18 ms·

> Did you mean to say “when people have nothing to fall back on”? This is better than sitting doing nothing, starving, and waiting for a handout to come, as ha

> Did you mean to say “when people have nothing to fall back on”? This is better than sitting doing nothing, starving, and waiting for a handout to come, as happened in many, many countries. My strongest belief is that America needs an economic shock therapy, to spring out of economic lethargy. Lets face it. America is no longer the financial superpower. China is currently world biggest foreign investor, and creditor, and has banks that make Morgan's balance sheet look like pocket change. Betting on banks to lead America's return to prominence is futile. It's akin to trying to wing a card game against a professional card trickster who lives off ripping off casinos. Nor is the dream of service the dream of "service economy" feeding much of the country materialised. You can't earn much FX selling McKinsey consultants, nor are they are much needed around the world, because the world doesn't have American problems.

reducesuffering 5y ago
You're exaggerating the bank size difference, ICBC is only 25% larger in assets. If you meant to convey all Chinese banks against just JPM, sure, but that's a silly comparison because there are many more US banks that when also compared in aggregate the % difference is still roughly the same.[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks
otikik 5y ago
What America needs is the rich stopping buying politicians and gaslighting other Americans, and start paying more taxes.
- ipatec 5y ago
  why pay more taxes when there's no accountability and responsibility regarding spending? spending needs to get under control before raising taxes is even a thing.
  - defterGoose 5y ago
    Do you agree that "getting the money out of politics" might help your accountability gripe?
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      The big money (and thus influence) in politics is in the spending of it, not the salaries/donations. And politics without that money is pointless.
      - newswasboring 5y ago
        You really think rich people will suddenly start paying taxes because government is more efficient? I don't think that is their gripe. If that was the case thet would not be lobbying for complex tax codes which exempt yachts.
        robertlagrant 5y ago
        > You really think rich people will suddenly start paying taxes because government is more efficient? Erm. I didn't really say anything to do with that.
      - nescioquid 5y ago
        When you raise money from donors to win election to an office, those donors effectively become your constituency, rather than the people living in your state or district. Those donors will also offer you strangely sumptuous speaking fees or a lucrative lobbying position after you leave office. If politicians' incentives can be aligned with their constitutional constituencies (not donors), they can make decisions that are actually in the best interest of those they represent, rather than the highest bidder. Are you saying it is simply having some power over the budget that corrupts politicians, and not what they have to do in order to obtain that power that corrupts them?
  - imtringued 5y ago
    A lot of the "spending" was used for tax cuts instead of infrastructure. It's kind of funny how Trump burned huge holes into the state budget and yet it's the infrastructure bill that is going to ruin everything.
  - verall 5y ago
    Because right now the middle class is paying the bill and the working class is getting abused. The ownership class just skates on, doing less to justify their existence every year. Or do you feel like a billionaire space race is a good use of society's efforts?
  - syshum 5y ago
    Too many people, especially high income software dev's, that government can not spend enough money. So to them them the spending is not out of control at all, they want the 3, 4, 8 trillion spending because they have bought into the government-side economic model that inflation is good, government spending is good, and the "evil rich" (who if you ask them is always someone that makes more than them. They are not "the rich" it is the others....) needs to just pay "their fair share" of course they will not define what what "fair share" is, just that is "more than they are paying now" however much that is... I firmly believe even if we had a 110% tax rate it would not be "enough" for some of these people
    - otikik 5y ago
      You are confused because the word "rich" has two meanings. Agreed, a lot of devs are "rich", compared to the average citizen. But the problem is not "they slightly more than me and they are bad because I'm envious". It's "they make so much money that they are writing their own laws with it, and they're killing my country and my planet in the process". That is a different kind of "rich". It's "I can buy a full news studio if I want"-rich. That second class is who the people are referring to when they say "the rich". And most of them are paying much less taxes over their income than you or I, in percentage. They are so wealthy that they can afford to pay full teams of people who specialize in tax evading, and that costs them 1% of their income, but then they avoid paying taxes on the rest. The usual "fair share" tax is a gradual tax. For example. 10% for the first $10000 earned. 15% for the next $20000. And so on. Such a tax can never reach 110%, by definition. It cuts a dev salary by 40% or even 50%. For one of these rich people, it can go to 70% or 80%, but it would be orders of magnitude more, in absolute numbers. But as I said, none of them pays that. They'd rather provoke a war than pay that. And then make you pay for it.
      - syshum 5y ago
        >>That is a different kind of "rich". It's "I can buy a full news studio if I want"-rich. There are 3 problems with that. 1. Even if you took 100% of their wealth, no income, their entire wealth, it would not even pay the interest on the debt. Let alone anything meaningful 2. You still have not defined "the rich" I want a number. 1 Billion? 10 Billion? 100 Billion? Give me an income or even wealth number.. 3. It is not actually true. And it is easily proven as we have a few example. The most famous was Bernie. He was always "Millionaires and Billionaires do not pay their fair share" until he became a millionaire then just like that is was "Billionaires do not pay their fair share". Then you have many champagne socialists on YT spending millions on homes, cars, etc all talking about how the "rich do not pay their fair share" and ofcourse they are not the rich >>And most of them are paying much less taxes over their income than you or I, in percentage. Playing with the tax rates is not going to change that, in fact most of them increasing the tax rates will cause a inverse in collections as it becomes more profitable to evade.. If you look at the amount of revenue the IRS collects from Income tax as a percent of GDP it is almost a flat line, it does not matter what the rate it, the IRS ends up collecting about the same amount. >>Such a tax can never reach 110% Sure it can, in a number of ways because it is not a single taxing entity, State, Federal, Local.. They do not have to allow you to deduct the taxes you paid to the other entities, infact that is a big issue today with the SALT limits. Then you have people proposing WEALTH based taxes, which could exceed the actual income a person made if they are asset heavy and income light. > it can go to 70% or 80%, but it would be orders of magnitude more, in absolute numbers. But as I said, none of them pays that. They'd rather provoke a war than pay that. No Shit, that is just strait up theft. I dont know how anyone could even begin to justify 50+%.. I am opposed to income based taxation in the first place, but Shit 80%? really. So I am left to ask. 1. Please define "Rich" in a actual dollar amount 2. Please define what you believe is a "fair" marginal rate for all income based taxation (state, federal, and local) for a person making this "rich" income. 3. If the government cannot collect the amount if needs to pay for goods and service how or (who) do you propose they make up the difference?
roenxi 5y ago
> My strongest belief is that America needs an economic shock therapy... There is a strand of thinking that turns up sometimes, something like "they will realise their choices are making things worse, then make different choices!". I have not seen that work out well very often. People usually persist in their mistakes with little heed for the results. The correct approach is almost always to move directly in a better direction.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  It's often the case that reformers (of anything, not just government) lack an understanding of why people are making choices that appear sub-optimal. They make or encourage changes to the visible things, without fixing the underlying hidden causes. Such changes are usually unsustainable.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  It's the standard eschatological shtick: burn it all down and it'll be better this time around.
KarlKemp 5y ago
Services and manufacturing are fungible and the rest of your tough guy act is even less convincing. Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk all came from at least upper-middle class background. None of them was ever at risk of starvation. The carrot-and-stick approach to motivation works–in an extremely small band of human experience. But as it works in that band, which is the lower middle class, it draws people in from both sides: those richer ease up a bit, those immediately below put in an extra hour. That's why it's sort of the default experience. It's also a "winnable struggle" so it makes for good stories and is overrepresented in film and literature. But, once you leave that narrow band, other forces are clearly at work. If inflicting pain on homeless people worked to motivate them to successfully get off the streets, there wouldn't be any homeless people. Because life on the streets sucks. If you think they are "lazy", have you ever toyed with the idea of just quitting and checking out an underpass with a good view? No...? But you do have a vague idea what laziness is? So then: that's not it.
- zpeti 5y ago
  How about Brian Chesky (son of social workers), Marc Andreesen (son of seed factory worker), or just Jeff bezos with a pretty shitty family background: At the time of Bezos' birth, his mother was a 17-year-old high school student and his father was 19 years old.[18] After completing high school despite challenging conditions, Jacklyn attended night school while bringing Bezos along as a baby.[19] After his parents divorced, his mother married Cuban immigrant Miguel "Mike" Bezos in April 1968.[20] Shortly after the wedding, Mike adopted four-year-old Bezos, whose surname was then legally changed from Jorgensen to Bezos.[21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos We can all pick examples to fit our narratives
  - fragmede 5y ago
    How does Bezos' background disprove the notion that homeless people aren't homeless because they're lazy? That if only we made life just a little more horrible for them, that they would realize being homeless sucks, stop being lazy, and just go get one of those job things, and then pull themselves up by their bootstraps. (A feat which is literally impossible, mind you)
ak217 5y ago
> America needs an economic shock therapy It's hard to overstate just how bad the track record of "economic shock therapy" strategies is. Tens of millions of people have died, and hundreds of millions more lost their basic freedoms, because leaders thought they could "shock therapy" their way out of economic problems.

reducesuffering 5y ago

You're exaggerating the bank size difference, ICBC is only 25% larger in assets. If you meant to convey all Chinese banks against just JPM, sure, but that's a silly comparison because there are many more US banks that when also compared in aggregate the % difference is still roughly the same.[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks

otikik 5y ago

What America needs is the rich stopping buying politicians and gaslighting other Americans, and start paying more taxes.

ipatec 5y ago
why pay more taxes when there's no accountability and responsibility regarding spending? spending needs to get under control before raising taxes is even a thing.
- defterGoose 5y ago
  Do you agree that "getting the money out of politics" might help your accountability gripe?
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    The big money (and thus influence) in politics is in the spending of it, not the salaries/donations. And politics without that money is pointless.
    - newswasboring 5y ago
      You really think rich people will suddenly start paying taxes because government is more efficient? I don't think that is their gripe. If that was the case thet would not be lobbying for complex tax codes which exempt yachts.
      - robertlagrant 5y ago
        > You really think rich people will suddenly start paying taxes because government is more efficient? Erm. I didn't really say anything to do with that.
    - nescioquid 5y ago
      When you raise money from donors to win election to an office, those donors effectively become your constituency, rather than the people living in your state or district. Those donors will also offer you strangely sumptuous speaking fees or a lucrative lobbying position after you leave office. If politicians' incentives can be aligned with their constitutional constituencies (not donors), they can make decisions that are actually in the best interest of those they represent, rather than the highest bidder. Are you saying it is simply having some power over the budget that corrupts politicians, and not what they have to do in order to obtain that power that corrupts them?
- imtringued 5y ago
  A lot of the "spending" was used for tax cuts instead of infrastructure. It's kind of funny how Trump burned huge holes into the state budget and yet it's the infrastructure bill that is going to ruin everything.
- verall 5y ago
  Because right now the middle class is paying the bill and the working class is getting abused. The ownership class just skates on, doing less to justify their existence every year. Or do you feel like a billionaire space race is a good use of society's efforts?
- syshum 5y ago
  Too many people, especially high income software dev's, that government can not spend enough money. So to them them the spending is not out of control at all, they want the 3, 4, 8 trillion spending because they have bought into the government-side economic model that inflation is good, government spending is good, and the "evil rich" (who if you ask them is always someone that makes more than them. They are not "the rich" it is the others....) needs to just pay "their fair share" of course they will not define what what "fair share" is, just that is "more than they are paying now" however much that is... I firmly believe even if we had a 110% tax rate it would not be "enough" for some of these people
  - otikik 5y ago
    You are confused because the word "rich" has two meanings. Agreed, a lot of devs are "rich", compared to the average citizen. But the problem is not "they slightly more than me and they are bad because I'm envious". It's "they make so much money that they are writing their own laws with it, and they're killing my country and my planet in the process". That is a different kind of "rich". It's "I can buy a full news studio if I want"-rich. That second class is who the people are referring to when they say "the rich". And most of them are paying much less taxes over their income than you or I, in percentage. They are so wealthy that they can afford to pay full teams of people who specialize in tax evading, and that costs them 1% of their income, but then they avoid paying taxes on the rest. The usual "fair share" tax is a gradual tax. For example. 10% for the first $10000 earned. 15% for the next $20000. And so on. Such a tax can never reach 110%, by definition. It cuts a dev salary by 40% or even 50%. For one of these rich people, it can go to 70% or 80%, but it would be orders of magnitude more, in absolute numbers. But as I said, none of them pays that. They'd rather provoke a war than pay that. And then make you pay for it.
    - syshum 5y ago
      >>That is a different kind of "rich". It's "I can buy a full news studio if I want"-rich. There are 3 problems with that. 1. Even if you took 100% of their wealth, no income, their entire wealth, it would not even pay the interest on the debt. Let alone anything meaningful 2. You still have not defined "the rich" I want a number. 1 Billion? 10 Billion? 100 Billion? Give me an income or even wealth number.. 3. It is not actually true. And it is easily proven as we have a few example. The most famous was Bernie. He was always "Millionaires and Billionaires do not pay their fair share" until he became a millionaire then just like that is was "Billionaires do not pay their fair share". Then you have many champagne socialists on YT spending millions on homes, cars, etc all talking about how the "rich do not pay their fair share" and ofcourse they are not the rich >>And most of them are paying much less taxes over their income than you or I, in percentage. Playing with the tax rates is not going to change that, in fact most of them increasing the tax rates will cause a inverse in collections as it becomes more profitable to evade.. If you look at the amount of revenue the IRS collects from Income tax as a percent of GDP it is almost a flat line, it does not matter what the rate it, the IRS ends up collecting about the same amount. >>Such a tax can never reach 110% Sure it can, in a number of ways because it is not a single taxing entity, State, Federal, Local.. They do not have to allow you to deduct the taxes you paid to the other entities, infact that is a big issue today with the SALT limits. Then you have people proposing WEALTH based taxes, which could exceed the actual income a person made if they are asset heavy and income light. > it can go to 70% or 80%, but it would be orders of magnitude more, in absolute numbers. But as I said, none of them pays that. They'd rather provoke a war than pay that. No Shit, that is just strait up theft. I dont know how anyone could even begin to justify 50+%.. I am opposed to income based taxation in the first place, but Shit 80%? really. So I am left to ask. 1. Please define "Rich" in a actual dollar amount 2. Please define what you believe is a "fair" marginal rate for all income based taxation (state, federal, and local) for a person making this "rich" income. 3. If the government cannot collect the amount if needs to pay for goods and service how or (who) do you propose they make up the difference?

roenxi 5y ago

> My strongest belief is that America needs an economic shock therapy... There is a strand of thinking that turns up sometimes, something like "they will realise their choices are making things worse, then make different choices!". I have not seen that work out well very often. People usually persist in their mistakes with little heed for the results. The correct approach is almost always to move directly in a better direction.

HPsquared 5y ago
It's often the case that reformers (of anything, not just government) lack an understanding of why people are making choices that appear sub-optimal. They make or encourage changes to the visible things, without fixing the underlying hidden causes. Such changes are usually unsustainable.
Karrot_Kream 5y ago
It's the standard eschatological shtick: burn it all down and it'll be better this time around.

KarlKemp 5y ago

Services and manufacturing are fungible and the rest of your tough guy act is even less convincing. Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk all came from at least upper-middle class background. None of them was ever at risk of starvation. The carrot-and-stick approach to motivation works–in an extremely small band of human experience. But as it works in that band, which is the lower middle class, it draws people in from both sides: those richer ease up a bit, those immediately below put in an extra hour. That's why it's sort of the default experience. It's also a "winnable struggle" so it makes for good stories and is overrepresented in film and literature. But, once you leave that narrow band, other forces are clearly at work. If inflicting pain on homeless people worked to motivate them to successfully get off the streets, there wouldn't be any homeless people. Because life on the streets sucks. If you think they are "lazy", have you ever toyed with the idea of just quitting and checking out an underpass with a good view? No...? But you do have a vague idea what laziness is? So then: that's not it.

zpeti 5y ago
How about Brian Chesky (son of social workers), Marc Andreesen (son of seed factory worker), or just Jeff bezos with a pretty shitty family background: At the time of Bezos' birth, his mother was a 17-year-old high school student and his father was 19 years old.[18] After completing high school despite challenging conditions, Jacklyn attended night school while bringing Bezos along as a baby.[19] After his parents divorced, his mother married Cuban immigrant Miguel "Mike" Bezos in April 1968.[20] Shortly after the wedding, Mike adopted four-year-old Bezos, whose surname was then legally changed from Jorgensen to Bezos.[21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos We can all pick examples to fit our narratives
- fragmede 5y ago
  How does Bezos' background disprove the notion that homeless people aren't homeless because they're lazy? That if only we made life just a little more horrible for them, that they would realize being homeless sucks, stop being lazy, and just go get one of those job things, and then pull themselves up by their bootstraps. (A feat which is literally impossible, mind you)

ak217 5y ago

> America needs an economic shock therapy It's hard to overstate just how bad the track record of "economic shock therapy" strategies is. Tens of millions of people have died, and hundreds of millions more lost their basic freedoms, because leaders thought they could "shock therapy" their way out of economic problems.