4 ms·

> Wealth is not concentrated in a market society. Respectfully, you should do some reading of basic economics. Absent of external forces to correct for it, wea

> Wealth is not concentrated in a market society. Respectfully, you should do some reading of basic economics. Absent of external forces to correct for it, wealth absolutely concentrates in unregulated markets.

WalterBright 1y ago
For economics, I prefer history to academic theory. (But I have read Friedman's "Monetary History of the United States", and books by economist C. Northcote Parkinson, "Capitalism" by Reisman, etc. My dad also had a degree in economics from MIT and an MBA from Harvard and a doctorate in economicis and taught finance in college. We had many many long talks about economics. And yeah, I did take econ 101 at Caltech from a Marxist professor. My dad would have had him for lunch.) > wealth absolutely concentrates in unregulated markets The US had more or less unregulated markets for well over a century since its founding. The result? The most stupendous wealth creation, pushing scores of millions of people from poverty into the middle class and beyond. There was no "transfer" of wealth from the poor people to the wealthy (there couldn't have been, because they, being poor, didn't have wealth).
- forgetfreeman 1y ago
  "There was no "transfer" of wealth from the poor people to the wealthy (there couldn't have been, because they, being poor, didn't have wealth)." You're ignoring value created through labor. The poor may not have wealth but they have their labor to sell on the open market. The returns on that exchange have been steadily declining since the post-war period thanks to flat wages and inflation. Meanwhile increases in productivity (as demonstrated by increases in GDP) by definition have to go somewhere. Since it isn't going into working folks savings accounts then it's accumulating somewhere. Also worth considering, the middle class has been declining for the last 40 years.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    > have to go somewhere. Consider the vast increase in government spending and entitlements. As for the declines, the US free market has steadily become less and less free market.
    - forgetfreeman 1y ago
      Taxes as a % of GDP have been relatively flat over the last 60 years, and on average have been lower over the last 25 years so claiming the government or "entitlements" are the culprit doesn't scan. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/united-states/tax-revenue--of-gdp https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/united-states/tax-reve... Claims that the market has become less free are perfectly baseless and a non sequitur here as even if that claim was true and verifiable it does nothing to explain the decline of the middle class or why increases in GDP aren't reflected in either household buying power or real wages.
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        Have you counted state & local taxes, as well as the deficit? All those count. Washington State has heaped on a lot of new taxes in the last few years. California has done even worse. > Claims that the market has become less free are perfectly baseless So the mountains of new regulations have no effect? Consider all the thousands of burned out houses in LA. So far, only 4 building permits have been issued. In Seattle, constant burdens by the City Council heaped on the rental business have driven out a lot of landlords (things such as free lawyers for tenants), resulting in a shortage of affordable housing. Those don't show up as government spending, but they retard the market anyway. The same goes with minimum wage hikes.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        forgetfreeman 1y ago
        The deficit should count, but since Federal taxes haven't been increased to service it it doesn't, so there is that. Likewise, CA and WA are what they are, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest they're so central to the US economy that their local tax structure is driving tracked changes to household income and savings, real wages, inflation, etc. metrics on a national level. Additionally relatively recent changes in these states do nothing to explain flat wages and the declining middle class over the last 50 years. "So the mountains of new regulations have no effect?" Difficult to say until there's a few specific examples to examine. I've just spent the last half hour digging around for evidence that suggests there's been a spike in enforcement actions by the government at any point in the last three presidential terms and I'm not coming up with anything so until some evidence surfaces I'm going with probably not. As for local goings on in LA and Seattle, neither are "the market". This isn't the first time I've been exposed to the apparent self-absorption of West Coast politics but I gotta tell you, y'all aren't the singularity around which the US economy or global markets pivots around. That'd be the oil and gas industry.

WalterBright 1y ago

For economics, I prefer history to academic theory. (But I have read Friedman's "Monetary History of the United States", and books by economist C. Northcote Parkinson, "Capitalism" by Reisman, etc. My dad also had a degree in economics from MIT and an MBA from Harvard and a doctorate in economicis and taught finance in college. We had many many long talks about economics. And yeah, I did take econ 101 at Caltech from a Marxist professor. My dad would have had him for lunch.) > wealth absolutely concentrates in unregulated markets The US had more or less unregulated markets for well over a century since its founding. The result? The most stupendous wealth creation, pushing scores of millions of people from poverty into the middle class and beyond. There was no "transfer" of wealth from the poor people to the wealthy (there couldn't have been, because they, being poor, didn't have wealth).

forgetfreeman 1y ago
"There was no "transfer" of wealth from the poor people to the wealthy (there couldn't have been, because they, being poor, didn't have wealth)." You're ignoring value created through labor. The poor may not have wealth but they have their labor to sell on the open market. The returns on that exchange have been steadily declining since the post-war period thanks to flat wages and inflation. Meanwhile increases in productivity (as demonstrated by increases in GDP) by definition have to go somewhere. Since it isn't going into working folks savings accounts then it's accumulating somewhere. Also worth considering, the middle class has been declining for the last 40 years.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  > have to go somewhere. Consider the vast increase in government spending and entitlements. As for the declines, the US free market has steadily become less and less free market.
  - forgetfreeman 1y ago
    Taxes as a % of GDP have been relatively flat over the last 60 years, and on average have been lower over the last 25 years so claiming the government or "entitlements" are the culprit doesn't scan. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/united-states/tax-revenue--of-gdp https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/united-states/tax-reve... Claims that the market has become less free are perfectly baseless and a non sequitur here as even if that claim was true and verifiable it does nothing to explain the decline of the middle class or why increases in GDP aren't reflected in either household buying power or real wages.
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      Have you counted state & local taxes, as well as the deficit? All those count. Washington State has heaped on a lot of new taxes in the last few years. California has done even worse. > Claims that the market has become less free are perfectly baseless So the mountains of new regulations have no effect? Consider all the thousands of burned out houses in LA. So far, only 4 building permits have been issued. In Seattle, constant burdens by the City Council heaped on the rental business have driven out a lot of landlords (things such as free lawyers for tenants), resulting in a shortage of affordable housing. Those don't show up as government spending, but they retard the market anyway. The same goes with minimum wage hikes.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - forgetfreeman 1y ago
        The deficit should count, but since Federal taxes haven't been increased to service it it doesn't, so there is that. Likewise, CA and WA are what they are, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest they're so central to the US economy that their local tax structure is driving tracked changes to household income and savings, real wages, inflation, etc. metrics on a national level. Additionally relatively recent changes in these states do nothing to explain flat wages and the declining middle class over the last 50 years. "So the mountains of new regulations have no effect?" Difficult to say until there's a few specific examples to examine. I've just spent the last half hour digging around for evidence that suggests there's been a spike in enforcement actions by the government at any point in the last three presidential terms and I'm not coming up with anything so until some evidence surfaces I'm going with probably not. As for local goings on in LA and Seattle, neither are "the market". This isn't the first time I've been exposed to the apparent self-absorption of West Coast politics but I gotta tell you, y'all aren't the singularity around which the US economy or global markets pivots around. That'd be the oil and gas industry.