4 ms·

> Ah, we've reached the crux of the problem. You are not concerned with making things good only with making them even. This is just crab mentality[1]. Someone e

> Ah, we've reached the crux of the problem. You are not concerned with making things good only with making them even. This is just crab mentality[1]. Someone else has more than you, so you need to pull them down. Or perhaps you've conflated the two and think that if things are even, they will necessarily be good, or at least better than they are when they're uneven. Let me assure you, it is entirely possible for things to become more even and also have everyone be worse off than they were before. That's another assumption, I'm concerned about both. You still haven't answered the question of what is going to be harmed by reducing the wealth of every billionaire by 73%. I see you have concerns about government ineptly wasting the money, but even if they did, it's not clear how that would be materially worse for the average American. The worst way the government could spend that money would be to hand it back to the billionaires, which would put us back in the current situation. I'm open to an alternative, but I don't want assurances. I want historical examples, preferably ones that occur in the United States. Raising the specter of Communism is useless demagoguery, since there is no serious constituency for it. > Sure, we can invest in those things. We can also pursue policies (like antitrust enforcement) that would naturally result in less inequality without distorting the market by confiscating and destroying wealth when it reaches some arbitrary number. War anti-trust enforcement! You have to do both though. You don't have to destroy wealth, you can also redistribute it in various ways. Even George W. Bush was a fan of the ole' stimulus check. I also hear the people would really like a public healthcare option - investing in that might spur some economic growth. > It's true the New Deal happened and then a strong middle class emerged some years later, that doesn't mean one caused the other. There was a little thing called World War II as well, and the rest of the productive capacity of the industrial world being destroyed with only America left may have contributed to the abundance of high-paying manufacturing jobs, just a little. Well, we tried doing it the way the laissez-faire way after Europe destroyed it's labor capacity in WW1, and it resulted in the Great Depression. We tried the New Deal, fought a Europe-destroying war, followed by more Keynesian policy, and it resulted in prosperity (including the areas rebuilt under the Marshall Plan). I'm just some guy, but I'm going to go with my gut and say we should do the thing that worked, over the economic ideology that has failed the average American every time it has been trotted out. > Yeah, there's a historical precedent for burning witches at the stake too, that doesn't mean it's a good thing. Now you are just being hysterical. Forcing Jeff Bezos to live on a mere $50,000,000,000 is hardly burning him at the stake.

imgabe 6y ago
> That's another assumption, I'm concerned about both. Not an assumption at all. From your response to my other comment: "You can burn the money in a furnace for all I care, as long as the ratio between the richest and poorest goes down substantially." I'm really trying, and I can't find any other way to interpret that than your primary, if not only concern, is just making rich people poorer. > You still haven't answered the question of what is going to be harmed by reducing the wealth of every billionaire by 73%. You still haven't explained exactly how you would make this happen. Forced stock sales? Government mandated price caps on stocks? What? Is Bezos supposed to write a check for $130B? You realize it's not sitting in cash in a bank account, right? But more importantly, you are the one proposing a radical change to the status quo. The onus is on you to prove, not only that the change is not harmful (not at all apparent from historical evidence) but that it will provide some benefit that will outweigh the cost to implement it. I mean a benefit besides "It makes me feel bad when people are richer than me, and I'll get to enjoy some schadenfreude if they get knocked down a peg". > We tried the New Deal, fought a Europe-destroying war, followed by more Keynesian policy, and it resulted in prosperity (including the areas rebuilt under the Marshall Plan). I'm just some guy, but I'm going to go with my gut and say we should do the thing that worked, over the economic ideology that has failed the average American every time it has been trotted out. What you are proposing is not the New Deal, nor the Marshall Plan, nor any economic policy that has been tried in the US before. The New Deal did not involve confiscating 73% of the wealth of billionaires (or the inflation-adjusted equivalent). It did not involve taxing unrealized gains on stocks. The US has never had a wealth tax before. Most countries that have had one ended up repealing it because it's expensive to enforce compared to the amount of revenue it brings in and wealthy people, unsurprisingly, are quite capable of moving to another country that doesn't have a wealth tax.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  I was exaggerating to make a point on a different comment you made about "government bad". I forgot I was on the internet for a second and couldn't use rhetoric. Rest assured, if you want to take the money from Bezos and invest it in Medicare for All and expanding fiber internet to rural Appalachia, I am 110% onboard. > You still haven't explained exactly how you would make this happen. Forced stock sales? Government mandated price caps on stocks? What? Is Bezos supposed to write a check for $130B? You realize it's not sitting in cash in a bank account, right? Assume that Congress can edit a database of every citizens' net worth by legislative fiat. Answer the question about how lessening economic inequality is going to negatively impact the average American. > But more importantly, you are the one proposing a radical change to the status quo. The onus is on you to prove, not only that the change is not harmful (not at all apparent from historical evidence) but that it will provide some benefit that will outweigh the cost to implement it. I mean a benefit besides "It makes me feel bad when people are richer than me, and I'll get to enjoy some schadenfreude if they get knocked down a peg". Disagree. I'm proposing a return to a previous status quo that was more broadly equitable. The onus was on the neoliberals to prove the changes they were making in the 80s and 90s weren't harmful. Turns out they were. Again, you are reducing my argument down to my feelings, but I don't personally give a fuck if Jeff Bezos is a ba-zillionaire, so it's not really hitting home - I'll be fine either way. I just think it's bad for society generally when a few jerks with money get to have private space programs in a country with millions in poverty and homeless. I'm not a huge fan of bloody prole revolutions or fascist coups, personally. That's just me. > What you are proposing is not the New Deal, nor the Marshall Plan, nor any economic policy that has been tried in the US before. The New Deal did not involve confiscating 73% of the wealth of billionaires (or the inflation-adjusted equivalent). It did not involve taxing unrealized gains on stocks. The US has never had a wealth tax before. Most countries that have had one ended up repealing it because it's expensive to enforce compared to the amount of revenue it brings in and wealthy people, unsurprisingly, are quite capable of moving to another country that doesn't have a wealth tax. Again, I'm not proposing any specific remedy, so you are assigning an argument I haven't made. I'm totally fine with re-appropriating the money, but you seem to really hate the idea of giving the government having any ability to direct funds. I'm diagnosing the problem, and asking what you think would be the negative impact if we simply took away 73% of the wealth each billionaire holds, which you won't answer, because you know the answer is "nothing bad". Many countries aren't the United States. If the billionaires want to try offshoring their money and renouncing their citizenship, I'll trust the (ideally, re-empowered) Treasury and the State of New York to get our money.

imgabe 6y ago

> That's another assumption, I'm concerned about both. Not an assumption at all. From your response to my other comment: "You can burn the money in a furnace for all I care, as long as the ratio between the richest and poorest goes down substantially." I'm really trying, and I can't find any other way to interpret that than your primary, if not only concern, is just making rich people poorer. > You still haven't answered the question of what is going to be harmed by reducing the wealth of every billionaire by 73%. You still haven't explained exactly how you would make this happen. Forced stock sales? Government mandated price caps on stocks? What? Is Bezos supposed to write a check for $130B? You realize it's not sitting in cash in a bank account, right? But more importantly, you are the one proposing a radical change to the status quo. The onus is on you to prove, not only that the change is not harmful (not at all apparent from historical evidence) but that it will provide some benefit that will outweigh the cost to implement it. I mean a benefit besides "It makes me feel bad when people are richer than me, and I'll get to enjoy some schadenfreude if they get knocked down a peg". > We tried the New Deal, fought a Europe-destroying war, followed by more Keynesian policy, and it resulted in prosperity (including the areas rebuilt under the Marshall Plan). I'm just some guy, but I'm going to go with my gut and say we should do the thing that worked, over the economic ideology that has failed the average American every time it has been trotted out. What you are proposing is not the New Deal, nor the Marshall Plan, nor any economic policy that has been tried in the US before. The New Deal did not involve confiscating 73% of the wealth of billionaires (or the inflation-adjusted equivalent). It did not involve taxing unrealized gains on stocks. The US has never had a wealth tax before. Most countries that have had one ended up repealing it because it's expensive to enforce compared to the amount of revenue it brings in and wealthy people, unsurprisingly, are quite capable of moving to another country that doesn't have a wealth tax.

arrosenberg 6y ago
I was exaggerating to make a point on a different comment you made about "government bad". I forgot I was on the internet for a second and couldn't use rhetoric. Rest assured, if you want to take the money from Bezos and invest it in Medicare for All and expanding fiber internet to rural Appalachia, I am 110% onboard. > You still haven't explained exactly how you would make this happen. Forced stock sales? Government mandated price caps on stocks? What? Is Bezos supposed to write a check for $130B? You realize it's not sitting in cash in a bank account, right? Assume that Congress can edit a database of every citizens' net worth by legislative fiat. Answer the question about how lessening economic inequality is going to negatively impact the average American. > But more importantly, you are the one proposing a radical change to the status quo. The onus is on you to prove, not only that the change is not harmful (not at all apparent from historical evidence) but that it will provide some benefit that will outweigh the cost to implement it. I mean a benefit besides "It makes me feel bad when people are richer than me, and I'll get to enjoy some schadenfreude if they get knocked down a peg". Disagree. I'm proposing a return to a previous status quo that was more broadly equitable. The onus was on the neoliberals to prove the changes they were making in the 80s and 90s weren't harmful. Turns out they were. Again, you are reducing my argument down to my feelings, but I don't personally give a fuck if Jeff Bezos is a ba-zillionaire, so it's not really hitting home - I'll be fine either way. I just think it's bad for society generally when a few jerks with money get to have private space programs in a country with millions in poverty and homeless. I'm not a huge fan of bloody prole revolutions or fascist coups, personally. That's just me. > What you are proposing is not the New Deal, nor the Marshall Plan, nor any economic policy that has been tried in the US before. The New Deal did not involve confiscating 73% of the wealth of billionaires (or the inflation-adjusted equivalent). It did not involve taxing unrealized gains on stocks. The US has never had a wealth tax before. Most countries that have had one ended up repealing it because it's expensive to enforce compared to the amount of revenue it brings in and wealthy people, unsurprisingly, are quite capable of moving to another country that doesn't have a wealth tax. Again, I'm not proposing any specific remedy, so you are assigning an argument I haven't made. I'm totally fine with re-appropriating the money, but you seem to really hate the idea of giving the government having any ability to direct funds. I'm diagnosing the problem, and asking what you think would be the negative impact if we simply took away 73% of the wealth each billionaire holds, which you won't answer, because you know the answer is "nothing bad". Many countries aren't the United States. If the billionaires want to try offshoring their money and renouncing their citizenship, I'll trust the (ideally, re-empowered) Treasury and the State of New York to get our money.