to wuf: faultlines and the rich, obama's failings

[daven]

doing some online looking at US systems.
Interesting

e.g.
‪Fault Lines - The Top 1%‬‏ - YouTube

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/op...pagewanted=all

[wufwugy]

The most fundamental thing to understand about economics is that it's all about recycling wealth. Imagine that every dollar you ever got was numbered in order of receiving it, and you have to spend each dollar in order of reception. This would illustrate a continual recycling pattern of every penny in the economy. When the amount recycled slows, the economy slows, and the effects are layoffs and reduced wages, etc.

The reason this is an important illustration is that you can now do the same with rich peoples money. You will then see that because rich people save more money than non-rich people, any money that goes to them has an aggregate slowing effect on the economy. Our economy is so bad simply because rich people have so much of the money borne of the economy, that it has slowed the recycling to the current pace. This is one of two main reasons why high taxes on the rich is the only way to run a successful economy. The other main reason high taxes on the rich are necessary is that it deletes capacity for corruption because there's no excess cash laying around. People can't bribe politicians when they don't have lots of extra money with which there aren't other things for them to buy.

A lot of people will then say that taxes are bad because it monopolizes the government, but that's not actually true. Government is only corrupted when it doesn't tax its corrupters. If you want government to suddenly start working very efficiently and for the people, you have to tell the rich that they owe the system that made them rich

Being frank about it, the real laws should be something along the lines of any income 5x above median is taxed at 100%. We're supposed to be fellow humans here, not wolves and lambs. When one person is rich, it's because other people are poor. Nobody has ever been able to deny this reality of economics

[Jack Sawyer]

When one person is rich, it's because other people are poor.

Hmmm, poker players should have an intimate grasp on this concept

[bikes]

Hi I'm wufwugy.

back to the commune hippy.

[Sasquach991]

IMO,

(1) The rich are rich because they keep doing the things that made them rich.
(2) The poor are poor because they keep doing the things that made them poor.

When you increase taxes on the rich and give it to the poor, the rich will continue to do (1) and the poor will continue to do (2).

The rich will stop spending and increase prices on goods and services to make up for higher taxes.

The poor will complain about high prices but still spend on the higher prices goods and services once again making them poor.

Repeat steps (1) and (2)

When a poor person wins the lottery do they stay rich or become poor again?

If rake was 1% at 10NL and 70% at 500NL would anyone play 500NL?

[a500lbgorilla]

IMO,

(1) The rich are rich because they keep doing the things that made them rich.
(2) The poor are poor because they keep doing the things that made them poor.

I believe these assumptions to be highly fallacious.

If I were from poorer origins, I would tend to find myself worse off. If I were from wealthier origins, I would tend to find myself much better off. If I happened to contract an expensive illness without insurance, I would very likely find myself perpetually broke. If I were to inherit a large sum of money tomorrow, I would very likely manage to maintain and enhance that wealth.

The difference between rich people and poor people is in bank account alone, not something innate in the process of the people.

[a500lbgorilla]

Well, you made me think I may have been talking out of my ass.

The difference between rich people and poor people is in bank account alone, not something innate in the process of the people.

This statement is very close to being empty or untrue.

There is no "the difference" and I think balancing it on the word innate keeps its meaning. But there are still very certainly poor people in India/Mexico/China who would do very well in America and poor people in those same countries who would do very poorly. I think it may have to do with how a person could look around to his poor family and neighbors and be motivated to want more whereas the same person could look to his declining middle classed friends and family and not be motivated to work harder than the previous generation for seemingly less.

I would amend it to say: Of the many differences between rich people and poor people, very few to almost none are innate, and many relate to matters of circumstance.

[Lukie]

I believe these assumptions to be highly fallacious.

If I were from poorer origins, I would tend to find myself worse off. If I were from wealthier origins, I would tend to find myself much better off. If I happened to contract an expensive illness without insurance, I would very likely find myself perpetually broke. If I were to inherit a large sum of money tomorrow, I would very likely manage to maintain and enhance that wealth.

The difference between rich people and poor people is in bank account alone, not something innate in the process of the people.

I don't agree. Good examples: look into the rates of bankruptcy and/or brokeness among lottery winners and former (ahem, and current) professional athletes. It is staggering.

[a500lbgorilla]

When a poor person wins the lottery do they stay rich or become poor again?

If rake was 1% at 10NL and 70% at 500NL would anyone play 500NL?

These are neat questions. The first question supposes someone who probably is not prepared to have money. In that that person probably has no analogue for what someone successful would do with money, and no network of people he can trust to give him the information he needs to not be preyed upon.

So a poor person would probably have a tough time maintaining or enhancing his wealth due to many pitfalls and weaknesses in how he'll naturally approach his wealth.

The second is cool because the obvious answer is no, every player will aim to maximize his winrate/wintotal, so no one would ever play in the theoretical 500NL game with 70% rake. Hell, they'll probably hit a limit and quit playing poker all together looking elsewhere for better opportunities.

I think both questions are rhetorical and the best answer is, "the questions are inherently meaningless."

[wufwugy]

The rich will stop spending and increase prices on goods and services to make up for higher taxes.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't have a detrimental effect on the economy because of turnaround spending with tax dollars. But also, that's not a worry because the idea of taxing the rich more than the poor is borne of hoarding practices that come around when people are effectively too rich

Penney, would be nice to get an actual rebuttal

[Sasquach991]

Even if that were true, it wouldn't have a detrimental effect on the economy because of turnaround spending with tax dollars. But also, that's not a worry because the idea of taxing the rich more than the poor is borne of hoarding practices that come around when people are effectively too rich

Penney, would be nice to get an actual rebuttal

It would be nice to get an actual rebuttal. Tell me why it's not true.

Turnaround spending? Explain. I'm no economics expert and really don't care to be.

Hoarding practices? So people who are in a 50% tax bracket should not try to find ways to pay less taxes.

@a500lbgorilla I like the self debate. Keep it going

[Penneywize]

The most fundamental thing to understand about economics is that it's all about recycling wealth.

Wat? wrong

The reason this is an important illustration is that you can now do the same with rich peoples money. You will then see that because rich people save more money than non-rich people, any money that goes to them has an aggregate slowing effect on the economy. Our economy is so bad simply because rich people have so much of the money borne of the economy, that it has slowed the recycling to the current pace.

no

This is one of two main reasons why high taxes on the rich is the only way to run a successful economy.

No!!

When one person is rich, it's because other people are poor. Nobody has ever been able to deny this reality of economics

ok?

bla bla bla some other stuff

inb4 you say everything you just wrote came directly from paul krugman

[rong]

Wat? wrong


no


No!!



ok?



inb4 you say everything you just wrote came directly from paul krugman

Oh no, you made wuf angry, you won't like him when he's angry.

Inb4 penny suddenly stops posting and wuf hands over $10k to a mysterious stranger on the dark web.

[Warpe]

Talking out of your ass with authority is still talking out of your ass.

[Lukie]

Talking out of your ass with authority is still talking out of your ass.

His views are so extreme that he is actually doing more harm than good for his cause.

If there's a surefire way to alienate moderates like me, it's blatant extremes (e.g. wufwugy, palin)

[IowaSkinsFan]

nvm I regret entering this thread

[Numbr2intheWorld]

When one person is rich, it's because other people are poor. Nobody has ever been able to deny this reality of economics

Let's say I own a huge tomato farm, and I have what people feel are the best Tomatoes in the entire world. People come from all over the United States to buy my Tomatoes during harvest (at only slightly above a normal tomato's price cause i'm an altruistic guy). I earn 1 million dollars from the harvest and a couple hundred thousand people have my tomatoes.

Each person who buys my tomatoes feels they are of equal or greater value than the money they exchanged for them because a) they were willing to purchase them and b) many were willing to even spend money and time coming to buy them. Therefore, every person who buys a tomato is actually gaining wealth when they use their money. Nobody has become poorer in this exchange, except maybe for me because I could have charged more for my tomatoes.

I think you're confusing who gains more cash in the exchange for who becomes wealthier.

[wufwugy]

Let's say I own a huge tomato farm, and I have what people feel are the best Tomatoes in the entire world. People come from all over the United States to buy my Tomatoes during harvest (at only slightly above a normal tomato's price cause i'm an altruistic guy). I earn 1 million dollars from the harvest and a couple hundred thousand people have my tomatoes.

Each person who buys my tomatoes feels they are of equal or greater value than the money they exchanged for them because a) they were willing to purchase them and b) many were willing to even spend money and time coming to buy them. Therefore, every person who buys a tomato is actually gaining wealth when they use their money. Nobody has become poorer in this exchange, except maybe for me because I could have charged more for my tomatoes.

I think you're confusing who gains more cash in the exchange for who becomes wealthier.

I'm glad you did this because it can perfectly illustrate the US economy of recent



Then we eat the tomatos, but you don't eat your money. You put some of your money back into personal consumption, some for your business investments, and save some. We (your customers) lost the wealth of the tomatos we bought from you, but we want more, and need more money for that. So we work for the money. Who pays us? You do, and people like you. Where did you get your money? From us, from our consumption, from the work, from the entire process of a churning economy

But what happens when a percentage of your income from tomatos sales is regularly put into savings? There is then less money to pay workers, and you end up selling fewer tomatos, and we all suffer. You saving personally was not a problem, but every other business owner is doing the same, and then we created a Tragedy of the Commons, where a sizable chunk of the economy is cleaved from that economy, and everybody else suffers. Saving for a rainy day is good, unless everybody saves for it, and then that rainy day comes due to too much saving.


When you look at the data over the last four decades, you see this is what has happened. Productivity as gone up and profits have gone up, but their share has been decreasingly in the middle class and poor. People had less money to buy stuff, but the game of cyclical consumption must go on. So we started in on credit cards. It was as good as money, and it kept the game going without executives having to share profits with their workers. But that started becoming a problem, because you can only accumulate so much debt, and bumped up a few bubbles in tech and housing, but those burst. The second one so badly that we couldn't so quickly re-bubble to get out of it like we did the tech one

Over the last four decades, policy has made the rich richer, and poor poorer. No matter the ideology, that's the fact, and that's the problem. There is a wealth of evidence in our history and in other modern nations about this kind of thing. The game of the economy is most fundamentally about how the wealth flows through what sectors. Stagnations and disruptions cause turmoil and destruction of wealth. Just follow the money. When it moves its way to the top, then a portion of that doesn't come back down, the economy is less healthy. It's supply and demand, cyclical consumption and production. We have been systemically dumping our economy's wealth onto only one side, then wonder why there is no balance

[Numbr2intheWorld]

I'm glad you did this because it can perfectly illustrate the US economy of recent



Then we eat the tomatos, but you don't eat your money. You put some of your money back into personal consumption, some for your business investments, and save some. We (your customers) lost the wealth of the tomatos we bought from you.

Under your world view the person who doesn't eat any food and is malnourished is wealthier than the person who eats food and stays healthy... Is that really true?

[wufwugy]

Under your world view the person who doesn't eat any food and is malnourished is wealthier than the person who eats food and stays healthy... Is that really true?

That's the opposite of what I'm saying. That the latter is more wealthy is a demonstration of the necessity of cyclical wealth distribution. I'm not advocating for an equity of all wealth throughout the system, but a balance. The lower rungs of an economy are necessary to keep the higher rungs operating well. The lack of investment we're seeing now is because the lower rungs are not able to participate in the economy the way they're supposed to. This is due to pretty much just two reasons 1) widening of wealth inequality, and 2) rising energy costs.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

We (your customers) lost the wealth of the tomatos we bought from you

...

[wufwugy]

...

You were telling me that I said burning wealth and no longer participating in the system is better than consuming wealth and further participating in the system.

Regardless, this kind of deep abstraction is mostly irrelevant to the real-world operation of the system

[IowaSkinsFan]

I'm glad you did this because it can perfectly illustrate the US economy of recent



Then we eat the tomatos, but you don't eat your money. You put some of your money back into personal consumption, some for your business investments, and save some. We (your customers) lost the wealth of the tomatos we bought from you, No, you lost money and gained a tomato. Wealth isn't just money. If you bought a bunch of cars and houses for money would you say you lost wealth? but we want more, and need more money for that. So we work for the money. Who pays us? You do, and people like you. Where did you get your money? From us, from our consumption, from the work, from the entire process of a churning economy. Ummmm what?

But what happens when a percentage of your income from tomatos sales is regularly put into savings? There is then less money to pay workers, and you end up selling fewer tomatos, and we all suffer. This is absurd logic. This isn't how the economy or any business works. The owner takes some amount of money from his profits to pay himself for his work. That doesn't harm anyone, unless you consider not giving charity as harm. You saving personally was not a problem, but every other business owner is doing the same, and then we created a Tragedy of the Commons, where a sizable chunk of the economy is cleaved from that economy, and everybody else suffers. Saving for a rainy day is good, unless everybody saves for it, and then that rainy day comes due to too much saving. So we should force everyone to spend and consume because that helps everyone right?


When you look at the data over the last four decades, you see this is what has happened. Productivity as gone up and profits have gone up, but their share has been decreasingly in the middle class and poor. People had less money to buy stuff, but the game of cyclical consumption must go on. So we started in on credit cards. It was as good as money, and it kept the game going without executives having to share profits with their workers. But that started becoming a problem, because you can only accumulate so much debt, and bumped up a few bubbles in tech and housing, but those burst. The second one so badly that we couldn't so quickly re-bubble to get out of it like we did the tech one There is no logic or evidence here you are just spouting out your opinions.

Over the last four decades, policy has made the rich richer, and poor poorer. You got this right. No matter the ideology, that's the fact, and that's the problem. There is a wealth of evidence in our history and in other modern nations about this kind of thing. The game of the economy is most fundamentally about how the wealth flows through what sectors. Stagnations and disruptions cause turmoil and destruction of wealth. Just follow the money. When it moves its way to the top, then a portion of that doesn't come back down, the economy is less healthy. It's supply and demand, cyclical consumption and production. We have been systemically dumping our economy's wealth onto only one side, then wonder why there is no balance

Rich are richer and poor are poorer because of regulations of the government.

[wufwugy]

No, you lost money and gained a tomato. Wealth isn't just money. If you bought a bunch of cars and houses for money would you say you lost wealth?

That was after I ate the tomato and you didn't burn the money I paid for it with

Ummmm what?

Supply and demand. That thing that has always been the backbone of economics, yet we've forgotten about due to the brainwash machines pumping full-force ideologies that only benefit the owners of those machines

This is absurd logic. This isn't how the economy or any business works. The owner takes some amount of money from his profits to pay himself for his work. That doesn't harm anyone, unless you consider not giving charity as harm.

My next sentence expounded. The problem is not in the taking of profit, but when too much profit is taken. Profits not returned the economy are an effective reduction of wealth from that economy. When amount of profits are reasonable, this is not a problem because they're used for further consumption and investment. But when profits are unreasonably high, the few who have them stop using them because of lack of stuff to use them on. And when they do use them, they mostly go towards sectors that don't recycle the wealth through the rest of the economy. The extreme growth of the finance industry and luxury items, and the huge amounts of money currently sitting in incredibly rich peoples' vaults doing nothing has proven this point. The reason all this over-profit taking is bad is because it hurts everybody else by siphoning wealth from the economy and thus from everybody else

So we should force everyone to spend and consume because that helps everyone right?

Well, if you want an economy, then yes it needs to be structurally designed on cyclical consumption and production. That's what economics is, after all.

This is all a matter of the super rich among us wanting to force an economy upon everybody else, but not themselves. They want us to give them our money for their goods, then they want to keep that money and not pay it back. They refuse to participate in an economy. This is the contrast between actual economics and the Randian Libertarian sort. The former is, well, actual economics, the latter is a moral system of arbitrary deservedness masquerading as economics

When running an economy, the wealth that gets distributed from consumer to producer MUST be then redistributed back from producer to consumer in order to repeat the cycle and keep the economy operating. What we have been seeing these last several decades is the producer not wanting to play his part, wanting to keep everything he deems worthy based on a dysfunctional moral ideology, and create a new rendition of nobility and serfdom

There is no logic or evidence here you are just spouting out your opinions.

I thought the last time we went at it, I did provide some evidences. The issues of wealth inequality and household debt accumulation are well documented. Bureau of Labor and such

[wufwugy]

Rich are richer and poor are poorer because of regulations of the government.

What regulations?

[d0zer]

Rich are richer and poor are poorer because of regulations of the government.

That seems like an absurd over-simplification of a complex issue.

You can cherry-pick examples of extreme regulation hurting the little guy just like you could cherry-pick examples of extreme deregulation allowing the big guy to screw over the little guy.

The fact is that we need regulation of some form, and we also need taxes. The extent of each is up for debate, but laisse-faire economic libertarianism taken to an extreme allows for things like the american housing bubble crash to occur when groupthink sets into the minds of the "great" fiscal minds of wall street. Canada for example has much stricter lending policies and its housing market was relatively unscathed.

I know there are some bullshit regulations out there, and they should be dealt with, but I also don't believe we can throw the baby out with the bathwater and have wild-west economics either.

[a500lbgorilla]

Whose ass is talking?

[Warpe]

Hi, I'm wufwugy.

[Jack Sawyer]

14 Ways a 90 Percent Top Tax Rate Fixes Our Economy and Our Country | OurFuture.org


Quoting my fave

14) Finally, for good measure, increasing top tax rates will cause those affected to work harder to make up the difference. The Ayn Randians claim the very rich are the “producers” and all the rest of us are just parasites and slackers who feed off their “work.” So it will be very good for our economy to get them working harder by taxing them at 90%! You may have heard about those 25 hedge fund managers who brought in an average of $1 billion each last year – an amount that would have paid for 658,000 teachers* -- while the rest of the country suffered through a terrible economy. If we had a top tax rate of 90% they would “only” take home $100 million or so each – in a single year. And we could have 658,000 more teachers. So it’s a win-win.

Read "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis. It illustrates exactly how this went down, for those who had no idea (and still don't) about what happened and how.

[Smith]

‪World Collapse Explained in 3 Minutes‬‏ - YouTube

[Lukie]

I think my posts come off easier to read if one would define rich-poor as more of a spectrum, since most people fall somewhere between the extremes. Or the ever-arbitrary continuum of successful-not successful.

To answer your question somewhat directly, it depends on how you define 'poor'. If by poor you mean homeless, scraping to get by and live-- I don't know any. If we broaden the definition to include those that get by under the poverty line, have no real ambition in life and drink a 12 pack a night (sorry to bust out possible stereotypes etc. but it's not so far removed from reality), I'd say I know several.

[Lukie]

Being frank about it, the real laws should be something along the lines of any income 5x above median is taxed at 100%

Wuf I am honestly trying to wrap my head around this idea. Can you help explain a) how this is fair and b) why this would result in a net positive for society?

Putting myself (and just about anyone else that I know of) in a situation where we are making, >250k, the only real logical thing to do then from a utility standpoint would be to do the least amount of work with the least amount of effort possible while still making 250k. Anything after that effectively would get split up 300,000,000 ways (over simplified, of course), essentially making it worthless.

[Jack Sawyer]

Wuf I am honestly trying to wrap my head around this idea. Can you help explain a) how this is fair and b) why this would result in a net positive for society?

Putting myself (and just about anyone else that I know of) in a situation where we are making, >250k, the only real logical thing to do then from a utility standpoint would be to do the least amount of work with the least amount of effort possible while still making 250k. Anything after that effectively would get split up 300,000,000 ways (over simplified, of course), essentially making it worthless.

Lukie, I linked to a nice page on the internet which gives not 1, but 14 reasons why its a great thing. Here it is again for your convenience.

14 Ways a 90 Percent Top Tax Rate Fixes Our Economy and Our Country | OurFuture.org


I think a correct analogy would be the value of tournament poker chips. As you progress on the leaderboard, the value of each additional chip (to you) decreases. The more chips you have, the less the chance of getting wiped out in a single hand/bad beat/dumb play. As you get short stacked, the value of each additional chip (once again, to you), increases dramatically as a single blind can knock you out.

There comes a point in life which, through hard work and dedication, you have amassed a large enough sum of money to live comfortably for the rest of your life. Let's say you have an income of 1 million dollars on a yearly basis. Would this literally not be enough to like, party like a madman, travel the globe, buy decent houses and cars, escorts & bitches galore, booze, coke and all the other things you would spend money on in life?

High income taxes incentivize you to reinvest the money back into the economy. Once you invest it, it is no longer income, therefore no longer taxed as income. And you can still have that Ferrari you always wanted. Win/win however you see it.

Oh, and the concept of Trickle Down Economics is a particularly perverse fairy tale. Think pedo bear reads Goldilocks to a kindergarten audience.

Tweo articles on the subject, one from 8 years ago, and one from now.
Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work | United for a Fair Economy
Warren Buffett: Trickle Down Economics Doesn't Work - Blog For Arizona

[Sasquach991]

I think a correct analogy would be the value of tournament poker chips. As you progress on the leaderboard, the value of each additional chip (to you) decreases. The more chips you have, the less the chance of getting wiped out in a single hand/bad beat/dumb play. As you get short stacked, the value of each additional chip (once again, to you), increases dramatically as a single blind can knock you out.

But what if you decide that you are going to sit out of the tournament for a while and just donate your blinds. Then the tournament director decides you are being greedy and forces you to play more hands and actually bet some of your chips. If you refuse then he takes 20% of your chips and divides them between the short stacks. Will you play in this type of tournament again?

[Jack Sawyer]

But what if you decide that you are going to sit out of the tournament for a while and just donate your blinds. Then the tournament director decides you are being greedy and forces you to play more hands and actually bet some of your chips. If you refuse then he takes 20% of your chips and divides them between the short stacks. Will you play in this type of tournament again?

In sticking with the poker tournament analogy, the blinds always keep going up. Assuming your proposition to sit out, there inevitably comes a point where the blinds are so high that you are still blinded out.

It's in the game already and the tournament director doesn't have to say anything about it. And, more importantly, it is going to happen in a realistic amount of time that it actually incentivizes you to either keep playing or lose.

Real life does not work that way. The proverbial blinds are either nonexistent or so low that if you are ever given the opportunity to hoard in an all-you-can-eat fashion you will then be able to actually sit out for GENERATIONS without ever having to re-input one dime back into the game (once you pay whatever tax you had to pay on that particular income, that is). Therein lies the problem.


@Rilla, with dressing obv.!

[wufwugy]

Wuf I am honestly trying to wrap my head around this idea. Can you help explain a) how this is fair and b) why this would result in a net positive for society?

Putting myself (and just about anyone else that I know of) in a situation where we are making, >250k, the only real logical thing to do then from a utility standpoint would be to do the least amount of work with the least amount of effort possible while still making 250k. Anything after that effectively would get split up 300,000,000 ways (over simplified, of course), essentially making it worthless.

I don't know what the best numbers are, but the base is in developing a system where one person's worth doesn't exceed a particular percentage of median would be probably the best realistic way of doing it. We already have very strong evidence for this kind thing anyways in that income of the wealthy has been dramatically increasing relative to median, yet the health of the society has gone down.

Other necessary things to look at include how there's generally a finite amount of stuff humans need or want, diminishing returns after a certain point, and that social health has been largely shown to be a product of equality levels not absolute wealth levels i.e. poor people with poor neighbors are happier than poor people with rich neighbors. Another thing that shows just how incredibly dependent on the social humans are is that some studies have been showing that financial rewards don't produce better results from employees, but in fact often make worse results. We're so deeply human that money is more of an afterthought to the work and interactions themselves

But the point is egalitarianism. Which is partially a foreign concept to humans. Only partially. Our biology was originally about organism survival of the fittest (which our economy reflects quite well), but animals and human specific evolution has changed it a lot of it from "survival of the fittest organism" to "survival of the fittest society". In some ways, we're still the isolated organisms fighting everything, but in most ways that has changed into being members of a social group. This is even why concepts like friends and family are so strong among humans. Imagine what a tiger would think about the idea of "friends"

I'm saying all this to lay the point that the goal should be striving towards the benefit of the society, and that alone is why clipping the capacity for too much wealth accumulation is beneficial to humanity.


Anyways, the kind of thing that would happen with a similar paradigm to what I propose is that median incomes go up by a lot (and thus top bracket goes up). Opportunity, that thing that libertarians and conservatives and capitalists say they care so much about, would SKYROCKET, and community and small business would return. The social model would be much more family and friend oriented, which isn't too much different than how it used to be before top earners got enormous with multinational corporations and such, and if you made it big, there would still be ample room for others to copy you, and in effect you would have copied somebody else.

Besides, they say the way to find your career is to find what you love. Well, if that's true then you're not going to suddenly stop loving what you do if it's not making you richer. In fact, there's a wealth of evidence that the best things come without monetary incentive. Most great artists and scientists did it for the love, not the money. They weren't babies like megacorp CEOs whining and lying about how if they don't get everything they want they'll stop creating jobs

Regardless of what it takes, my proposal is for a system that provides for people. In economics, this means that there can't be that much wealth inequality. As to how much, I dunno

To make sure to answer your question: the top bracket would be designed to be where the reasonable top level of wealth is. If this means after you achieve that wealth you give somebody else your job, sit back and live the good life and receive royalties, doesn't sound like a bad thing at all. Our problem is that we're just redefining royalty and serfdom with our system. Private jet richness is simply too rich. Our economy doesn't have enough wealth in it to provide private jets for some without really hurting a lot of others

[wufwugy]

You explained it well with the multiverse, a500lbitch.

I'd like to also mention, why is being very ambitious an innately good thing? That's actually a rare quality. I believe we have been so brainwashed by the hugely ambitious among us running the society, that we see super successful people as normal and normal people as slackers. Criminals are a great example of this kind of thing. We think of criminals as bad people, but they're not, they're normal people who couldn't fit in this world. Chronic criminality isn't even a thing in tribalism, in the kind of society we evolved for.

I personally am not an ambitious person. I'm very kind, pretty cleaver, and a hard worker, but I don't want to do what it takes to make a lot of money in this world. I have no ambition for greatness, I just want to live and die with my family and friends. And that's how it's supposed to be. But in this world, if you're like that, you're cattle

That's actually been an enormously destructive thing for me. The reality that I live in a world that values me based on my ability to chase money, yet I don't want to chase money, compounded by the fact that everybody else lives in this same world, and so the entire thing is functional dysfunction, and then people make movies called Crash where the theme is that society's structure is so fucked up that in order to be human you have suffer extremism

[Lukie]

What you do with your time and energy is up to you. I wholeheartedly respect your opinion on that.

[bikes]

i can't come up with a reply that doesn't make me sound like an entitled selfish asshole so i'm just gonna stop trying.

[drmcboy]

wufindows 8:

the OS I made in a weekend working here and there when the UFC wasn't on

[BankItDrew]

‪Obama Speech August 8, 2011‬‏ - YouTube

[CoccoBill]

Please god no island examples.

[Galapogos]

Fun thread to watch smarter people have a discussion. Posting the following as soon as the brothers entered the discussion was still the best part though.

Please god no island examples.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Fun thread to watch smarter people have a discussion. Posting the following as soon as the brothers entered the discussion was still the best part though.

I lol'd at that too

[BennyLaRue]

We can use the tomatoes to create batteries and then I'll be like, what energy crisis?

No wait, that's potatoes. Please continue.

[wufwugy]

I always thought it was BennyLaRuskie, not BennyLaReilly

[IowaSkinsFan]

I think where a lot of people get turned off by a free market argument is that they think this idea means that businessmen are good people with good intentions. Some are, some aren't. Some do very evil things that harm others. I don't like a lot of businessmen, but these businessmen can only harm you when the government gives them the power to.

[baudib]

Isn't the problem that the tomato farmer saved $500K after outsourcing all the farming jobs to India, hired a tomato consultant for $200K, then went under when the new smart phone apps allowed people to grow tomatoes for free?

[wufwugy]

Isn't the problem that the tomato farmer saved $500K after outsourcing all the farming jobs to India, hired a tomato consultant for $200K, then went under when the new smart phone apps allowed people to grow tomatoes for free?

That sort of thing is a problem in some ways, but not other ways. And it's not representative of aggregate. On the macro level, there are more profits than ever before, they just don't return to the middle class like they use to.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Isn't the problem that the tomato farmer saved $500K after outsourcing all the farming jobs to India, hired a tomato consultant for $200K, then went under when the new smart phone apps allowed people to grow tomatoes for free?

Explain why any of these things are bad...

[baudib]

Explain why any of these things are bad...

I was mostly being facetious because I think the tomato farm analogy is too simplistic but for the bad:

1. you lose your farm
2. efficiency increases (theoretically) but fewer people have jobs

I suppose more people getting cheaper, perhaps better tomatoes is a possible
(although not certain) result as well

[Numbr2intheWorld]

1. you lose your farm
Who cares if I lose my farm I'm a greedy asshole.

2. efficiency increases (theoretically) but fewer people have jobs.
Efficieny increases yes (I don't get how this is a theory... if I can spend less to do the same thats textbook efficiency increase). If you're saying fewer people have jobs in the tomato industry becuase of this, you would be right. I hope you're not saying that people in the US would have less jobs overall because that's total nonsense.

I suppose more people getting cheaper, perhaps better tomatoes is a possible
(although not certain) result as well
So we should protect my farm so people get shittier, more expensive tomatoes?

The fact that you think having a free tomato cloning iphone app would be a "problem" shows an incredible lack of understanding of basic economics.

[CoccoBill]

2. efficiency increases (theoretically) but fewer people have jobs.
Efficieny increases yes (I don't get how this is a theory... if I can spend less to do the same thats textbook efficiency increase). If you're saying fewer people have jobs in the tomato industry becuase of this, you would be right. I hope you're not saying that people in the US would have less jobs overall because that's total nonsense.

From where would the extra jobs elsewhere in the US arise to counteract the decrease? The efficiency would run through all industries.

[baudib]

The fact that you think having a free tomato cloning iphone app would be a "problem" shows an incredible lack of understanding of basic economics.

I actually agree with you more than wuf (particularly on gov't regulation) but I really need to be enlightened -- your reasoning makes no sense to me.

I'm pretty sure if farming tomatoes is your livelihood and you go out of business, that's not a net positive for you.

Cutting labor and/or production costs doesn't guarantee greater long-term profits if your outsourced farmers no longer produce the world's greatest tomatoes.

How are no jobs lost in the U.S. if the farming jobs go to India?

[Warpe]

To semi-wade into this, the right wing libertarian argument that all government regulation is bad is bogus. To use the Canadian mortgage and banking sector as an example, Canada suffered far less and rode out/is riding out the recession far, far better than the USA precisely because our mortgage lenders/banks are more tightly regulated. It's a structural difference that prevented our banks from taking the massive risks with other people's money that the US financial sector did, resulting in the US housing bubble and the sub-prime mortgage debacle. And, yes, we still have our AAA credit rating.

Read some Matt Tiabbi Rolling Stone Politics | Taibblog | Matt Taibbi on Politics and the Economy if you really want to get into the weeds on this.

Also:

‪Quantitative Easing Explained‬‏ - YouTube

and...

It's the Economy, Dummkopf! | Business | Vanity Fair

[BennyLaRue]

To semi-wade into this, the right wing libertarian argument that all government regulation is bad is bogus. To use the Canadian mortgage and banking sector as an example,

HEY! We were told to lay low. We don't need them invading in order to mine our credit rating.

[IowaSkinsFan]

To semi-wade into this, the right wing libertarian argument that all government regulation is bad is bogus. To use the Canadian mortgage and banking sector as an example, Canada suffered far less and rode out/is riding out the recession far, far better than the USA precisely because our mortgage lenders/banks are more tightly regulated. It's a structural difference that prevented our banks from taking the massive risks with other people's money that the US financial sector did, resulting in the US housing bubble and the sub-prime mortgage debacle. And, yes, we still have our AAA credit rating.

Read some Matt Tiabbi Rolling Stone Politics | Taibblog | Matt Taibbi on Politics and the Economy if you really want to get into the weeds on this.

Also:

‪Quantitative Easing Explained‬‏ - YouTube

and...

It's the Economy, Dummkopf! | Business | Vanity Fair

I believe this point was brought up before. Certainly canandian regulations were better than US regulations. But its just that, the US mortgage regulations led to bad lending. What would be interesting to see is if canandian banks tried to lend as loosely as possible or were actually lending tighter than the regulatory standards. If it was the latter, the regulation did nothing.

CA regs better than US regs does not mean CA refs better than no regs

[CoccoBill]

What would be interesting to see is if canandian banks tried to lend as loosely as possible or were actually lending tighter than the regulatory standards. If it was the latter, the regulation did nothing.

If lending tighter (with smaller risk) demonstrably leads to a better outcome, isn't regulation that enforces that behaviour always good? What any individual banks chose to do is circumstantial and may have had nothing to do with regulation.

[Warpe]

Must watch TV: msnbc.com Video Player

[Warpe]

Krugman: Op-Ed Columnist - Good and Boring - NYTimes.com

[eugmac]

How do you guys feel about this guy's position on health care reform?
Health Reform Without a Public Plan: The German Model - NYTimes.com

[wufwugy]

How do you guys feel about this guy's position on health care reform?
Health Reform Without a Public Plan: The German Model - NYTimes.com

Yeah I hopped off the wagon for the necessity of a public option after I learned Germany doesn't have one, yet their system is as good as any

Germany may actually be the best nation on the planet to copy. I mean they beat the shit out of everybody in high-end manufacturing and the last time I checked a top-20 best cities in the world list, five or six of them were in Germany

[Sprayed]

I thought that the reason why we are in this mess is because they deregulated everything and that is why banks were giving crazy loans and bogus AAA ratings? Isn't that what the documentary Inside Job was about? What am I missing?

[wufwugy]

I thought that the reason why we are in this mess is because they deregulated everything and that is why banks were giving crazy loans and bogus AAA ratings? Isn't that what the documentary Inside Job was about? What am I missing?

That was the bubble and the bursting of the bubble. I've been referring to the deeper underlying problem representative of why structural unemployment is so high and that the economy is not recovering. If it was all just the bubble, we would be growing rapidly right now like we always did in the past. We're not making any headway in recovery due to a dysfunctional distribution of wealth

[IowaSkinsFan]

I thought that the reason why we are in this mess is because they deregulated everything and that is why banks were giving crazy loans and bogus AAA ratings? Isn't that what the documentary Inside Job was about? What am I missing?

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and The CRA amendment of 1995. All these actively encouraged banks to give out risky mortgages. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that the banks were actually trying to intertwine themselves in the economy as much as possible so if they failed they would know the government would bail them out.

[wufwugy]

A good run (bubble) has disguised the longterm losing play

This started long before Bush, and before Clinton even. The economy has appeared healthy for most of the last couple decades because we've spent most of it in bubbles. Tech crashed, and as we went back to normal, unemployment was skyrocketing, but then we bubbled housing in response, yet that crashed, and the process of merely going back to normal pricing has shown that the economy is structurally high unemployment

As to the tomato thing, for the most part, increased productivity means decreased jobs. This can be mitigated if there were laws to determine the increase in productivity to be shared. The top earners of the last three decades have made more money than the entire history of the economy combined. The problem is that insane increase in productivity and profits is not being shared with the workers. Ironically, everybody tries to teach their kids the importance of sharing, but when it comes to modern royalty, sharing is just "punishing success"

[IowaSkinsFan]

A good run (bubble) has disguised the longterm losing play

This started long before Bush, and before Clinton even. The economy has appeared healthy for most of the last couple decades because we've spent most of it in bubbles. Tech crashed, and as we went back to normal, unemployment was skyrocketing, but then we bubbled housing in response, yet that crashed, Completely agree. Government tries to prop up the economy but it fails and the process of merely going back to normal pricing has shown that the economy is structurally high unemployment The question is why. The answer is because people aren't providing enough jobs. And why is that? Because government hinders the ability of people to run a profitable business. The more profitable an industry is the more jobs it can provide


As to the tomato thing, for the most part, increased productivity means decreased jobs. This can be mitigated if there were laws to determine the increase in productivity to be shared. The top earners of the last three decades have made more money than the entire history of the economy combined. The problem is that insane increase in productivity and profits is not being shared with the workers. Ironically, everybody tries to teach their kids the importance of sharing, but when it comes to modern royalty, sharing is just "punishing success"

If profits are not being shared with workers, start your own business and pay the workers twice as much as the industry standard to attract the best ones. You'll have a huge competitive advantage.

A lot of the reason workers aren't paid very well is because the supply of jobs is low and the demand is high. Most people are willing to take a low salary because that's their only option. Taxes are a huge reason why job supply is so low.

[BennyLaRue]

Yes, I made a joke out of an 11 year old problem. It's not like I keep a staff here.

[Sprayed]

I watched 60 minutes tonight and one of their stories made me think of this thread. Basically, it was about how companies have moved their HQs offshore in order to avoid our 35% tax. They're moving to Ireland or Switzerland for like 16% tax. A large portion of top companies are or have moved more than just their HQ and are now manufacturing in other countries. That is why there are no jobs in the US.

They spoke with Cisco's CEO and he stated that it's just good business. He pretty much said that why would companies stay in the US at 35%? They're not going to stay just because they are good Americans. They can't compete if they did stay. He suggested that the US reduce the tax and then billions and trillions of dollars would come back to the US.

[wufwugy]

I watched 60 minutes tonight and one of their stories made me think of this thread. Basically, it was about how companies have moved their HQs offshore in order to avoid our 35% tax. They're moving to Ireland or Switzerland for like 16% tax. A large portion of top companies are or have moved more than just their HQ and are now manufacturing in other countries. That is why there are no jobs in the US.

They spoke with Cisco's CEO and he stated that it's just good business. He pretty much said that why would companies stay in the US at 35%? They're not going to stay just because they are good Americans. They can't compete if they did stay. He suggested that the US reduce the tax and then billions and trillions of dollars would come back to the US.

That's partially a lie since the majority of off-shoring has nothing to do with taxation, but with ability to pay low wages and avoid health and safety regulations

Multinational corporations do create a lot of jobs. A lot of shitty low-paying jobs in other countries. And the rationale of them needing more money is bollocks simply given history of being successful with less money at the top

[mbiz]

yesss an excuse for me to break out this article

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/op...h.html?_r=3&hp

by warren buffett

[Sasquach991]

Lesson in economics:
Tom and Bob decided to go into the watermelon business. They bought a truck and would drive across the Mexican border and buy watermelons for $1 each and come back across the border and sell them for $1 each. At the end of the year Bob told Tom they weren't making any money. Tom replied, "I know what the problem is. We need to buy a bigger truck."

[BennyLaRue]

Lesson in economics:
Tom and Bob decided to go into the watermelon business. They bought a truck and would drive across the Mexican border and buy watermelons for $1 each and come back across the border and sell them for $1 each. At the end of the year Bob told Tom they weren't making any money. Tom replied, "I know what the problem is. We need to buy a bigger truck."

Wat?

[bigred]

yesss an excuse for me to be retarded

fyp

[mbiz]

fyp

feel free to elaborate. does it make you feel pretty cool being an asshole?