3 ms·

INHO we should be looking much more at consumption and a lot less at income or (worst of all) assets. In what way does it matter that Warren Buffet has X times

INHO we should be looking much more at consumption and a lot less at income or (worst of all) assets. In what way does it matter that Warren Buffet has X times my income and Y times my assets, if he drives the same kind of car and lives in about the same kind of house? It means he has more power than me in a capitalistic system, sure. But is that really so wrong or unfair? I think it’s actually kind of a good thing: most people would just consume like crazy and ruin the planet if they came into that kind of money...

jimbokun 7y ago
> INHO we should be looking much more at consumption and a lot less at income or (worst of all) assets. At what age can you retire? Can you afford education for yourself and your children? Can you afford the home in the district with the good schools? How much debt will you and your children be in after finishing college? What are the odds you go bankrupt from a medical incident, even with "insurance"? "Consumption" of cars, electronics, restaurant meals, etc. are not the really significant economic expenditures in a persons life. It's those big items that create debt slaves and crippling economic anxiety.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  > Can you afford the home in the district with the good schools? Let me pick on that one in particular. Let's suppose that we redistributed all the assets in the country evenly (never mind how). Doing so did not increase the number of homes in districts with good schools. So not everyone can have them, no matter how much money everyone has. Who's going to get those houses? Not everyone who has school-aged kids. Or take college. Redistribute all the money, and it won't change the number of college classrooms. Who's going to get to go? Not everyone. Same with beach houses. There are more people who want beach houses than there are beach houses. Redistribute all assets evenly, and it may change who has the beach houses, but it won't change the fact that more people want them than have them. If everyone had the same amount of money, these things would still be allocated on the basis of who's willing to pay the most for them - that is, who's willing to give up the most other things in order to get that thing. Remove money entirely, and these things will still be allocated somehow - by who gets luckiest in the lottery, or who has the best political connections, for example. There is no system that magically makes there be as many beach houses as there are people who want them. So there will always be the problem of how scarce resources are allocated.
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > If everyone had the same amount of money, these things would still be allocated on the basis of who's willing to pay the most for them - that is, who's willing to give up the most other things in order to get that thing. Though that's arguably a better situation from the equality perspective. Right now we have people who are allocated everything they want and others who are allocated none of what they need. Taking redistribution to a monomaniacal extreme is probably a bad idea for well understood reasons, but that doesn't mean that redistribution doesn't have its place.
- harryh 7y ago
  Can you afford education for yourself and your children? Education is counted in measures of consumption. Can you afford the home in the district with the good schools? Housing is counted in measures of consumption. How much debt will you and your children be in after finishing college? To the extent that this debt reduces one's ability to purchase other things, it's counted in measures of consumption.
  - jimbokun 7y ago
    That was my point...?
- pyuser583 7y ago
  My European and Canadian relatives can answer all those questions as: Yes, yes, none, and none. All of those relatives come from countries with massive inequality (compared to mid 20th century), no wealth taxes, and paltry inheritance taxes. Don’t confuse America’s exceptional dysfunction with a failure of capitalism.
CharlesColeman 7y ago
> It means [a billionaire] has more power than me in a capitalistic system, sure. But is that really so wrong or unfair? Where does that leave democracy? > I think it’s actually kind of a good thing: most people would just consume like crazy and ruin the planet if they came into that kind of money... That bears a striking resemblance to some anti-democratic rhetoric I've seen. For instance, one of the rationales the CCP gives for the lack of multi-party democracy in China is that the Chinese people would use their political power irresponsibly, so it's better for everyone that the [insert positive adjectives here] party have a monopoly on political power.
- bjornsing 7y ago
  I don’t believe that economic power is the same as coercive power. The former let’s you dangle a carrot in front of people. The latter let’s you threaten to kill them. There’s a difference, and democracy (with constitutional restrictions) should IMHO primarily be a way to distribute coercive power.
  - TFYS 7y ago
    Economic power can do much more than dangle a carrot. It can buy coercive power. It can also buy propaganda machines to fool people into believing what economic power needs them to believe. Economic power also gets to decide which projects are worth pursuing in our society.
ianleeclark 7y ago
> I think it’s actually kind of a good thing: most people would just consume like crazy and ruin the planet if they came into that kind of money... Crazy to think we might consume ourselves into fundamentally altering our ecosystem and causing mass migrations and death if we didn't have all of those rich guys around.
rayiner 7y ago
Note that a full consumption measure would also capture many aspects “power in a capitalist system.” E.g. lobbying spending.
cptskippy 7y ago
Two things... > if he drives the same kind of car and lives in about the same kind of house? Most wealthy people don't behave like Warren Buffet. > It means he has more power than me in a capitalistic system Which allows him to shape the system however he chooses, and as is the case this is usually in favor of the power holder. > But is that really so wrong or unfair? I think it’s actually kind of a good thing: most people would just consume like crazy and ruin the planet if they came into that kind of money... In other words, poor people can't be trusted with money so they should remain poor and deprived? If you honestly believe that people can't be trusted with their money then why not have a system where people aren't as reliant on money? (e.g. free health care, free basic housing, free public transportation) In such a system you don't have to worry about people abusing wealth they can't control.

jimbokun 7y ago

> INHO we should be looking much more at consumption and a lot less at income or (worst of all) assets. At what age can you retire? Can you afford education for yourself and your children? Can you afford the home in the district with the good schools? How much debt will you and your children be in after finishing college? What are the odds you go bankrupt from a medical incident, even with "insurance"? "Consumption" of cars, electronics, restaurant meals, etc. are not the really significant economic expenditures in a persons life. It's those big items that create debt slaves and crippling economic anxiety.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> Can you afford the home in the district with the good schools? Let me pick on that one in particular. Let's suppose that we redistributed all the assets in the country evenly (never mind how). Doing so did not increase the number of homes in districts with good schools. So not everyone can have them, no matter how much money everyone has. Who's going to get those houses? Not everyone who has school-aged kids. Or take college. Redistribute all the money, and it won't change the number of college classrooms. Who's going to get to go? Not everyone. Same with beach houses. There are more people who want beach houses than there are beach houses. Redistribute all assets evenly, and it may change who has the beach houses, but it won't change the fact that more people want them than have them. If everyone had the same amount of money, these things would still be allocated on the basis of who's willing to pay the most for them - that is, who's willing to give up the most other things in order to get that thing. Remove money entirely, and these things will still be allocated somehow - by who gets luckiest in the lottery, or who has the best political connections, for example. There is no system that magically makes there be as many beach houses as there are people who want them. So there will always be the problem of how scarce resources are allocated.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > If everyone had the same amount of money, these things would still be allocated on the basis of who's willing to pay the most for them - that is, who's willing to give up the most other things in order to get that thing. Though that's arguably a better situation from the equality perspective. Right now we have people who are allocated everything they want and others who are allocated none of what they need. Taking redistribution to a monomaniacal extreme is probably a bad idea for well understood reasons, but that doesn't mean that redistribution doesn't have its place.
harryh 7y ago
Can you afford education for yourself and your children? Education is counted in measures of consumption. Can you afford the home in the district with the good schools? Housing is counted in measures of consumption. How much debt will you and your children be in after finishing college? To the extent that this debt reduces one's ability to purchase other things, it's counted in measures of consumption.
- jimbokun 7y ago
  That was my point...?
pyuser583 7y ago
My European and Canadian relatives can answer all those questions as: Yes, yes, none, and none. All of those relatives come from countries with massive inequality (compared to mid 20th century), no wealth taxes, and paltry inheritance taxes. Don’t confuse America’s exceptional dysfunction with a failure of capitalism.

CharlesColeman 7y ago

> It means [a billionaire] has more power than me in a capitalistic system, sure. But is that really so wrong or unfair? Where does that leave democracy? > I think it’s actually kind of a good thing: most people would just consume like crazy and ruin the planet if they came into that kind of money... That bears a striking resemblance to some anti-democratic rhetoric I've seen. For instance, one of the rationales the CCP gives for the lack of multi-party democracy in China is that the Chinese people would use their political power irresponsibly, so it's better for everyone that the [insert positive adjectives here] party have a monopoly on political power.

bjornsing 7y ago
I don’t believe that economic power is the same as coercive power. The former let’s you dangle a carrot in front of people. The latter let’s you threaten to kill them. There’s a difference, and democracy (with constitutional restrictions) should IMHO primarily be a way to distribute coercive power.
- TFYS 7y ago
  Economic power can do much more than dangle a carrot. It can buy coercive power. It can also buy propaganda machines to fool people into believing what economic power needs them to believe. Economic power also gets to decide which projects are worth pursuing in our society.

ianleeclark 7y ago

> I think it’s actually kind of a good thing: most people would just consume like crazy and ruin the planet if they came into that kind of money... Crazy to think we might consume ourselves into fundamentally altering our ecosystem and causing mass migrations and death if we didn't have all of those rich guys around.

rayiner 7y ago

Note that a full consumption measure would also capture many aspects “power in a capitalist system.” E.g. lobbying spending.

cptskippy 7y ago

Two things... > if he drives the same kind of car and lives in about the same kind of house? Most wealthy people don't behave like Warren Buffet. > It means he has more power than me in a capitalistic system Which allows him to shape the system however he chooses, and as is the case this is usually in favor of the power holder. > But is that really so wrong or unfair? I think it’s actually kind of a good thing: most people would just consume like crazy and ruin the planet if they came into that kind of money... In other words, poor people can't be trusted with money so they should remain poor and deprived? If you honestly believe that people can't be trusted with their money then why not have a system where people aren't as reliant on money? (e.g. free health care, free basic housing, free public transportation) In such a system you don't have to worry about people abusing wealth they can't control.