More On Taxes.

[Highlight]

Time To LEARN! As I said and showed elsewhere, the bottom 50% of Americans own around 4 trillion in wealth. The top 50% of "Americans" own around 156 trillion in wealth. As I said elsewhere, I think we should tax the living hell out of them. But it would be better to just seize much of their wealth. The more they have, the more we take. But what if we just wanted to lift every American out of poverty. How much would that cost each year. I have seen estimates ranging from $539 billion per year to $169 billion. But I think around $175 billion per year is about right.
https://borgenproject.org/how-much-does-it-cost-to-end-poverty/

The Borgen Project
borgenproject.org › home › the blog › how much does it cost to end poverty?

How Much Does it Cost to End Poverty? - The Borgen Project


https://prospect.org/power/much-money-take-eliminate-poverty-america/

The American Prospect
prospect.org › power › much-money-take-eliminate-poverty-america



How Much Money Would It Take to Eliminate Poverty In America? - The American Prospect

 

[Bullseye]

Time To LEARN! As I said and showed elsewhere, the bottom 50% of Americans own around 4 trillion in wealth. The top 50% of "Americans" own around 156 trillion in wealth. As I said elsewhere, I think we should tax the living hell out of them. But it would be better to just seize much of their wealth. The more they have, the more we take. But what if we just wanted to lift every American out of poverty. How much would that cost each year. I have seen estimates ranging from $539 billion per year to $169 billion. But I think around $175 billion per year is about right.
https://borgenproject.org/how-much-does-it-cost-to-end-poverty/
The Borgen Project
borgenproject.org › home › the blog › how much does it cost to end poverty?
How Much Does it Cost to End Poverty? - The Borgen Project

https://prospect.org/power/much-money-take-eliminate-poverty-america/
The American Prospect
prospect.org › power › much-money-take-eliminate-poverty-america

How Much Money Would It Take to Eliminate Poverty In America? - The American Prospect

Wow! Imagine my surprise! Richer people HAVE MORE MONEY!! All these"plans" have one flaw - they require the government that created this economy to "fix it".

I read a piece several years ago that postulated if we distributed every penny of what in the country even to ever citizen within two generations the wealth distribution would closely resemble the starting distribution.

 

[Highlight]

This forum sucks ass. I spent a good amount of time on a thread that I am going to attempt to reply to without saving first. Because apparently there is A 20 minute time limit.

 

[Highlight]

Wow! Imagine my surprise! Richer people HAVE MORE MONEY!! All these"plans" have one flaw - they require the government that created this economy to "fix it".

I read a piece several years ago that postulated if we distributed every penny of what in the country even to ever citizen within two generations the wealth distribution would closely resemble the starting distribution.

You should get down on your knees and think the gods of stupidity that you weren't able to see my whole thread. I guess they figure that a few cave man grunts shouldn't take that long.

 

[Bullseye]

You should get down on your knees and think the gods of stupidity that you weren't able to see my whole thread. I guess they figure that a few cave man grunts shouldn't take that long.

Nice try. You were slammed dunked.

 

[Individual]

Time To LEARN! As I said and showed elsewhere, the bottom 50% of Americans own around 4 trillion in wealth. The top 50% of "Americans" own around 156 trillion in wealth. As I said elsewhere, I think we should tax the living hell out of them. But it would be better to just seize much of their wealth. The more they have, the more we take. But what if we just wanted to lift every American out of poverty. How much would that cost each year. I have seen estimates ranging from $539 billion per year to $169 billion. But I think around $175 billion per year is about right.
https://borgenproject.org/how-much-does-it-cost-to-end-poverty/
The Borgen Project
borgenproject.org › home › the blog › how much does it cost to end poverty?
How Much Does it Cost to End Poverty? - The Borgen Project

https://prospect.org/power/much-money-take-eliminate-poverty-america/
The American Prospect
prospect.org › power › much-money-take-eliminate-poverty-america

How Much Money Would It Take to Eliminate Poverty In America? - The American Prospect

Not Americans, but American households.

 

[Individual]

The solution, if ever done, will be in the tax code.

 

[Econ4every1]

Not Americans, but American households.

What is the point of this statement? What does it add to the conversation?

Is this just a pedantic comment mean to correct? I don't get it?

Because, in fact roughly 1/2 of American individuals live in the bottom 50% of households.

Wow! Imagine my surprise! Richer people HAVE MORE MONEY!!

Not a surprise and not the point.

All these"plans" have one flaw - they require the government that created this economy to "fix it"

That's literally what the Founders created, a government capable of self-correction and that system has created the greatest nation the world has ever seen. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

I read a piece several years ago that postulated if we distributed every penny of what in the country even to ever citizen within two generations the wealth distribution would closely resemble the starting distribution.

Are you saying that if tomorrow we took all all money and wealth and divided it up evenly among all 335 million Americans that, after 60 years we'd be back where we are today?

Are you familiar with John Rawls concept of a veil of ignorance? Briefly, for those that don't know, Rawls postulated that if a person didn't know what economic class, sex, gender, race, religion (or not), that if they we're asked what society should look like, people become much more egalitarian, when their own interests are not in play.

The claim made here is that if all people were equally wealthy we'd all be back to where we are now within 60 years.

While not a perfect example of Rawls concept, I think that if everyone were equally wealthy and would have no idea where they or their children would be in 1-2 generations (the veil of ignorance), they would be much more likely, as in Rawls concept and proven though social experiment, that people would be more likely to support a more egalitarian society.

So I would disagree. I think that most people, if they could learn from the situation we face today, had an opportunity to change the rules to try to make a fairer, more just society I think they would do it.

 

[Bullseye]

What is the point of this statement? What does it add to the conversation?

Is this just a pedantic comment mean to correct? I don't get it?

Because, in fact roughly 1/2 of American individuals live in the bottom 50% of households.



Not a surprise and not the point.

That's literally what the Founders created, a government capable of self-correction and that system has created the greatest nation the world has ever seen. It's not a bug, it's a feature.


Are you saying that if tomorrow we took all all money and wealth and divided it up evenly among all 335 million Americans that, after 60 years we'd be back where we are today?

Are you familiar with John Rawls concept of a veil of ignorance? Briefly, for those that don't know, Rawls postulated that if a person didn't know what economic class, sex, gender, race, religion (or not), that if they we're asked what society should look like, people become much more egalitarian, when their own interests are not in play.

The claim made here is that if all people were equally wealthy we'd all be back to where we are now within 60 years.

While not a perfect example of Rawls concept, I think that if everyone were equally wealthy and would have no idea where they or their children would be in 1-2 generations (the veil of ignorance), they would be much more likely, as in Rawls concept and proven though social experiment, that people would be more likely to support a more egalitarian society.

So I would disagree. I think that most people, if they could learn from the situation we face today, had an opportunity to change the rules to try to make a fairer, more just society I think they would do it.

Fine, disagree all you wish. Be my guest. My point on the distribution and redistribution of wealth is based on the fact that the wealthy didn't necessarily start out that way; the just happen to have the wisdom, creativity, perseverance and determination to develop and product or service other people want or need. And they have the skills and intellience to continue doing so against dificults, competition and legal environment. These traits are not disturbed uniformly or equal.

IF all the wealth were redistributed uniformly - I suggest that those with the highest concentrations would over a course of time create the businesses and products that others desire or need and would would trade the wealth for the products and services those folks offered. Yeah, the "two generations" comment MAY. be a tad of an exaggeration, but the end result is this probable.

 

[Econ4every1]

based on the fact that the wealthy didn't necessarily start out that way; the just happen to have the wisdom, creativity, perseverance and determination to develop and product or service other people want or need.

There are certainly examples of that and it's a testament to the success of capitalism. However, there is a class of very wealthy investors that make money without creating value, and many, in fact money earned comes at a cost to society more broadly. I've used the example of private investment groups buying up trailer parks in poor areas and going up on lot rents, doubling or tripling lot rents in less than two years in order to force people into defaults knowing they cannot afford to move their homes. They allow people to fall deeply in arrears and then take over their homes and then use those same homes as rental properties. This is a rising class of parasites. We've always had people willing to steal, manipulate and mislead for personal gain, but now we have billionaires who have throw out all pretense of social ethical and moral responsibility. That their responsibility to society does not exist, instead a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, family or self.

Now I'm not saying that these examples are representative of all investors, but as wealth disparity increases, there are more and more opportunities to make money by exploiting others. I read that in Atlanta 10-15% of all homes are owned by a handful corporate investment firms. It's not hard to imagine in another 20-30 years that number could be 50-70%. And despite what people think, when there are a few companies competing, you end up with a monopsony, where traditional capitalism collapses and companies engage in a passive kind of collusion where owners "win" and renters are the controlled masses.

The greater the wealth disparity, the more the people at the top can use their wealth to exploit others, corrupt democracy and the end of capitalism as you've described it.

Believing that capitalism is good, therefore more, unrestricted capitalism is better is an example of the fallacy of quantity over quality.

IF all the wealth were redistributed uniformly - I suggest that those with the highest concentrations would over a course of time create the businesses and products that others desire or need and would would trade the wealth for the products and services those folks offered. Yeah, the "two generations" comment MAY. be a tad of an exaggeration, but the end result is this probable.

There is no doubt that in the system we have right now you are right, but that doesn't mean the system we have produces the best outcomes, or is the only way that capitalism can be done.

So I don't disagree with your premise and neither would Carl Marx. I tend to think of capitalism is probably the hardest economic system for the reasons you point out, but I also believe that it's capable of the greatest outcomes for the most people. But it's hard, the way that balancing a quarter on it's edge is hard. There are many, many more ways to fail at capitalism than succeed. It takes work and cooperation and a sense of national unity, like for instance that the Constitution is important, that rules and norms are not just things to be exploited for personal gain. But the nation is dividing and I fear that when we first lose our position of dominance and later, if we can't get our shit together, the nation collapses, all the things that people fought about, like who get's to use what bathroom, or who get's to use the word married, will seem to the people who live through the nation's collapse, that the people of this time were idiots, all of them, you, me everyone as we argued over things that, in the big picture, really don't matter. And we didn't know how good we had it.

Eventually we'll end up with a handful of extravagantly wealthy people who will, in the information age and beyond, gain so much wealth that material possessions are no longer interesting. How many Islands and yachts can one own before they get board? The ultra wealthy turn to lust for power and without a government to protect the people from the ultra wealthy, we simply slide back into a more feudalistic society, where connections and nepotism are a persons biggest strength, not their hard work or ability to innovate.

That's what unbridled capitalism will get you as a person who believes that capitalism is simultaneously capable of the greatest outcomes, but can also create spectacular failures. Capitalism can be as hard if not harder than other systems to maintain at their peak because in our pluralistic society, we have so few common traits, that being American and standing for liberty, freedom and justice are about the only things we can all agree on, but there are those always trying to distract us from what really matters

 

[Bullseye]

There are certainly examples of that and it's a testament to the success of capitalism. However, there is a class of very wealthy investors that make money without creating value, and many, in fact money earned comes at a cost to society more broadly. I've used the example of private investment groups buying up trailer parks in poor areas and going up on lot rents, doubling or tripling lot rents in less than two years in order to force people into defaults knowing they cannot afford to move their homes. They allow people to fall deeply in arrears and then take over their homes and then use those same homes as rental properties. This is a rising class of parasites. We've always had people willing to steal, manipulate and mislead for personal gain, but now we have billionaires who have throw out all pretense of social ethical and moral responsibility. That their responsibility to society does not exist, instead a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, family or self.

Now I'm not saying that these examples are representative of all investors, but as wealth disparity increases, there are more and more opportunities to make money by exploiting others. I read that in Atlanta 10-15% of all homes are owned by a handful corporate investment firms. It's not hard to imagine in another 20-30 years that number could be 50-70%. And despite what people think, when there are a few companies competing, you end up with a monopsony, where traditional capitalism collapses and companies engage in a passive kind of collusion where owners "win" and renters are the controlled masses.

The greater the wealth disparity, the more the people at the top can use their wealth to exploit others, corrupt democracy and the end of capitalism as you've described it.

Believing that capitalism is good, therefore more, unrestricted capitalism is better is an example of the fallacy of quantity over quality.


There is no doubt that in the system we have right now you are right, but that doesn't mean the system we have produces the best outcomes, or is the only way that capitalism can be done.

So I don't disagree with your premise and neither would Carl Marx. I tend to think of capitalism is probably the hardest economic system for the reasons you point out, but I also believe that it's capable of the greatest outcomes for the most people. But it's hard, the way that balancing a quarter on it's edge is hard. There are many, many more ways to fail at capitalism than succeed. It takes work and cooperation and a sense of national unity, like for instance that the Constitution is important, that rules and norms are not just things to be exploited for personal gain. But the nation is dividing and I fear that when we first lose our position of dominance and later, if we can't get our shit together, the nation collapses, all the things that people fought about, like who get's to use what bathroom, or who get's to use the word married, will seem to the people who live through the nation's collapse, that the people of this time were idiots, all of them, you, me everyone as we argued over things that, in the big picture, really don't matter. And we didn't know how good we had it.

Eventually we'll end up with a handful of extravagantly wealthy people who will, in the information age and beyond, gain so much wealth that material possessions are no longer interesting. How many Islands and yachts can one own before they get board? The ultra wealthy turn to lust for power and without a government to protect the people from the ultra wealthy, we simply slide back into a more feudalistic society, where connections and nepotism are a persons biggest strength, not their hard work or ability to innovate.

That's what unbridled capitalism will get you as a person who believes that capitalism is simultaneously capable of the greatest outcomes, but can also create spectacular failures. Capitalism can be as hard if not harder than other systems to maintain at their peak because in our pluralistic society, we have so few common traits, that being American and standing for liberty, freedom and justice are about the only things we can all agree on, but there are those always trying to distract us from what really matters

"The system we have now?" Of course. competent rather than the government making the decisions, reaping the proverbs and losing the defeats.

 

[What if...?]

There are certainly examples of that and it's a testament to the success of capitalism. However, there is a class of very wealthy investors that make money without creating value, and many, in fact money earned comes at a cost to society more broadly. I've used the example of private investment groups buying up trailer parks in poor areas and going up on lot rents, doubling or tripling lot rents in less than two years in order to force people into defaults knowing they cannot afford to move their homes. They allow people to fall deeply in arrears and then take over their homes and then use those same homes as rental properties. This is a rising class of parasites. We've always had people willing to steal, manipulate and mislead for personal gain, but now we have billionaires who have throw out all pretense of social ethical and moral responsibility. That their responsibility to society does not exist, instead a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, family or self.

Now I'm not saying that these examples are representative of all investors, but as wealth disparity increases, there are more and more opportunities to make money by exploiting others. I read that in Atlanta 10-15% of all homes are owned by a handful corporate investment firms. It's not hard to imagine in another 20-30 years that number could be 50-70%. And despite what people think, when there are a few companies competing, you end up with a monopsony, where traditional capitalism collapses and companies engage in a passive kind of collusion where owners "win" and renters are the controlled masses.

The greater the wealth disparity, the more the people at the top can use their wealth to exploit others, corrupt democracy and the end of capitalism as you've described it.

Believing that capitalism is good, therefore more, unrestricted capitalism is better is an example of the fallacy of quantity over quality.


There is no doubt that in the system we have right now you are right, but that doesn't mean the system we have produces the best outcomes, or is the only way that capitalism can be done.

So I don't disagree with your premise and neither would Carl Marx. I tend to think of capitalism is probably the hardest economic system for the reasons you point out, but I also believe that it's capable of the greatest outcomes for the most people. But it's hard, the way that balancing a quarter on it's edge is hard. There are many, many more ways to fail at capitalism than succeed. It takes work and cooperation and a sense of national unity, like for instance that the Constitution is important, that rules and norms are not just things to be exploited for personal gain. But the nation is dividing and I fear that when we first lose our position of dominance and later, if we can't get our shit together, the nation collapses, all the things that people fought about, like who get's to use what bathroom, or who get's to use the word married, will seem to the people who live through the nation's collapse, that the people of this time were idiots, all of them, you, me everyone as we argued over things that, in the big picture, really don't matter. And we didn't know how good we had it.

Eventually we'll end up with a handful of extravagantly wealthy people who will, in the information age and beyond, gain so much wealth that material possessions are no longer interesting. How many Islands and yachts can one own before they get board? The ultra wealthy turn to lust for power and without a government to protect the people from the ultra wealthy, we simply slide back into a more feudalistic society, where connections and nepotism are a persons biggest strength, not their hard work or ability to innovate.

That's what unbridled capitalism will get you as a person who believes that capitalism is simultaneously capable of the greatest outcomes, but can also create spectacular failures. Capitalism can be as hard if not harder than other systems to maintain at their peak because in our pluralistic society, we have so few common traits, that being American and standing for liberty, freedom and justice are about the only things we can all agree on, but there are those always trying to distract us from what really matters

I like to remind folks that we did not evolve this way.

We “grew up” in extended families of relatively physically equal alpha predators. Nobody was gonna carry your extra “stuff” and familial relationships mitigated rule by force.

ALL of our current systems began on the day, that happened all over the world, that we locked up the food and started doling it out. Creating wage labor, the manager class and professional enforcers of the above.

And our modern world could be defined as “maladaptation to the adoption of the sedentary lifestyle”

War. Class struggle. Rule by force.

All had their start with the locking up of the food.

 

[Econ4every1]

Of course. competent rather than the government making the decisions

Ideally, government is an extension of the people. We can agree that's not working that way, but the solution is not to throw out government because all you're doing then is handing the nation to the corporatists and oligarchs who will fill the power vacuum left by government. Why do you believe that the wealthy and well connected will be better than a government of the people?

 

[aociswundumho]

I've used the example of private investment groups buying up trailer parks in poor areas and going up on lot rents, doubling or tripling lot rents in less than two years in order to force people into defaults knowing they cannot afford to move their homes. They allow people to fall deeply in arrears and then take over their homes and then use those same homes as rental properties.

I agree, it's terrible. But who's really responsible for this awful situation? The government, of course. The progressive regulatory state has outlawed people from living in mobile homes on their own land, which forces low-income families into these parks in the first place. Once you've corralled people into a handful of government-approved options, it's no surprise private investors see an opportunity to exploit it.

Now I'm not saying that these examples are representative of all investors, but as wealth disparity increases, there are more and more opportunities to make money by exploiting others.

No, as housing regulation increases, there are more and more opportunities to make money by exploiting others.

I read that in Atlanta 10-15% of all homes are owned by a handful corporate investment firms. It's not hard to imagine in another 20-30 years that number could be 50-70%. And despite what people think, when there are a few companies competing, you end up with a monopsony, where traditional capitalism collapses and companies engage in a passive kind of collusion where owners "win" and renters are the controlled masses.

Of course you are leaving out the root cause: the supply of housing is being deliberately strangled. Over the last few decades, building cheap starter homes has been effectively outlawed through stricter and stricter building codes, zoning restrictions, and permitting obstacles. When the state makes it impossible to build modest, affordable homes, people get funneled into a limited pool of existing housing stock - exactly the environment where corporate landlords thrive. Once the supply restrictions are acknowledged, it's clear that the state, as usual, is the true villain. If you want to stop corporate consolidation, the answer isn't to punish companies for operating within the rules, it's to end the rules that created artificial scarcity in the first place.

 

[jpn]

Fine, disagree all you wish. Be my guest. My point on the distribution and redistribution of wealth is based on the fact that the wealthy didn't necessarily start out that way; the just happen to have the wisdom, creativity, perseverance and determination to develop and product or service other people want or need.

Actually, the majority of rich people are either born or marry into them.

 

[aociswundumho]

Ideally, government is an extension of the people.

JFC

We can agree that's not working that way,

No, we should be able to agree that it's never worked that way in the history of the world, and that there's no reason to believe it would ever work that way.

but the solution is not to throw out government because all you're doing then is handing the nation to the corporatists and oligarchs who will fill the power vacuum left by government. Why do you believe that the wealthy and well connected will be better than a government of the people?

1) Because there is no "government of the people." That's just a dumb platitude. Instead, your "oligarchs" simply buy and sell politicians like any other commodity. Why is it so hard to admit that politicians, like everyone else, are primarily out for themselves?

2) Because in reality the free enterprise system is the only system that has ever actually worked to raise living standards. All the state does is make us poorer and worse off.

3) Even if you believe one person has the "right" to rule over other people, a rational person should still want the state's role in society minimized, not maximized the way progressives do.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Another conversation we can have for the umpteenth time.

How wealth has pooled and been concentrated to the top 0.1% of the highest income quintile is not a natural economic phenomenon, but is a direct result of the merger with a modern day wealth based aristocracy in bed with a complicit government based aristocracy.

There are reasons why we have a bloated tax code that still results in too many gifts to the top wealth holders, there are reasons why multiple sectors of our economy has seen business consolidations to the point of a handful of players dominating entire industries, there are reasons why we experience more bubble and pop economic trends in the past 50 years compared to the entire history of the nation, and there are reasons why the gaps between the income quintiles are getting worse by acceleration over the past 50 years.

It is not capitalism nor is it socialism (in the economic definition sense,) it is because of corruption and aristocracy resulting in vulture or crony capitalism.

We can argue about taxation of wealth, or what it should be per income quintile or bracket, but ultimately the conversation should be about why we tax. If I am interested in currency valuation and throttling inflation then I have every reason to look at progressive taxation setups to avoid economic impact of harming economic participants that tend to spend every dollar they earn (i.e. everyone south of the top 2 income quintiles.)

You do that effectively, not too much and not too little, and there is less wealth pooling and less economic consequence of wealth pooling at the top.

 

[What if...?]

I agree, it's terrible. But who's really responsible for this awful situation? The government, of course. The progressive regulatory state has outlawed people from living in mobile homes on their own land, which forces low-income families into these parks in the first place. Once you've corralled people into a handful of government-approved options, it's no surprise private investors see an opportunity to exploit it.




No, as housing regulation increases, there are more and more opportunities to make money by exploiting others.



Of course you are leaving out the root cause: the supply of housing is being deliberately strangled. Over the last few decades, building cheap starter homes has been effectively outlawed through stricter and stricter building codes, zoning restrictions, and permitting obstacles. When the state makes it impossible to build modest, affordable homes, people get funneled into a limited pool of existing housing stock - exactly the environment where corporate landlords thrive. Once the supply restrictions are acknowledged, it's clear that the state, as usual, is the true villain. If you want to stop corporate consolidation, the answer isn't to punish companies for operating within the rules, it's to end the rules that created artificial scarcity in the first place.

There are manufactured homes on private property all over San Diego county.

Speculators just made the dirt super expensive.

 

[What if...?]

Another conversation we can have for the umpteenth time.

How wealth has pooled and been concentrated to the top 0.1% of the highest income quintile is not a natural economic phenomenon, but is a direct result of the merger with a modern day wealth based aristocracy in bed with a complicit government based aristocracy.

There are reasons why we have a bloated tax code that still results in too many gifts to the top wealth holders, there are reasons why multiple sectors of our economy has seen business consolidations to the point of a handful of players dominating entire industries, there are reasons why we experience more bubble and pop economic trends in the past 50 years compared to the entire history of the nation, and there are reasons why the gaps between the income quintiles are getting worse by acceleration over the past 50 years.

It is not capitalism nor is it socialism (in the economic definition sense,) it is because of corruption and aristocracy resulting in vulture or crony capitalism.

We can argue about taxation of wealth, or what it should be per income quintile or bracket, but ultimately the conversation should be about why we tax. If I am interested in currency valuation and throttling inflation then I have every reason to look at progressive taxation setups to avoid economic impact of harming economic participants that tend to spend every dollar they earn (i.e. everyone south of the top 2 income quintiles.)

You do that effectively, not too much and not too little, and there is less wealth pooling and less economic consequence of wealth pooling at the top.

People become addicted to accumulating wealth and power. Literally. Like sex addicts and falling addicts and thrill addicts. Addictions to one’s own neuro-chemicals.

It’s the evolutionary reward for being responsible for the tribe. Being the head of an extended family of alpha predators is a heavy burden. So evolution provided a reward for doing it. A cat chases a string because it feels good, and it feels good because it is eye/paw coordination practice that improves its chance of survival.

Shortly after locking up the food the new management/ruling classes realized they could get the joy juice by forcing people to do as they say rather than taking on the burden of leadership because the group decided they were best at it.

This is at the heart of the pattern of history. Status addicts feeding their Jones until they wreck the society they live in, overextend in attempts to expand their peasant base or lose the fight with someone doing the same.

It’s an addiction. Tolerance develops. And historically they never stop unless forced to somehow.

 

[Econ4every1]

The progressive regulatory state has outlawed people from living in mobile homes on their own land

Can you cite something here? I know of no such regulation. I've known several people in my family that bought land and move a mobile/ manufactured home on to it.

If you mean that there are strict regulation about how one can do that, that's a little different.

No, as housing regulation increases...

Be honest, what do you think the purpose of housing regulations are?

Because there is no "government of the people."

In theory or in practice or both?

That's just a dumb platitude. Instead, your "oligarchs" simply buy and sell politicians like any other commodity.

We agree, but your solution to the problem of ultra wealthy and cooperate leaders using their money to corrupt politicians is like burning down your house because you have a bug problem. There's nothing that the wealthy don't do right now that wouldn't get a zillion times worse once government is nerfed into oblivion.

Because in reality the free enterprise system is the only system that has ever actually worked to raise living standards.

First, besides the obvious, I doubt you and I would agree on everything that constitutes increases increases in living standards. If I mention minimum wage workers I suspect you'd point to their cell phone, microwave or the fact that Cheerios now comes in 15 flavors or as evidence their life is better off than those that came before them, where as I would define quality of life by looking across society and observing the reduction in hardship, the increase in opportunities, the reduction in exploitation and even handed application of justice regardless of class, race, sex etc...

You have, in our conversations, admitted that exploitation isn't a bug of the free enterprise system, it's a feature.

Elimination of government merely removes the only impediment to the brutal wholesale exploitation of the working class by those with obscene wealth.

All the state does is make us poorer and worse off.

Who is us? Give us an example. Government sets the tax code, Limited liability laws, creates arbitrary dollar caps in litigation......Sorry, the only people that seem to be poorer and worse off are those in the bottom 90%. The problem isn't laws, the problem is the application of those laws and the small group at the top they seem to benefit most.

Even if you believe one person has the "right" to rule over other people, a rational person should still want the state's role in society minimized, not maximized the way progressives do.

If we can agree that the nation as a whole is better off if a broad swath of the people have (healthcare? education? opportunities?) whatever. Then shouldn't the system that produces those outcomes be the system we strive for?

If not those things, what might you say are fundamentals that make people better off? And don't say "freedom" because in society no one is truly free, everyone is constrained in their "freedoms". Tell us why.

 

[Econ4every1]

Another conversation we can have for the umpteenth time.

How wealth has pooled and been concentrated to the top 0.1% of the highest income quintile is not a natural economic phenomenon, but is a direct result of the merger with a modern day wealth based aristocracy in bed with a complicit government based aristocracy.

There are reasons why we have a bloated tax code that still results in too many gifts to the top wealth holders, there are reasons why multiple sectors of our economy has seen business consolidations to the point of a handful of players dominating entire industries, there are reasons why we experience more bubble and pop economic trends in the past 50 years compared to the entire history of the nation, and there are reasons why the gaps between the income quintiles are getting worse by acceleration over the past 50 years.

It is not capitalism nor is it socialism (in the economic definition sense,) it is because of corruption and aristocracy resulting in vulture or crony capitalism.

We can argue about taxation of wealth, or what it should be per income quintile or bracket, but ultimately the conversation should be about why we tax. If I am interested in currency valuation and throttling inflation then I have every reason to look at progressive taxation setups to avoid economic impact of harming economic participants that tend to spend every dollar they earn (i.e. everyone south of the top 2 income quintiles.)

You do that effectively, not too much and not too little, and there is less wealth pooling and less economic consequence of wealth pooling at the top.

Thumbs up was not enough.

Amen brotha!

 

[Econ4every1]

People become addicted to accumulating wealth and power. Literally. Like sex addicts and falling addicts and thrill addicts. Addictions to one’s own neuro-chemicals.

It’s the evolutionary reward for being responsible for the tribe. Being the head of an extended family of alpha predators is a heavy burden. So evolution provided a reward for doing it. A cat chases a string because it feels good, and it feels good because it is eye/paw coordination practice that improves its chance of survival.

Shortly after locking up the food the new management/ruling classes realized they could get the joy juice by forcing people to do as they say rather than taking on the burden of leadership because the group decided they were best at it.

This is at the heart of the pattern of history. Status addicts feeding their Jones until they wreck the society they live in, overextend in attempts to expand their peasant base or lose the fight with someone doing the same.

It’s an addiction. Tolerance develops. And historically they never stop unless forced to somehow.

Boom! Two in a row. Again, well said.

 

[OrphanSlug]

People become addicted to accumulating wealth and power. Literally. Like sex addicts and falling addicts and thrill addicts. Addictions to one’s own neuro-chemicals.

It’s the evolutionary reward for being responsible for the tribe. Being the head of an extended family of alpha predators is a heavy burden. So evolution provided a reward for doing it. A cat chases a string because it feels good, and it feels good because it is eye/paw coordination practice that improves its chance of survival.

Shortly after locking up the food the new management/ruling classes realized they could get the joy juice by forcing people to do as they say rather than taking on the burden of leadership because the group decided they were best at it.

This is at the heart of the pattern of history. Status addicts feeding their Jones until they wreck the society they live in, overextend in attempts to expand their peasant base or lose the fight with someone doing the same.

It’s an addiction. Tolerance develops. And historically they never stop unless forced to somehow.

I largely agree, just about anything in excess can be looked at through the lenses of addiction. A few exceptions obviously but in principle we see that concentration of wealth and/or power on a long enough timeline usually ends poorly for everyone else. Economic, governmental, society, all, take your pick.

What I am most interested in considering is that first part, the economic consequence of blending wealth with government influence. We see the obvious results, poor decisions and ultimately a bubble and pop economic model that causes the most harm to those excluded from consideration before and after it all comes crashing down.

2007 financial crash, 2001 so called "dot com" speculation crash, 1991 poor Fed monetary policy influenced mess on the back of an oil price spike, the S&L crisis of the late 1980s into 1990s, etc. and on back.

What bothers me about these conversations is we ignore why we tax in the modern era, and it boils down to dollar and inflation stability.

A big extension of that is dealing with why wealth pools and how that tends to influence governmental policy that benefits some, with high risk, at the expense of everyone else. For some of the above list, bubble and pop economics took people's homes and whatever liquidity they may have accumulated up to those points. Gone, they do not recover the same way wealth does. In some ways the Covid lockdowns taught us the exact same lesson, who did far better and who really did not.

I harp on it all the time because how each income quintile participates in the natural economic cycle dictates not just its health at a given point but also the amplitude of that economic cycle, the more healthy everyone participates the less the peaks and troughs are that far removed from one another. Mass wealth concentration goes directly against that principle, in every regard.

So, you lean on progressive tax policies that allow those with less means to participate healthy in the economy regardless of status to continue to do so. That yields more stability, and on a longer timeline that benefits currency valuation and inflation influences.

Or, we can quintuple down on wealth protections our Republican friends like and see what the top 1% holding around 30% of the nation's total net worth does for us. (And we already know, but some never learn.)

 

[Bullseye]

Actually, the majority of rich people are either born or marry into them.

LOL, are sou serious. Counting the spouse of a successful business person is ridiculous

 

[Bullseye]

Ideally, government is an extension of the people. We can agree that's not working that way, but the solution is not to throw out government because all you're doing then is handing the nation to the corporatists and oligarchs who will fill the power vacuum left by government. Why do you believe that the wealthy and well connected will be better than a government of the people?

Who's arguing to "throw out the government"? I'm arguing against super-sizing - right sizing it.