5 ms·

This type of idea is never popular with the people that have large stores of the prior government backed currency. The rich never want to have their wealth in a

by jgeada 10mo ago

This type of idea is never popular with the people that have large stores of the prior government backed currency. The rich never want to have their wealth in any way threatened, and they have the reach and influence to make the government protect their assets, even if it comes at the cost of causing misery to pretty much everyone else. There ought to be a better balance, and the US found it in the period between the end of WWII and the 1970s. High marginal taxes on extreme wealth, high inheritance taxes and zealous antitrust and anti-monopoly enforcement all kept people's wealth and power disparity somewhat in check.

littlestymaar 10mo ago
> the US found it in the period between the end of WWII and the 1970s. High marginal taxes on extreme wealth, high inheritance taxes and zealous antitrust and anti-monopoly enforcement all kept people's wealth and power disparity somewhat in check. This. People like to say Capitalism won the cold war, but in reality it was the welfare state with its massive redistribution and limits on concentration of power that won. The current economic and social model isn't even desirable enough to prevent people from fantasizing Putin's Russia, it would have stood no chance against the USSR in the 50s.
- sershe 10mo ago
  Social welfare spending only goes up as percentage of GDP. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long.... What data do you use to distinguish the "current economic system"? Notably of course, assuming the variations of the US system even mattered, the USSR collapsed after the 80ies (deregulation and liberalization having started even earlier under Carter, not after post war US economy stagnated in the 60ies-70ies.
  - littlestymaar 10mo ago
    > Social welfare spending only goes up as percentage of GDP. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long.... Not everything that count can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. Metrics like these are meaningless when the working class' living condition keeps deteriorating. > What data do you use to distinguish the "current economic system"? Pick your favorite: - wealth concentration (what share of wealth does the top, say 0.1% for instance but pick whatever you like best, of wealth distribution) - media concentration - number of years of average income spent in a political campaign - effective tax rates on the wealthiest people > Notably of course, assuming the variations of the US system even mattered, the USSR collapsed after the 80ies The soviet union collapsed from their own issues (which were numerous, and growing), that doesn't change anything to my argument comparing today's West with peak USSR.
    - sershe 10mo ago
      "Metrics like these are meaningless when the working class' living condition keeps deteriorating." 1) what is working class? 2) what proof do you have that its "living condition keeps deteriorating"? By all metrics - including disposable income after housing etc - its living conditions keep improving. And problems like housing are caused by parts of the "current system" that are the most non capitalist - zoning and other local regulation, in particular, the result of the 70ies revolution towards safetyism and more direct democracy. When Moseses and Leavitts made all the decisions with their concentrated government OR commercial power, housing was plentiful. When FDA was approve-by-default medicine was cheap (although obviously that is not the only factor). Etc. The things on the list either just have nothing to do with living conditions or welfare state, or if they do to an extent have little to do with the "current system" EDIt: or just plain wrong; https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/top-1-percent-tax-rate/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/top-1-percent-tax...
      - littlestymaar 10mo ago
        > 1) what is working class? Thanks, now I have no need to give you the benefit of the doubt because I know for sure that you aren't arguing in good faith. Hence I'm not going to waste any more time in this discussion.
        sershe 10mo ago
        Why is that? Definition of working class can range from near everyone with a job to a lower stratum under the middle class to even more narrowly manufacturing and similar. Nice cope out though. At least I provided some data and not just fact free vibes.
        littlestymaar 10mo ago
        > At least I provided some data and not just fact free vibes Without realizing that the “data” contradicts your point despite only starting in the second Reagan term (hence entirely missing the point). If you want to get actual data, see Saez and Zucman.
  - Retz4o4 10mo ago
    https://www.wealtheconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Stevenson-2019.pdf https://www.wealtheconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/S...
    - sershe 10mo ago
      "in reality welfare state with its massive redistribution and limits on concentration of power that won" The welfare state increased 3x since post war time so that one is plain wrong. It was not clear if the 2nd part was "its" or separate . What is the metric for concentration of /power/? Rather than wealth. If anything the recent developments are the result of more direct democracy. Candidates like trump would have never been allowed by concentrated media and party machines mid century
d3ckard 10mo ago
Common misconception IMO. High marginal taxes and high inheritance taxes do not affect the rich - they eliminate competition for them. I do agree on antitrust and antimonopoly though.
- bbminner 10mo ago
  How come they eliminate competition? What if inheritance taxes are progressive?
- cassepipe 10mo ago
  I'd be curious to know more, this is quite unintuitive
  - d3ckard 10mo ago
    Generally, there are no systems that are 100% bulletproof. This applies to everything. So, the more power you have, the more likely you are to exploit the existing loops. Who is actually affected? Those less powerful. Progressive tax system hits the middle class (actual middle class, la petite bourgeoisie, not the modern bullshit redefinition of the term) hardest, making it harder for them to make it rich and compete with actual rich people. As the effect, rich protect inheritance by trusts and avoid taxes by not having income (plenty of tricks available with borrowing), while people like doctors, lawyers, small business owners fund the state and hit hard limits on what can they make. Don't believe me? Check how much of the tax income comes from top brackets. You may be surprised. Pro tip: system is very skewed to the top.
    - webnrrd2k 10mo ago
      If the problem is that the system is very skewed to the top, then isn't the solution to be found in addressing that skew? In closing those particular loopholes? Shouldn't everyone pay their fair share of taxes? Warren Buffett and others seem to think that they should.
      - d3ckard 10mo ago
cynicalkane 10mo ago
The rich do not, in general, possess Scrooge McDuck vaults full of "prior government backed currency". The assets of the wealthy are generally real assets and business investments. Cash is such a poor investment that the word "investment" typically means trying to find something more productive than holding cash. Neither do alternatives to cash have a reliable history of benefitting the poor. In the US there's been lots of attempts at local currencies; they tend to fail naturally without government interference. Recently, cryptographic alternatives to cash have mostly served to benefit crypto barons and scammers.
- gsf_emergency_6 10mo ago
  [dead]
- ta12653421 10mo ago
  What most people dont get: Cash is not for saving or investing - its for spending in the daily life, for transactions, but not for long term storage.
  - gsf_emergency_6 10mo ago
    Not if you make it deflationary, like some crypto "cash" :)

by jgeada 10mo ago

littlestymaar 10mo ago

> the US found it in the period between the end of WWII and the 1970s. High marginal taxes on extreme wealth, high inheritance taxes and zealous antitrust and anti-monopoly enforcement all kept people's wealth and power disparity somewhat in check. This. People like to say Capitalism won the cold war, but in reality it was the welfare state with its massive redistribution and limits on concentration of power that won. The current economic and social model isn't even desirable enough to prevent people from fantasizing Putin's Russia, it would have stood no chance against the USSR in the 50s.

sershe 10mo ago
Social welfare spending only goes up as percentage of GDP. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long.... What data do you use to distinguish the "current economic system"? Notably of course, assuming the variations of the US system even mattered, the USSR collapsed after the 80ies (deregulation and liberalization having started even earlier under Carter, not after post war US economy stagnated in the 60ies-70ies.
- littlestymaar 10mo ago
  > Social welfare spending only goes up as percentage of GDP. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long.... Not everything that count can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. Metrics like these are meaningless when the working class' living condition keeps deteriorating. > What data do you use to distinguish the "current economic system"? Pick your favorite: - wealth concentration (what share of wealth does the top, say 0.1% for instance but pick whatever you like best, of wealth distribution) - media concentration - number of years of average income spent in a political campaign - effective tax rates on the wealthiest people > Notably of course, assuming the variations of the US system even mattered, the USSR collapsed after the 80ies The soviet union collapsed from their own issues (which were numerous, and growing), that doesn't change anything to my argument comparing today's West with peak USSR.
  - sershe 10mo ago
    "Metrics like these are meaningless when the working class' living condition keeps deteriorating." 1) what is working class? 2) what proof do you have that its "living condition keeps deteriorating"? By all metrics - including disposable income after housing etc - its living conditions keep improving. And problems like housing are caused by parts of the "current system" that are the most non capitalist - zoning and other local regulation, in particular, the result of the 70ies revolution towards safetyism and more direct democracy. When Moseses and Leavitts made all the decisions with their concentrated government OR commercial power, housing was plentiful. When FDA was approve-by-default medicine was cheap (although obviously that is not the only factor). Etc. The things on the list either just have nothing to do with living conditions or welfare state, or if they do to an extent have little to do with the "current system" EDIt: or just plain wrong; https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/top-1-percent-tax-rate/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/top-1-percent-tax...
    - littlestymaar 10mo ago
      > 1) what is working class? Thanks, now I have no need to give you the benefit of the doubt because I know for sure that you aren't arguing in good faith. Hence I'm not going to waste any more time in this discussion.
      - sershe 10mo ago
        Why is that? Definition of working class can range from near everyone with a job to a lower stratum under the middle class to even more narrowly manufacturing and similar. Nice cope out though. At least I provided some data and not just fact free vibes.
        littlestymaar 10mo ago
        > At least I provided some data and not just fact free vibes Without realizing that the “data” contradicts your point despite only starting in the second Reagan term (hence entirely missing the point). If you want to get actual data, see Saez and Zucman.
- Retz4o4 10mo ago
  https://www.wealtheconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Stevenson-2019.pdf https://www.wealtheconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/S...
  - sershe 10mo ago
    "in reality welfare state with its massive redistribution and limits on concentration of power that won" The welfare state increased 3x since post war time so that one is plain wrong. It was not clear if the 2nd part was "its" or separate . What is the metric for concentration of /power/? Rather than wealth. If anything the recent developments are the result of more direct democracy. Candidates like trump would have never been allowed by concentrated media and party machines mid century

d3ckard 10mo ago

Common misconception IMO. High marginal taxes and high inheritance taxes do not affect the rich - they eliminate competition for them. I do agree on antitrust and antimonopoly though.

bbminner 10mo ago
How come they eliminate competition? What if inheritance taxes are progressive?
cassepipe 10mo ago
I'd be curious to know more, this is quite unintuitive
- d3ckard 10mo ago
  Generally, there are no systems that are 100% bulletproof. This applies to everything. So, the more power you have, the more likely you are to exploit the existing loops. Who is actually affected? Those less powerful. Progressive tax system hits the middle class (actual middle class, la petite bourgeoisie, not the modern bullshit redefinition of the term) hardest, making it harder for them to make it rich and compete with actual rich people. As the effect, rich protect inheritance by trusts and avoid taxes by not having income (plenty of tricks available with borrowing), while people like doctors, lawyers, small business owners fund the state and hit hard limits on what can they make. Don't believe me? Check how much of the tax income comes from top brackets. You may be surprised. Pro tip: system is very skewed to the top.
  - webnrrd2k 10mo ago
    If the problem is that the system is very skewed to the top, then isn't the solution to be found in addressing that skew? In closing those particular loopholes? Shouldn't everyone pay their fair share of taxes? Warren Buffett and others seem to think that they should.
    - d3ckard 10mo ago

cynicalkane 10mo ago

The rich do not, in general, possess Scrooge McDuck vaults full of "prior government backed currency". The assets of the wealthy are generally real assets and business investments. Cash is such a poor investment that the word "investment" typically means trying to find something more productive than holding cash. Neither do alternatives to cash have a reliable history of benefitting the poor. In the US there's been lots of attempts at local currencies; they tend to fail naturally without government interference. Recently, cryptographic alternatives to cash have mostly served to benefit crypto barons and scammers.

gsf_emergency_6 10mo ago
[dead]
ta12653421 10mo ago
What most people dont get: Cash is not for saving or investing - its for spending in the daily life, for transactions, but not for long term storage.
- gsf_emergency_6 10mo ago
  Not if you make it deflationary, like some crypto "cash" :)