3 ms·

"Competitiveness" means nothing when only a fraction of the population prosper from those gains. On paper, America is significantly richer than it was in the 80

"Competitiveness" means nothing when only a fraction of the population prosper from those gains. On paper, America is significantly richer than it was in the 80's, yet incomes for the majority have been flat, social mobility has decreased, worker leverage has nearly disappeared, and quality of life for those outside of the coastal regions has gone down. There's no reason to push for exponential growth any further until we can correct income and wealth inequality a bit.

malandrew 9y ago
It's better that a fraction of the population prosper that the can act philanthropically or that rest of the country can tax. The alternative is a fraction of the population of another country prosper over which we have no power to tax and whose philanthropy likely won't benefit Americans. The former gives you options, the latter affords you none.
- sooheon 9y ago
  Is this not FUD? Why do you assume that Chinese billionaires are any less philanthropic than US ones? America has the richest people on Earth currently, how successfully are you taxing them to take care of your needy? This is reminiscent of the prisoner's dilemma in a way. All the rich of all the countries in the world will make the same claims: "look, we don't want to fall behind big scary China or Russia do we? So cut me some slack on taxes and regulation, let's all pitch in to bail me out when I fail (just a few billion here and there--I'm too big to fail, remember?), and we'll see about redistribution once we've won the war. I promise to remember you all." A country that follows this path ends up like Korea, selling its soul to Samsung.
  - malandrew 9y ago
    I'm not assuming they are less philanthropic. I'm assuming that their philanthropy will be skewed towards benefiting Chinese people the same way the philanthropy of American billionaires and millionaires is skewed towards benefiting American citizens. You're reading malice into a statement where there is simply economic self-interest since I live in America. I don't care if there is economic unrest in China nearly as much as economic unrest in America. Do I wish economic unrest in China? No, of course not. But if I had to choose between economic unrest overseas or in my own backyard, overseas it is. I only use China as the example here because they are the only ones actually executing an economic game plan that is competitive with taking economic gains from America and Americans.
- ryandrake 9y ago
  Relying on philanthropy is a terrible way to provide for the public good. Instead of a democratically elected body, accountable to the electorate, you leave it to a handful of rich people (who answer to nobody) to choose who benefits.
  - malandrew 9y ago
    Explain to me why you selectively chose to ignore the fact that I also mentioned taxation. Both philanthropy and taxation are important.
- ionised 9y ago
  > t's better that a fraction of the population prosper that the can act philanthropically That is obscenely optimistic and almost Randian.
  - malandrew 9y ago
    Go ahead and also quote the rest of that sentence that ends with "or that rest of the country can tax"

malandrew 9y ago

It's better that a fraction of the population prosper that the can act philanthropically or that rest of the country can tax. The alternative is a fraction of the population of another country prosper over which we have no power to tax and whose philanthropy likely won't benefit Americans. The former gives you options, the latter affords you none.

sooheon 9y ago
Is this not FUD? Why do you assume that Chinese billionaires are any less philanthropic than US ones? America has the richest people on Earth currently, how successfully are you taxing them to take care of your needy? This is reminiscent of the prisoner's dilemma in a way. All the rich of all the countries in the world will make the same claims: "look, we don't want to fall behind big scary China or Russia do we? So cut me some slack on taxes and regulation, let's all pitch in to bail me out when I fail (just a few billion here and there--I'm too big to fail, remember?), and we'll see about redistribution once we've won the war. I promise to remember you all." A country that follows this path ends up like Korea, selling its soul to Samsung.
- malandrew 9y ago
  I'm not assuming they are less philanthropic. I'm assuming that their philanthropy will be skewed towards benefiting Chinese people the same way the philanthropy of American billionaires and millionaires is skewed towards benefiting American citizens. You're reading malice into a statement where there is simply economic self-interest since I live in America. I don't care if there is economic unrest in China nearly as much as economic unrest in America. Do I wish economic unrest in China? No, of course not. But if I had to choose between economic unrest overseas or in my own backyard, overseas it is. I only use China as the example here because they are the only ones actually executing an economic game plan that is competitive with taking economic gains from America and Americans.
ryandrake 9y ago
Relying on philanthropy is a terrible way to provide for the public good. Instead of a democratically elected body, accountable to the electorate, you leave it to a handful of rich people (who answer to nobody) to choose who benefits.
- malandrew 9y ago
  Explain to me why you selectively chose to ignore the fact that I also mentioned taxation. Both philanthropy and taxation are important.
ionised 9y ago
> t's better that a fraction of the population prosper that the can act philanthropically That is obscenely optimistic and almost Randian.
- malandrew 9y ago
  Go ahead and also quote the rest of that sentence that ends with "or that rest of the country can tax"