6 ms·

I don't see any other option. We should remember that we are the state, in theory. It's the whole point of a state. If that isn't the case anymore, we should fi

I don't see any other option. We should remember that we are the state, in theory. It's the whole point of a state. If that isn't the case anymore, we should fix it. The main problem is that nowadays states operate on the basis of the same false trickle-down fable. They don't build stuff, they pay corporations to do it for them and expect that money to somehow flow down to the people. We can clearly see that doesn't happen as inequality keeps growing.

robertlagrant 2y ago
We aren't the state, though. The state is the governing body and its surrounding entities, funded through taxes, that controls the justice system and the military. I don't think it's a good idea to conflate "the state" and "the country" or "society". The state is the most powerful entity in the country, but it's not the only one. And I've probably said this elsewhere, but inequality is not important. We keep hearing about it every day, so it sounds important, but it's not. Unless it's being done deliberately to keep people down, e.g. in a feudal or 20th century socialism country, but even then the fundamental problem is authoritarianism, not inequality. Inequality is a symptom, and not always of something bad. I don't care that Tesla owners in the early 2010s had Roadsters and I didn't. Roadsters paved the way for Model Ss, which paved the way for Model 3s, which - if the Cybertruck hadn't got in the way - paved the way for Model 2s. I don't care that at some point in history only rich people had (terrible) glasses. Basically everyone (outside of impoverished countries whose government officials absorb the cash from overseas to help) now has access to high quality lenses - far better than those the rich people of the past could access. Temporary inequality leads to - over time - an uplift of the fundamental things for everyone. That's the only thing that matters - the baseline now vs what it used to be. Not the difference between baseline and the rich. The rich will spend on a thousand trivial things that won't matter, but also on things that will eventually be accessible to everyone.
- ossobuco 2y ago
  > We aren't the state "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That's literally in the constitution and not just that of the USA. > I don't care that Rich people do care, they want the best healthcare the world can provide, the best education for their children, and want it now, not in 50 years when the "rising tide lifts all boats". Do you consider yourself inferior to them? Then why wouldn't you care? > Temporary inequality leads to - over time - an uplift of the fundamental things for everyone "A rising tide lifts all boats", "Trickle down" these are all aphorisms invented by rich people in order to justify their hoarding while there are people who can't afford a roof over their heads. To keep the outcasts calm, waiting for their turn to enjoy a small fraction of what others enjoy entirely now.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > > "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." > That's literally in the constitution and not just that of the USA. I don't see how this is relevant to whether the state is synonymous with the population of a country. > Do you consider yourself inferior to them? Then why wouldn't you care? I don't consider "inferior" to be "I don't have a Porsche and they do". Or even "I can't force taxpayers to pay for a $10m operation and followup treatment and someone else can afford it out of the value they've created", which I think is what you're thinking I should say. Is that what you're saying? Happy to discuss, but you seem to be talking in emotive language rather than speaking plainly, and I'm just trying to get at the a plain description of what you mean.
    - IX-103 2y ago
      In a functional democracy, the state is working in the best interest of the people. And your assertion that GP is arguing that the state is "synonymous with the population" is a straw man, as they didn't say that. Let's look at the phrase "value they've created" that you used. That's a bit of an idealistic way of thinking. After all those with money and power in society have historically used that money and power to get more money and power. Does a king sitting on a throne produce more "value" than the farmers that feed his cities? Does the hedge fund manager choosing stocks to buy and companies to liquidate produce more value than doctors who save people's lives?
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        > We should remember that we are the state, in theory. It's the whole point of a state. If that isn't the case anymore, we should fix it. Who is the "we" in this?
        ossobuco 2y ago
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  > funded through taxes Whatever your views, this is simply wrong. A state that controls its own currency doesn’t need taxes. They only exist to control inflation. We could achieve the same thing with high interest rate, printing all the money we need and having zero tax on anything. Taking out loans creates money, including when private banks do it. That’s what national debt does too.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    The currency only has value because of taxes.
    - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
      What do you mean - if US government cuts taxes, value of USD goes down?
      - HPsquared 2y ago
        Definitely. There would be more dollars in circulation for a start. Ultimately the government is the final "sink" for dollars in the system. That and loan repayments (but unlike taxes, loan repayments could be made in any currency).
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      This is the first time I've encountered anybody else who has figured this out and says it openly. For those who wonder how: If it wasn't for taxes being collected in the currency of the government, people and businesses would conduct their affairs in other currencies that do not decrease in value from inflation. That's also the reason why there will never be any simple taxation system, such as land value tax or whatnot. In order to keep everybody using the government currency, the taxes demanded in that currency has to be applied to every and any economic activity imaginable, otherwise people will flock to other currencies after having paid their dues, and the government currency value collapses. This is also the reason why the public sector workforce is of an enormous size, even in supposedly capitalist countries. Public sector workers cannot choose another currency for their paycheck. This is the reason why most third world countries cannot create a stable government currency: Their tax collection is not effective or comprehensive enough. Unless all the population is put under government issued money by rigorous taxation, they will choose other currency.

robertlagrant 2y ago

We aren't the state, though. The state is the governing body and its surrounding entities, funded through taxes, that controls the justice system and the military. I don't think it's a good idea to conflate "the state" and "the country" or "society". The state is the most powerful entity in the country, but it's not the only one. And I've probably said this elsewhere, but inequality is not important. We keep hearing about it every day, so it sounds important, but it's not. Unless it's being done deliberately to keep people down, e.g. in a feudal or 20th century socialism country, but even then the fundamental problem is authoritarianism, not inequality. Inequality is a symptom, and not always of something bad. I don't care that Tesla owners in the early 2010s had Roadsters and I didn't. Roadsters paved the way for Model Ss, which paved the way for Model 3s, which - if the Cybertruck hadn't got in the way - paved the way for Model 2s. I don't care that at some point in history only rich people had (terrible) glasses. Basically everyone (outside of impoverished countries whose government officials absorb the cash from overseas to help) now has access to high quality lenses - far better than those the rich people of the past could access. Temporary inequality leads to - over time - an uplift of the fundamental things for everyone. That's the only thing that matters - the baseline now vs what it used to be. Not the difference between baseline and the rich. The rich will spend on a thousand trivial things that won't matter, but also on things that will eventually be accessible to everyone.

ossobuco 2y ago
> We aren't the state "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That's literally in the constitution and not just that of the USA. > I don't care that Rich people do care, they want the best healthcare the world can provide, the best education for their children, and want it now, not in 50 years when the "rising tide lifts all boats". Do you consider yourself inferior to them? Then why wouldn't you care? > Temporary inequality leads to - over time - an uplift of the fundamental things for everyone "A rising tide lifts all boats", "Trickle down" these are all aphorisms invented by rich people in order to justify their hoarding while there are people who can't afford a roof over their heads. To keep the outcasts calm, waiting for their turn to enjoy a small fraction of what others enjoy entirely now.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > > "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." > That's literally in the constitution and not just that of the USA. I don't see how this is relevant to whether the state is synonymous with the population of a country. > Do you consider yourself inferior to them? Then why wouldn't you care? I don't consider "inferior" to be "I don't have a Porsche and they do". Or even "I can't force taxpayers to pay for a $10m operation and followup treatment and someone else can afford it out of the value they've created", which I think is what you're thinking I should say. Is that what you're saying? Happy to discuss, but you seem to be talking in emotive language rather than speaking plainly, and I'm just trying to get at the a plain description of what you mean.
  - IX-103 2y ago
    In a functional democracy, the state is working in the best interest of the people. And your assertion that GP is arguing that the state is "synonymous with the population" is a straw man, as they didn't say that. Let's look at the phrase "value they've created" that you used. That's a bit of an idealistic way of thinking. After all those with money and power in society have historically used that money and power to get more money and power. Does a king sitting on a throne produce more "value" than the farmers that feed his cities? Does the hedge fund manager choosing stocks to buy and companies to liquidate produce more value than doctors who save people's lives?
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > We should remember that we are the state, in theory. It's the whole point of a state. If that isn't the case anymore, we should fix it. Who is the "we" in this?
      - ossobuco 2y ago
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> funded through taxes Whatever your views, this is simply wrong. A state that controls its own currency doesn’t need taxes. They only exist to control inflation. We could achieve the same thing with high interest rate, printing all the money we need and having zero tax on anything. Taking out loans creates money, including when private banks do it. That’s what national debt does too.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  The currency only has value because of taxes.
  - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    What do you mean - if US government cuts taxes, value of USD goes down?
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      Definitely. There would be more dollars in circulation for a start. Ultimately the government is the final "sink" for dollars in the system. That and loan repayments (but unlike taxes, loan repayments could be made in any currency).
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    This is the first time I've encountered anybody else who has figured this out and says it openly. For those who wonder how: If it wasn't for taxes being collected in the currency of the government, people and businesses would conduct their affairs in other currencies that do not decrease in value from inflation. That's also the reason why there will never be any simple taxation system, such as land value tax or whatnot. In order to keep everybody using the government currency, the taxes demanded in that currency has to be applied to every and any economic activity imaginable, otherwise people will flock to other currencies after having paid their dues, and the government currency value collapses. This is also the reason why the public sector workforce is of an enormous size, even in supposedly capitalist countries. Public sector workers cannot choose another currency for their paycheck. This is the reason why most third world countries cannot create a stable government currency: Their tax collection is not effective or comprehensive enough. Unless all the population is put under government issued money by rigorous taxation, they will choose other currency.