4 ms·

What makes you think the government would be better at job creation through confiscating more capital than individuals who created the wealth redistributing it

What makes you think the government would be better at job creation through confiscating more capital than individuals who created the wealth redistributing it through investments and purchases? Every summer home or car bought puts people to work as well, its not like the money disappears.

acidburnNSA 9y ago
I'm not sure that tasking the government with job creation is a good solution. There are many kinds of wealth redistribution that people are talking about these days and I'm only pointing out that it may be necessary. What fraction of wealth are the richest among us spending and investing rather than saving? Yes Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are saving millions of lives, and yes we have Facebook now. But what should we tell Marta Ramos? Enjoy the $0.50 raise after all that hard work! If the wealth continues the trend to concentrate at the top then there will be an increasingly large and unhappy group of people who will elect increasingly non-mainstream politicians who promise to help them, eventually leading to who knows what kind of unpleasantries for all.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  > What fraction of wealth are the richest among us spending and investing rather than saving? 100%. Nobody has a Scrooge McDuck cash vault. Bank deposits are also spent, in the form of depositor's money being loaned out by the bank.
  - acidburnNSA 9y ago
    I should said: "Investing in things that help society." Arguably, the bit of money in banks that gets loaned out as mortgages and then repackaged and sold off as mortgage-backed securities which then get bet on with even more leverage as collateralized debt obligations is helping the financial industry middle-men who cash out on the fees a lot. Obviously the classic depositing/loaning service of banks is essential for progress. But hundreds of billions of those deposits are going to making the rich richer. It would be nice if we could come up with a way to provide capital to people who need it while also maintaining a strong middle class. I don't know how to do this but it's worth talking about. What I really want to know is how much of people's savings (passively invested in banks and things like index funds) is going to fund things like the new Facebook vs. how much is not really doing that much.
    - WalterBright 9y ago
      > Investing in things that help society. People tend to invest in things with a high rate of return. That high rate signals it is doing things that people want done and are willing to pay for. I.e. it helps society. > a way to provide capital to people who need it That's exactly what banks do. My bank branch is plastered with posters trying to sell a loan to everyone who walks in. > passively invested in banks and things like index funds If you're arguing those are not productive investments, I don't think that's very defensible. > how much is not really doing that much. If you're arguing that rich people tend to invest in low performing investments, that doesn't make much pragmatic sense. People get rich by investing in highly performing investments, not dogs.
      - acidburnNSA 9y ago
        Have you seen The Big Short? It's on Netflix and is pretty good. The CDO manager in it claims that society must value what he does very much because he has an extraordinary net worth [1]. I'm trying to express the point expressed in that scene. You can get very rich and have high net worth while actively hurting most people. Things with high rates of return may be good investments but they may also be massive frauds, as we all learned in 2007. Banks want people to take out loans because they collect fees and offload the risk via MBS. They give people loans who can't afford them and that's not good for anyone, but then they know they'll get bailed out again if something goes south. None of this is sustainable, healthy, or productive. [1] https://youtu.be/A25EUhZGBws?t=331 https://youtu.be/A25EUhZGBws?t=331
        WalterBright 9y ago
        Government bailouts are not free market, and do indeed cause distortion and mis-allocation of investments. That's not a good argument for raising taxes, though.
- mathiasben 9y ago
  it's already happened; trump, al-right, etc.. there used to be all these middle class jobs that kept everyone occupied, now without that we have lots of anger and automatic weapons.
mathiasben 9y ago
but that isn't going to produce broad based results. for every vacation home and extra car purchased there's millions being underutilized. the tax policy enacted in 1954 saw to it that those funds were put to good use or taxed aggressively.
cakedoggie 9y ago
Because we know what the alternative is, it is happening now.

acidburnNSA 9y ago

I'm not sure that tasking the government with job creation is a good solution. There are many kinds of wealth redistribution that people are talking about these days and I'm only pointing out that it may be necessary. What fraction of wealth are the richest among us spending and investing rather than saving? Yes Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are saving millions of lives, and yes we have Facebook now. But what should we tell Marta Ramos? Enjoy the $0.50 raise after all that hard work! If the wealth continues the trend to concentrate at the top then there will be an increasingly large and unhappy group of people who will elect increasingly non-mainstream politicians who promise to help them, eventually leading to who knows what kind of unpleasantries for all.

WalterBright 9y ago
> What fraction of wealth are the richest among us spending and investing rather than saving? 100%. Nobody has a Scrooge McDuck cash vault. Bank deposits are also spent, in the form of depositor's money being loaned out by the bank.
- acidburnNSA 9y ago
  I should said: "Investing in things that help society." Arguably, the bit of money in banks that gets loaned out as mortgages and then repackaged and sold off as mortgage-backed securities which then get bet on with even more leverage as collateralized debt obligations is helping the financial industry middle-men who cash out on the fees a lot. Obviously the classic depositing/loaning service of banks is essential for progress. But hundreds of billions of those deposits are going to making the rich richer. It would be nice if we could come up with a way to provide capital to people who need it while also maintaining a strong middle class. I don't know how to do this but it's worth talking about. What I really want to know is how much of people's savings (passively invested in banks and things like index funds) is going to fund things like the new Facebook vs. how much is not really doing that much.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    > Investing in things that help society. People tend to invest in things with a high rate of return. That high rate signals it is doing things that people want done and are willing to pay for. I.e. it helps society. > a way to provide capital to people who need it That's exactly what banks do. My bank branch is plastered with posters trying to sell a loan to everyone who walks in. > passively invested in banks and things like index funds If you're arguing those are not productive investments, I don't think that's very defensible. > how much is not really doing that much. If you're arguing that rich people tend to invest in low performing investments, that doesn't make much pragmatic sense. People get rich by investing in highly performing investments, not dogs.
    - acidburnNSA 9y ago
      Have you seen The Big Short? It's on Netflix and is pretty good. The CDO manager in it claims that society must value what he does very much because he has an extraordinary net worth [1]. I'm trying to express the point expressed in that scene. You can get very rich and have high net worth while actively hurting most people. Things with high rates of return may be good investments but they may also be massive frauds, as we all learned in 2007. Banks want people to take out loans because they collect fees and offload the risk via MBS. They give people loans who can't afford them and that's not good for anyone, but then they know they'll get bailed out again if something goes south. None of this is sustainable, healthy, or productive. [1] https://youtu.be/A25EUhZGBws?t=331 https://youtu.be/A25EUhZGBws?t=331
      - WalterBright 9y ago
        Government bailouts are not free market, and do indeed cause distortion and mis-allocation of investments. That's not a good argument for raising taxes, though.
mathiasben 9y ago
it's already happened; trump, al-right, etc.. there used to be all these middle class jobs that kept everyone occupied, now without that we have lots of anger and automatic weapons.

mathiasben 9y ago

but that isn't going to produce broad based results. for every vacation home and extra car purchased there's millions being underutilized. the tax policy enacted in 1954 saw to it that those funds were put to good use or taxed aggressively.

cakedoggie 9y ago

Because we know what the alternative is, it is happening now.