4 ms·

The wealthy are also pouring money into lobbying and PACs to hold onto their power and influence. Is that productive use of capital? Well, it is for them! I do

by rland 7y ago

The wealthy are also pouring money into lobbying and PACs to hold onto their power and influence. Is that productive use of capital? Well, it is for them! I don't care that they invest, I don't care that they buy stock. Regular people would buy stock and give to charity too, if they could. This level of wealth concentration is toxic to our society, full stop. You have to look at not just what things look like, but also what things could look like, if we didn't have so much power concentrated among so few, with so little oversight.

darawk 7y ago
> The wealthy are also pouring money into lobbying and PACs to hold onto their power and influence. Is that productive use of capital? Well, it is for them! a) The amount of money spent there is actually quite low, considering the wealth of the people involved, and the presumptive benefits. b) So what? My point isn't to argue about where the benefits flow. My point is that the capital is being re-invested (politicians receiving bribes have the same two choices: spend money or invest it). > I don't care that they invest, I don't care that they buy stock. Regular people would buy stock and give to charity too, if they could. This level of wealth concentration is toxic to our society, full stop. You could be right. But what does that have to do with QE or this thread? And even ignoring that, exactly what is the mechanism by which wealth inequality destroys society? People make claims like this a lot. But they never actually trace it out. It's just taken as a given that it's a bad thing. > You have to look at not just what things look like, but also what things could look like, if we didn't have so much power concentrated among so few, with so little oversight. I'm not really sure what this means. Where is the power concentrated, exactly? Do you think that the Koch brothers have substantial unaccountable power? My guess is that they don't think so. Everything they do is scrutinized, and we certainly don't have the kind of economy they want. If there is so much unaccountable power, it doesn't seem to be doing them much good.
- rland 7y ago
  > a) The amount of money spent there is actually quite low, considering the wealth of the people involved, and the presumptive benefits. The amount of money spent is not limited to legal campaign contributions. There are also PACs, media spending (submarines, astroturfing, etc.), and other ways that money can influence public opinion on some issue. You can't really quantify this, but I'd be surprised to find anyone who would disagree that wealth itself will buy political power on its own without money ever changing hands. Here is a good example of what I'm talking about: https://image.businessinsider.com/585b1865ee14b6b2008b4b24?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp https://image.businessinsider.com/585b1865ee14b6b2008b4b24?w... > You could be right. But what does that have to do with QE or this thread? QE benefits people with access to capital by propping asset prices. The people with access to capital are wealthy. Who benefits when real estate goes up -- renters or homeowners? Who benefits when the stock market goes up -- people with a wealth manager or people living paycheck-to-paycheck? > I'm not really sure what this means. Where is the power concentrated, exactly? Power is concentrated among wealthy people. This is true in general, but specifically I'm talking about a very small number of people who have a huge say in media, politics, etc. It is not scrutinized; the media ensures that. Yes, I think anyone with Koch-degree wealth has a huge amount of unaccountable power. There will always be inequality, but there are degrees of difference. At $5,000,000 of wealth, you might be able to get the mayor on the phone (that's a very generous upper cap on lifetime earnings from labor). With $1,000,000,000, you certainly can get a senator. For an example, you can look at the Wisconsin Foxconn debacle. [1] This is the type of leverage over government that billions of dollars can buy. It is legal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn%27s_Wisconsin_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn%27s_Wisconsin_plant It's quite easy to see how wealth inequality is corrosive: make a list in descending order of wealth inequality by country, and look at which countries are where on that list. There's some noise, but for the most part, well-functioning democracies are concentrated at the bottom.
  - darawk 7y ago
    > The amount of money spent is not limited to legal campaign contributions. There are also PACs, media spending (submarines, astroturfing, etc.), and other ways that money can influence public opinion on some issue. You can't really quantify this, but I'd be surprised to find anyone who would disagree that wealth itself will buy political power on its own without money ever changing hands. Here is a good example of what I'm talking about: I'm aware of that. This is a thorough explanation of my view: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in... > QE benefits people with access to capital by propping asset prices. The people with access to capital are wealthy. Who benefits when real estate goes up -- renters or homeowners? Who benefits when the stock market goes up -- people with a wealth manager or people living paycheck-to-paycheck? QE does, sort of, inflate asset prices. It also lowers interest rates, which makes it cheaper for people to buy homes. QE does a lot of things, and summarizing it as "inflates asset prices" is too simplistic. QE is usually undertaken, in part, so that people living paycheck to paycheck can continue to receive that paycheck, rather than being fired. > Power is concentrated among wealthy people. This is true in general, but specifically I'm talking about a very small number of people who have a huge say in media, politics, etc. It is not scrutinized; the media ensures that. Yes, I think anyone with Koch-degree wealth has a huge amount of unaccountable power. There will always be inequality, but there are degrees of difference. At $5,000,000 of wealth, you might be able to get the mayor on the phone (that's a very generous upper cap on lifetime earnings from labor). With $1,000,000,000, you certainly can get a senator. For an example, you can look at the Wisconsin Foxconn debacle. [1] This is the type of leverage over government that billions of dollars can buy. It is legal. I certainly agree that there is some concentration of power. The Koch brothers and Bill Gates have a lot more influence than I do, and I would guess more than you do too. But how much more, exactly? It doesn't seem like all that much, to be honest. > It's quite easy to see how wealth inequality is corrosive: make a list in descending order of wealth inequality by country, and look at which countries are where on that list. There's some noise, but for the most part, well-functioning democracies are concentrated at the bottom. I think you're confusing correlation and causality, there though. Certainly in autocratic societies, you're going to have huge wealth disparity, because the rulers are rich. But the causality is flowing from autocracy onto inequality. I don't see much evidence that inequality causes autocracy, though.

by rland 7y ago

darawk 7y ago

> The wealthy are also pouring money into lobbying and PACs to hold onto their power and influence. Is that productive use of capital? Well, it is for them! a) The amount of money spent there is actually quite low, considering the wealth of the people involved, and the presumptive benefits. b) So what? My point isn't to argue about where the benefits flow. My point is that the capital is being re-invested (politicians receiving bribes have the same two choices: spend money or invest it). > I don't care that they invest, I don't care that they buy stock. Regular people would buy stock and give to charity too, if they could. This level of wealth concentration is toxic to our society, full stop. You could be right. But what does that have to do with QE or this thread? And even ignoring that, exactly what is the mechanism by which wealth inequality destroys society? People make claims like this a lot. But they never actually trace it out. It's just taken as a given that it's a bad thing. > You have to look at not just what things look like, but also what things could look like, if we didn't have so much power concentrated among so few, with so little oversight. I'm not really sure what this means. Where is the power concentrated, exactly? Do you think that the Koch brothers have substantial unaccountable power? My guess is that they don't think so. Everything they do is scrutinized, and we certainly don't have the kind of economy they want. If there is so much unaccountable power, it doesn't seem to be doing them much good.

rland 7y ago
> a) The amount of money spent there is actually quite low, considering the wealth of the people involved, and the presumptive benefits. The amount of money spent is not limited to legal campaign contributions. There are also PACs, media spending (submarines, astroturfing, etc.), and other ways that money can influence public opinion on some issue. You can't really quantify this, but I'd be surprised to find anyone who would disagree that wealth itself will buy political power on its own without money ever changing hands. Here is a good example of what I'm talking about: https://image.businessinsider.com/585b1865ee14b6b2008b4b24?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp https://image.businessinsider.com/585b1865ee14b6b2008b4b24?w... > You could be right. But what does that have to do with QE or this thread? QE benefits people with access to capital by propping asset prices. The people with access to capital are wealthy. Who benefits when real estate goes up -- renters or homeowners? Who benefits when the stock market goes up -- people with a wealth manager or people living paycheck-to-paycheck? > I'm not really sure what this means. Where is the power concentrated, exactly? Power is concentrated among wealthy people. This is true in general, but specifically I'm talking about a very small number of people who have a huge say in media, politics, etc. It is not scrutinized; the media ensures that. Yes, I think anyone with Koch-degree wealth has a huge amount of unaccountable power. There will always be inequality, but there are degrees of difference. At $5,000,000 of wealth, you might be able to get the mayor on the phone (that's a very generous upper cap on lifetime earnings from labor). With $1,000,000,000, you certainly can get a senator. For an example, you can look at the Wisconsin Foxconn debacle. [1] This is the type of leverage over government that billions of dollars can buy. It is legal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn%27s_Wisconsin_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn%27s_Wisconsin_plant It's quite easy to see how wealth inequality is corrosive: make a list in descending order of wealth inequality by country, and look at which countries are where on that list. There's some noise, but for the most part, well-functioning democracies are concentrated at the bottom.
- darawk 7y ago
  > The amount of money spent is not limited to legal campaign contributions. There are also PACs, media spending (submarines, astroturfing, etc.), and other ways that money can influence public opinion on some issue. You can't really quantify this, but I'd be surprised to find anyone who would disagree that wealth itself will buy political power on its own without money ever changing hands. Here is a good example of what I'm talking about: I'm aware of that. This is a thorough explanation of my view: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in... > QE benefits people with access to capital by propping asset prices. The people with access to capital are wealthy. Who benefits when real estate goes up -- renters or homeowners? Who benefits when the stock market goes up -- people with a wealth manager or people living paycheck-to-paycheck? QE does, sort of, inflate asset prices. It also lowers interest rates, which makes it cheaper for people to buy homes. QE does a lot of things, and summarizing it as "inflates asset prices" is too simplistic. QE is usually undertaken, in part, so that people living paycheck to paycheck can continue to receive that paycheck, rather than being fired. > Power is concentrated among wealthy people. This is true in general, but specifically I'm talking about a very small number of people who have a huge say in media, politics, etc. It is not scrutinized; the media ensures that. Yes, I think anyone with Koch-degree wealth has a huge amount of unaccountable power. There will always be inequality, but there are degrees of difference. At $5,000,000 of wealth, you might be able to get the mayor on the phone (that's a very generous upper cap on lifetime earnings from labor). With $1,000,000,000, you certainly can get a senator. For an example, you can look at the Wisconsin Foxconn debacle. [1] This is the type of leverage over government that billions of dollars can buy. It is legal. I certainly agree that there is some concentration of power. The Koch brothers and Bill Gates have a lot more influence than I do, and I would guess more than you do too. But how much more, exactly? It doesn't seem like all that much, to be honest. > It's quite easy to see how wealth inequality is corrosive: make a list in descending order of wealth inequality by country, and look at which countries are where on that list. There's some noise, but for the most part, well-functioning democracies are concentrated at the bottom. I think you're confusing correlation and causality, there though. Certainly in autocratic societies, you're going to have huge wealth disparity, because the rulers are rich. But the causality is flowing from autocracy onto inequality. I don't see much evidence that inequality causes autocracy, though.