how much of that do we owe back to our past? Should I have to pay royalties on the transistor?
But in the end, there has to be people out there that can buy something more than the bare necessities.

cont...

 

[pdog]

Considering how stupid income tax really is when you get to the heart of it. If really an either/or thing people stomach it. We mostly talk about both, which physically angers me as it basically takes any illusion about who won the argument of who owns the money. More government trying to play God IMHO. Much like high property tax and eminent domain pretty much seals up any doubt in my mind about who owns land. I mean if I just renting just call a spade a spade. Why for my self I rent my homes from a company(I have full ownership of). A little f-me expense, to get me through the day (it basically whenever you take a financial hit for the principle)

In my perfect world, there would be one and only one tax - a progressive income tax. You could send it in on a sticky note. I'm sure that will spark it's own debate. But I do offer the death tax as an interesting alternative.

All very wasteful from a holistic point of view. I also would say most big companies today suffer all the same problems of what I talk about when analyze the public sector. The reason I don’t give to big charity is they build insanely large war chests and spend most of that money talking and framing the “problem” rather than you know addressing the problem directly.
The answer of why it worries me less than the alternative is redundancy

.
The first question I ask charities is how much goes to the cause. It's amazing how many say "15%". I hang up on them .

Private approaches overproduce-underdeliver. Public (monopolistic approaches) underproduce-overdeliver. That makes public sound better until you look at the effect overtime. Overtime the lack of production affects ones ability to deliver so even if they are underproducing overdelivering compared to a given small firm they are overdelivering on a much lower productive capacity meaning: there is a boost then everyone gets poorer the longer it holds till it crashes.

There is still an environmental problem from overproduction. I just don’t see public option offering much to that problem.

I think its much more symbiotic then that. The public sector takes the collective force of our society (yes, largely thru taxes), and takes some really big expensive risks...Space program, military inventions, Internet. The private sector then finds ways to utilize those new inventions, make them smaller, cheaper, combine them, etc. The problem is that the really big items that deliver over decades are really hard to calculate ROI for so they are seen as "expensive". What is the GDP value of nasa since the 1960s? Could we even try to figure that out?
The other thing I'll add is that private sector efficiency comes at a price. It can fire as fast as it can hire. But I really don't think people want total efficiency - they want stability, and the public sector can help with that.

I am very caution about. If you look at post #87 I go over how I to think we should approach money creation. That said, MMT hardly addresses the real issues of an underlying premise that continuous explanation by stimulus can grow forever…which I do think has a hard limit even if we are far away from it. MMT may be a better option. If we can trust it used tactfully. But considering our current valuation bubbles that will crash, MMT likely makes this worse. That said if I was in control tomorrow, I too would probably use MMT as a transition tool to a sustainable economic backbone. My fear it not me, more often than not it goes bad, I don’t trust them!

I tried reading what you said, but you may have to rephrase your #87 because I wasn't following you.
But to me you could change your perspective to see MMT from a different angle. Why is it even called "stimulus"? Government builds a bridge, the have cost of the bridge as debt on their asset sheet. That bridge might provide a more efficient way for billions of dollars worth of commerce to move. Could their be tolls to "pay it off"? Sure? But why? The government doesn't need the money, they created it in the first place. Why can't we do things like this to make sure we are maximizing our resources? As far as trust goes, yeah I can see that. But I think we're doing a pretty good job screwing things up right now anyway.

As for most of the rest of what was said. I am mulling on it, it certianly has points of consideration.

Cool

 

[Conaeolos]

you may have to rephrase your #87

So I am going to address this in two parts. The first is about my ideal, since I love the challenge of explaining it simply, so feel free to take it with a grain of salt as it’s defiantly a tangent. I will return to our original discussion in the third post.

Why we need major reforms to our currency system?

• We do not correctly value companies correctly to a very large degree, with the main culprit fractional reserve banking (which needs to be outlawed) but which is protected by our currency system
• Our Money supply does not track expansion and contraction of the economy leading to artificial bubbles & busts
• Fiat money hides costs from the citizenry & foreign investors
• Certain credit categories are classified as debt but should not be legal as they are completely one-sided to the lender at the expense of the borrower enshrined by our currency system.
• The system as being inherently inflationary has a giant known flaw: when the economy stops growing we get hyper inflation and people lose their assets not to mention it encourages artificial growth which hurts economic stability for short-term stimulus
• Our current currency system protects certain previous establishments from the pressures of the market
• Our current currency favors certain behaviors a in form of economic behavioral modification
• Our current currency system is highly vulnerable to outside and inside manipulation
• The current reality of the majority of money creation not being a function of any branch of government or a public market creates inherit limitations on capitalist activities and forces higher levels of taxation and public spending than are required.
• Money supply is always smaller than debts owing

Most people who talk about these vulnerabilities want to move back in time to some form of gold standard et al. That is absurd and creates far more problems than it solves. Most everything else I have read is some slight modification of the current system except they transfer the issuing power from one establishment to another but all of whom are not market facing. All those to me then are non-starters.

So the first question is that of real-world value. I say we need create a real-world backing, but one which does not artificially raise the price or value of some random commodity which may or may not actually hold value because it has in the past and/or can be manipulated. Only one thing in our current world has those attributes: stocks. Stocks are real world assets but placed into a common form; as such, if we force public ownership of a small percentage of every stock issued in our economic region [which we can do with the stoke of a pen, as they are an artificial division] and hold them in public trust ~ 100% securely and with no real affect on current stock [I’ll deal with dividend affect later]. Money would then instantly gain a real-world value: ownership in the valued pieces of the economy. You cannot manipulate the price since the price is adaptable, this eliminates some of the problems as listed overnight but not all of them.

So to the second question that of stopping the artificial boom and bust due to inconsistency between the money supply and economic grow and contraction. This power to manipulate the money supply cannot be trusted to any single branch, individual department or entity. Only one place makes it run by the people: the constitution. We thus study and draft a formula which estimates economic activity, growth and contraction: to decide the optimum level of the money supply [units of division]. The formula is used every quarter and the Mint offers “American Common Currency” (which should now be able to complete with private currency) by issuing new money directly to the people in equal number. A cheque or deposit for every in the amount issue divisible by the registered (tax-paying) population minus the costs of the issuing. As an example, the US has Money supply of ~13.3 trillion, population of 321 Million, new economic expansion between 2016-2017 say ~6%[actual new money we issued]: 199.5 billion per quarter : $621.49 per us citizen per quarter. That clears up a whole bunch of the issues.