5 ms·

The elephant in the room is that rich people need to be taxed and their wealth redistributed. If that happens, then there is a mechanism that prevents systems

The elephant in the room is that rich people need to be taxed and their wealth redistributed. If that happens, then there is a mechanism that prevents systems of compounding power, and the wages "stolen" by inflation are put back into the economy rather than becoming part of someone's hoard. If wealth is redistributed then that allows for monetary inflation without changing power relationships. If that does not happen, then power compounds and those with power will enact systems that benefit themselves since they will never have to experience the long term consequences of their looting of tomorrow for today. The poor will continue to get poorer and the rich will get richer, until the rich have so much power and poor have so little power, that law, the prevention of arbitrary exercises of power by the powerful, becomes meaningless and the rich will take what they wish unopposed. Some people will get so powerful that when a government says "you can't fish all the fish in the sea because we need to have fish next year" they pay enough money to replace that government's politicians with politicians that say you can, then next year there are no more fish left to fish. Money is a note that denotes buying power, but that note is meaningful because there is a law that says it is meaningful and people with guns enforce that it is meaningful. So if people get powerful enough to subordinate people with guns it means that power is more effective at acquiring resources than money since someone with power can just take what they want without consequence. So inflationary monetary policy is good because it means more money is active in the economy, but inflationary policy is bad because it also concentrates money/power and you must have a system to prevent the power concentration that inflation causes by default if you want the system to remain coherent.

greenavocado 1y ago
That sounds nice in theory but the practical reality is that this so-called redistributed wealth is funneled back to "the people" through corrupt departments and NGOs because a corrupt system will stop at nothing to perpetuate the production through whatever mechanisms available. The only way this can be stopped is with a moralistic social movement.
- hayst4ck 1y ago
  I don't follow what you're saying. If you're saying that people must empower themselves (by unionizing or the like) first because redistribution must follow power rather than power following redistribution, then I agree. If you're saying something else then I don't understand.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
scrubs 1y ago
Since Reagan the upper 10% and corporations have been in the ascendancy. Add out sourcing of supply chains to cheaper countries without consequent benefit to the employees --- but a hell of a good time with stock buy backs and profit --- tack on stupid inflation in US health care, US housing, and US education ... and the pendulum has gone too far in favor of the upper 5% where all real income gains have gone. I do not want redistribution; America is equality of opportunity not outcomes. It's politically unsellable smacking of far left politics. I could not care less that some guy has $10M or $10B. I'm happy in my life ... however I am pissed I am getting squeezed in the middle. I damn sure want the upper 15% + all corporations to pay the same percentage of taxes per dollar I do. I'm near the top end but not enough to have a coterie of CPAs playing paperwork games. I'm with 100% with Buffet on this. I've been in the Cisco/HP/whatever corporate buildings in SV; ditto Apple. I was both surprised and not surprised (knowing corporations) to hear Apple was Irish in some sense for tax purposes. That's BS. Finally, Congress is going to have to get off its butt and do something to make them credible again on spending what they take in. This is another serious up-hill climb before selling ``higher" e.g. fairer taxes. At least as far as rhetoric goes --- but not reality --- it's hard to move the GOP to fair I mean ``higher" taxes when the top ~10% already pay something like 40% of all tax income. That's just a hard sell.
- hayst4ck 1y ago
  Stock buybacks are a theft from the future. That's money not being spent on R&D, so it's another clear example of short term-ism. You see problems, but who do you think is going to solve those with what resources? > 5% where all real income gains have gone. Yes that's because wages are proportional to power, not output, and because poor people are getting poorer and rich getting richer, the power gap is widening resulting in fewer captured gains by those actually doing the work. > I do not want redistribution; America is equality of opportunity not outcomes. The problem with being against wealth distribution is two fold. One, and the more important part, is that you have to stop people from having too much, because having too much creates "too big to fail" situations which allow single individuals to compromise the government and be above the law. This was the age of robber barrons. Are you arguing we should support robber barrons? The second, less important reason, is that people who have a better start early in life are able to contribute more taxes/more to the economy later in life. Today's poor people are tomorrows drug addicts and criminals or potentially entrepreneurs and scientists and money can influence that significantly. Many anti wealth redistribution people are pro nuclear family people, but money issues and overwork/stress break up families. Jesus, which many of those people also claim to be followers of, was very pro wealth redistribution. Public schools are literally wealth redistribution, the most important kind. Do you really want to be in a country where it's the rule rather than the exception that people who cant do basic algebra can vote on tax policy? > It's politically unsellable smacking of far left politics. So it's wrong because it's left politics, but not wrong because it's a bad idea? Do you see how your description of it being wrong shows you're playing team sports. For you left and wrong are so close semantically that they're basically the same word which is why you don't realize how intellectually bankrupt that statement is. Everything conservatives claim to love, the teachings of Jesus and the constitution are extremely left ideals. Freedom isn't free is born out of left philosophy even though right wing people tend to be the ones saying it. > I could not care less that some guy has $10M or $10B. You really really really should. If a congress person costs 10M to compromise/primary/bribe/etc, the the guy with 10M guy can at most compromise one, while the 10B guy can compromise 1,000 of them. The 10B guy can buy a news Channel, the 10M guy can buy a commercial... The 10B guy can start a surveillance company in Palo Alto that makes use of all the pervasive surveillance collected from virtually everywhere and use it to support the politicians they prefer. The 10B guy can buy a social media company that algorithmically controls the political content people are exposed to. > I damn sure want the upper 15% + all corporations to pay the same percentage of taxes per dollar I do. The military, police, and social programs all contribute vastly disproportionately to their wealth. > I'm near the top end Well at least your point of view makes sense. > Apple was Irish in some sense for tax purposes But you have trouble connecting the dots that it's because they are an extremely rich corporation that they are able to buy or otherwise coerce themselves into being above the law? > Congress is going to have to get off its butt and do something Yet if they do, those 10B dollar citizens decide to devote their resources to primary-ing them in order to ensure a climate of de-regulation. Trump is literally in power to enact a policy written by the heritage foundation meant to "put government workers in trauma to prevent them from enacting regulation against oil companies." Literally stated like that. That's literally what the head of the OMB said. The whole last statement alone doesn't make any sense and ignores America's history.

greenavocado 1y ago

That sounds nice in theory but the practical reality is that this so-called redistributed wealth is funneled back to "the people" through corrupt departments and NGOs because a corrupt system will stop at nothing to perpetuate the production through whatever mechanisms available. The only way this can be stopped is with a moralistic social movement.

hayst4ck 1y ago
I don't follow what you're saying. If you're saying that people must empower themselves (by unionizing or the like) first because redistribution must follow power rather than power following redistribution, then I agree. If you're saying something else then I don't understand.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

scrubs 1y ago

Since Reagan the upper 10% and corporations have been in the ascendancy. Add out sourcing of supply chains to cheaper countries without consequent benefit to the employees --- but a hell of a good time with stock buy backs and profit --- tack on stupid inflation in US health care, US housing, and US education ... and the pendulum has gone too far in favor of the upper 5% where all real income gains have gone. I do not want redistribution; America is equality of opportunity not outcomes. It's politically unsellable smacking of far left politics. I could not care less that some guy has $10M or $10B. I'm happy in my life ... however I am pissed I am getting squeezed in the middle. I damn sure want the upper 15% + all corporations to pay the same percentage of taxes per dollar I do. I'm near the top end but not enough to have a coterie of CPAs playing paperwork games. I'm with 100% with Buffet on this. I've been in the Cisco/HP/whatever corporate buildings in SV; ditto Apple. I was both surprised and not surprised (knowing corporations) to hear Apple was Irish in some sense for tax purposes. That's BS. Finally, Congress is going to have to get off its butt and do something to make them credible again on spending what they take in. This is another serious up-hill climb before selling ``higher" e.g. fairer taxes. At least as far as rhetoric goes --- but not reality --- it's hard to move the GOP to fair I mean ``higher" taxes when the top ~10% already pay something like 40% of all tax income. That's just a hard sell.

hayst4ck 1y ago
Stock buybacks are a theft from the future. That's money not being spent on R&D, so it's another clear example of short term-ism. You see problems, but who do you think is going to solve those with what resources? > 5% where all real income gains have gone. Yes that's because wages are proportional to power, not output, and because poor people are getting poorer and rich getting richer, the power gap is widening resulting in fewer captured gains by those actually doing the work. > I do not want redistribution; America is equality of opportunity not outcomes. The problem with being against wealth distribution is two fold. One, and the more important part, is that you have to stop people from having too much, because having too much creates "too big to fail" situations which allow single individuals to compromise the government and be above the law. This was the age of robber barrons. Are you arguing we should support robber barrons? The second, less important reason, is that people who have a better start early in life are able to contribute more taxes/more to the economy later in life. Today's poor people are tomorrows drug addicts and criminals or potentially entrepreneurs and scientists and money can influence that significantly. Many anti wealth redistribution people are pro nuclear family people, but money issues and overwork/stress break up families. Jesus, which many of those people also claim to be followers of, was very pro wealth redistribution. Public schools are literally wealth redistribution, the most important kind. Do you really want to be in a country where it's the rule rather than the exception that people who cant do basic algebra can vote on tax policy? > It's politically unsellable smacking of far left politics. So it's wrong because it's left politics, but not wrong because it's a bad idea? Do you see how your description of it being wrong shows you're playing team sports. For you left and wrong are so close semantically that they're basically the same word which is why you don't realize how intellectually bankrupt that statement is. Everything conservatives claim to love, the teachings of Jesus and the constitution are extremely left ideals. Freedom isn't free is born out of left philosophy even though right wing people tend to be the ones saying it. > I could not care less that some guy has $10M or $10B. You really really really should. If a congress person costs 10M to compromise/primary/bribe/etc, the the guy with 10M guy can at most compromise one, while the 10B guy can compromise 1,000 of them. The 10B guy can buy a news Channel, the 10M guy can buy a commercial... The 10B guy can start a surveillance company in Palo Alto that makes use of all the pervasive surveillance collected from virtually everywhere and use it to support the politicians they prefer. The 10B guy can buy a social media company that algorithmically controls the political content people are exposed to. > I damn sure want the upper 15% + all corporations to pay the same percentage of taxes per dollar I do. The military, police, and social programs all contribute vastly disproportionately to their wealth. > I'm near the top end Well at least your point of view makes sense. > Apple was Irish in some sense for tax purposes But you have trouble connecting the dots that it's because they are an extremely rich corporation that they are able to buy or otherwise coerce themselves into being above the law? > Congress is going to have to get off its butt and do something Yet if they do, those 10B dollar citizens decide to devote their resources to primary-ing them in order to ensure a climate of de-regulation. Trump is literally in power to enact a policy written by the heritage foundation meant to "put government workers in trauma to prevent them from enacting regulation against oil companies." Literally stated like that. That's literally what the head of the OMB said. The whole last statement alone doesn't make any sense and ignores America's history.