4 ms·

> If you want to get money moving in the economy again, we already know how to do that. Tax the shit out of the wealthy in such a way that they can't weasel out

> If you want to get money moving in the economy again, we already know how to do that. Tax the shit out of the wealthy in such a way that they can't weasel out of it, and turn that money over to the people, be it through hiring them for public works projects, more and wider spread research grants, Universal Basic Income, or economic stimulus. Yes, you will indeed increase the velocity of money if you steal it from people. But that is typically short lived and not sustained. It tends to be better to allow those wealthy folks with capital to use it to create new businesses that then have the same effect, and the benefit is that this solution is pareto optimal since it's composed of voluntary transactions.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
I cannot comprehend that there are people who still think trickle-down economics can work. The vast majority of the history of the United States is a story of the rich being taxed extremely highly once they crossed a certain threshold of wealth, usually around 70%. Corporations too. We still had massive corporations, and we still had insanely rich people, so much so that the most famous anti-trust cases occurred during that time. And we also, in addition to that, built the highway system, built the Hoover dam, built three electrical grids, went to the moon, waged two police actions in southeast Asia (I didn't say it was all good) and created the fundamental technologies that gave us the Internet. Conversely there is no evidence that the super-rich do anything with their money consistently besides hoard it.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  > Conversely there is no evidence that the super-rich do anything with their money consistently besides hoard it. Didn't Elon just use a bunch of money to buy Twitter? Didn't he also aink a bunch of personal money wagering on SpaceX? I'd hardly say the wealthy don't use their money. Typically they invest it in new companies and businesses. They don't just let it sit there. And those investments create jobs and new services. Conversely, despite all the cool things yhe federal government has done in the past, we see massivr amounts of bloat and inefficient resource allocations. I don't keep to keep any of my yearly salary until approximately Easter each year. And what am I getting for that? Maybe the FAA is about the best outcome.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    Elon is known for this precisely because it's such an anomaly. And also, buying twitter doesn't stimulate the economy in the way economists will tell you is important because the vast, vast majority of that Twitter purchase was a) financed debt, not cash and b) will simply go to other capital holders, not the working class. SpaceX is at least better for an example but it still isn't great as SpaceX itself is funded largely by the Government anyway, which Tesla is also a large beneficiary over. I'm not opposed to spending money on important new technology, unless there's an Elon Musk at the top getting rich off it. If we're already paying for Tesla and SpaceX to exist, who the fuck needs the Aparthied profiteer? He's shown himself so many times to be wildly incompetent and out of touch with all of the large businesses he's an investor in, not the least of which is the absolute clown show that Twitter's become, while he's set fire to 40 billion of it's 44 billion purchase price. And according to insiders, that seems to be because Twitter didn't have the chance to build the "Elon management team" that exists at all his other companies to prevent his boondoggling from causing more havoc than it has to. I'm not even saying he's a bad guy (though he is) I'm saying we don't fucking need him, we need his money, which he only has because we've said he's allowed to keep it. So tax his ass and then he can go have a normal mid-life post-divorce crisis and like, buy a Ferrari and crash it into a tree or something instead of buying and sinking a social media site. > Conversely, despite all the cool things yhe federal government has done in the past, we see massivr amounts of bloat and inefficient resource allocations. You see the exact same thing in the private sector. This isn't a bug in Government, it's a bug in human organizations.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      > You see the exact same thing in the private sector. This isn't a bug in Government, it's a bug in human organizations. Sure, but when the private sector wastes it only does so at the expense of its customers, as the waste leads to higher prices. It opens the door for that company to be out-competed. There is no such mechanism for the waste in gov. It has no competition, and therefore the bloat keeps growing. Voters are the only recourse. There is no natural dynamic to keep operations efficient. > I'm not even saying he's a bad guy (though he is) I'm saying we don't fucking need him, we need his money, which he only has because we've said he's allowed to keep it. So tax his ass... This is called theft. We have plenty of money for public goods, such as national defense. You want to steal this man's money; plain and simple.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

I cannot comprehend that there are people who still think trickle-down economics can work. The vast majority of the history of the United States is a story of the rich being taxed extremely highly once they crossed a certain threshold of wealth, usually around 70%. Corporations too. We still had massive corporations, and we still had insanely rich people, so much so that the most famous anti-trust cases occurred during that time. And we also, in addition to that, built the highway system, built the Hoover dam, built three electrical grids, went to the moon, waged two police actions in southeast Asia (I didn't say it was all good) and created the fundamental technologies that gave us the Internet. Conversely there is no evidence that the super-rich do anything with their money consistently besides hoard it.

hellojesus 3y ago
> Conversely there is no evidence that the super-rich do anything with their money consistently besides hoard it. Didn't Elon just use a bunch of money to buy Twitter? Didn't he also aink a bunch of personal money wagering on SpaceX? I'd hardly say the wealthy don't use their money. Typically they invest it in new companies and businesses. They don't just let it sit there. And those investments create jobs and new services. Conversely, despite all the cool things yhe federal government has done in the past, we see massivr amounts of bloat and inefficient resource allocations. I don't keep to keep any of my yearly salary until approximately Easter each year. And what am I getting for that? Maybe the FAA is about the best outcome.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  Elon is known for this precisely because it's such an anomaly. And also, buying twitter doesn't stimulate the economy in the way economists will tell you is important because the vast, vast majority of that Twitter purchase was a) financed debt, not cash and b) will simply go to other capital holders, not the working class. SpaceX is at least better for an example but it still isn't great as SpaceX itself is funded largely by the Government anyway, which Tesla is also a large beneficiary over. I'm not opposed to spending money on important new technology, unless there's an Elon Musk at the top getting rich off it. If we're already paying for Tesla and SpaceX to exist, who the fuck needs the Aparthied profiteer? He's shown himself so many times to be wildly incompetent and out of touch with all of the large businesses he's an investor in, not the least of which is the absolute clown show that Twitter's become, while he's set fire to 40 billion of it's 44 billion purchase price. And according to insiders, that seems to be because Twitter didn't have the chance to build the "Elon management team" that exists at all his other companies to prevent his boondoggling from causing more havoc than it has to. I'm not even saying he's a bad guy (though he is) I'm saying we don't fucking need him, we need his money, which he only has because we've said he's allowed to keep it. So tax his ass and then he can go have a normal mid-life post-divorce crisis and like, buy a Ferrari and crash it into a tree or something instead of buying and sinking a social media site. > Conversely, despite all the cool things yhe federal government has done in the past, we see massivr amounts of bloat and inefficient resource allocations. You see the exact same thing in the private sector. This isn't a bug in Government, it's a bug in human organizations.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    > You see the exact same thing in the private sector. This isn't a bug in Government, it's a bug in human organizations. Sure, but when the private sector wastes it only does so at the expense of its customers, as the waste leads to higher prices. It opens the door for that company to be out-competed. There is no such mechanism for the waste in gov. It has no competition, and therefore the bloat keeps growing. Voters are the only recourse. There is no natural dynamic to keep operations efficient. > I'm not even saying he's a bad guy (though he is) I'm saying we don't fucking need him, we need his money, which he only has because we've said he's allowed to keep it. So tax his ass... This is called theft. We have plenty of money for public goods, such as national defense. You want to steal this man's money; plain and simple.