4 ms·

You don't have to eat them. You just have to erect significant barriers to hoarding wealth, particularly in off shore devices, and you have to create constan

You don't have to eat them. You just have to erect significant barriers to hoarding wealth, particularly in off shore devices, and you have to create constant pressure to ensure that stored wealth is best re-invested in the economy at large. These aren't even hard problems. Until you meet someone in Congress. Then it suddenly seems hopeless.

PeterHolzwarth 9mo ago
>and you have to create constant pressure to ensure that stored wealth is best re-invested in the economy at large I have no idea if this is true (I've asked economists-in-training, they say they'll get back to me), but I've read that the huge increases in tax rates on high income during the war was less to generate revenue (tho more revenue was certainly a need - there was also a growing focus on growing the number of people who paid taxes, which prior had been quite small), but more to ensure profits were not realized and instead kept invested in the economy and the war machine. A kind of practical "hodl" to keep the wartime economy stock with reinvestment - or really to discourage removing money from industrial investment - to benefit the war-time economy. Would like links to things to learn more about this line of reasoning.
twoodfin 9mo ago
ensure that stored wealth is best re-invested in the economy at large Pretty sure the vast, vast bulk of wealth held by the richest US households is indeed “reinvested in the economy at large”. Where do you think it is instead?
- shimman 9mo ago
  Supporting companies that profit off of misery, reduce human meaningfulness, those that innovate the surveillance state; why is it so hard to support policies like giving US school children free breakfast + lunch, medicare for all, public housing, universal childcare, federally mandated paid time off, universal higher education + vocational training, and a public jobs program (all things that have 70-90% voter approval across party lines; the new deal coalition literally had control of both houses of Congress for nearly 60 years unabated)? Programs that would literally unleash hundreds of trillions in monetary + societal benefits, why should the US population care about the wealth of the few compared to what we can do to provide meaningful lives collectively? The idea that less than 100 people in the country have some sort of mandated right from the devil to dictate the direction of technology in our country should fill every single decent human being with disgust. We must correct this. The fact that several hyper scale data centers could provide US school children free lunches + breakfast for a year should be the first immediate sign that something is deeply wrong with our country.
  - twoodfin 9mo ago
    I dunno, I love my iPhone, especially when I use it to take photos of my kids. Amazon is pretty great, too. Also schoolchildren in my state have had free school breakfast & lunch since Covid.
    - HNisCIS 9mo ago
      Do you see what's going on around you or do you just stare at pictures of cats on your iPhone™
    - shimman 9mo ago
      Yes and you should care about the world your children are inheriting. What happens after you die? What happens if they get injured and can no longer work? What happens if they lose their job and can't afford their rent? What happens when it turns out they aren't as capable as you thought and require assistance to simply navigate the world? This is the problem with people like you, you simply lost your humanity because you care more about trinkets than literally shaping a better world for your children.
    - Bnjoroge 9mo ago
      incredible self awareness - well done
  - luses 9mo ago
    oh so your a filthy commie, an evil domestic terrorist. dont you know they're the job creators? you should be grateful for your stable bed and stop being greedy. imagine the horror of free loaders eating free lunches, living in affordable apartments close to school, and riding high speed rail each weekend to visit nature. will anyone think of our lords? and what about my iphone? obviously phones will cease to exist once we implement these communist pipe dreams. just look at china, they've got all of this and they clearly hate it. no phones, no brand clothes, oh the terror. you should be locked up in an insane asylum immediately
- HNisCIS 9mo ago
  When you invest you get shares. Shares come with votes. Do you think these people are voting to make your life better or do you think they're voting to arbitrarily raise prices to increase the value of their shares?
pfannkuchen 9mo ago
Isn’t hoarded wealth a no-op? It just reduces the supply of whatever they are hoarding. Would the people benefit from redistributing the things they are hoarding? Corporate stock that pays little to no dividends, mainly? It’s not like they are hoarding wheat. I don’t really get what people think will happen if we redistribute the stored wealth. All wealth is, is a claim to direct labor and materials, the magnitude of which is relative to the total amount of wealth competing to direct those at present. If some portion of the wealth is locked away, the labor and materials are still being deployed, just the total pool of wealth competing to direct them is smaller than it would be otherwise. Unlocking wealth does not actually bring more stuff into existence. Now, it could redirect labor and materials used to built yachts or luxury homes into more practical goods. But my impression is that the labor and materials used for those things are minuscule compared to the overall economy, and most of the wealth of the very wealthy is not actually used for those sorts of things.
- enraged_camel 9mo ago
  >> Isn’t hoarded wealth a no-op? It just reduces the supply of whatever they are hoarding. It’s not. Wealth creates political power, which the wealthy wield to stack the odds in their own favor at the expense of everyone else.
  - pfannkuchen 9mo ago
    Is that the topic of discussion? I thought it was something along the lines of “tax the rich so we can do things with the money”. That is the area I’m saying it is a no-op in. Statements without context frequently don’t mean the same as what they mean with context.
    - luses 9mo ago
      this argument ignores basic opportunity costs. taxing that wealth allows the state to redirect labor and materials production and distribution toward high-utility public goods: high-speed rail, dense urban cores, and affordable housing. instead of subsidizing insolvent suburbs, we could be modernizing the logistics network and actually growing the real economy. worse, you completely miss the political dimension. hoarded wealth buys the lobbying power to prevent these necessary structural changes. you are engaging in the exact kind of apologetics that has led to american infrastructure collapsing while the capital class extracts rent. thinking that resource allocation is a 'no-op' is economically illiterate

PeterHolzwarth 9mo ago

>and you have to create constant pressure to ensure that stored wealth is best re-invested in the economy at large I have no idea if this is true (I've asked economists-in-training, they say they'll get back to me), but I've read that the huge increases in tax rates on high income during the war was less to generate revenue (tho more revenue was certainly a need - there was also a growing focus on growing the number of people who paid taxes, which prior had been quite small), but more to ensure profits were not realized and instead kept invested in the economy and the war machine. A kind of practical "hodl" to keep the wartime economy stock with reinvestment - or really to discourage removing money from industrial investment - to benefit the war-time economy. Would like links to things to learn more about this line of reasoning.

twoodfin 9mo ago

ensure that stored wealth is best re-invested in the economy at large Pretty sure the vast, vast bulk of wealth held by the richest US households is indeed “reinvested in the economy at large”. Where do you think it is instead?

shimman 9mo ago
Supporting companies that profit off of misery, reduce human meaningfulness, those that innovate the surveillance state; why is it so hard to support policies like giving US school children free breakfast + lunch, medicare for all, public housing, universal childcare, federally mandated paid time off, universal higher education + vocational training, and a public jobs program (all things that have 70-90% voter approval across party lines; the new deal coalition literally had control of both houses of Congress for nearly 60 years unabated)? Programs that would literally unleash hundreds of trillions in monetary + societal benefits, why should the US population care about the wealth of the few compared to what we can do to provide meaningful lives collectively? The idea that less than 100 people in the country have some sort of mandated right from the devil to dictate the direction of technology in our country should fill every single decent human being with disgust. We must correct this. The fact that several hyper scale data centers could provide US school children free lunches + breakfast for a year should be the first immediate sign that something is deeply wrong with our country.
- twoodfin 9mo ago
  I dunno, I love my iPhone, especially when I use it to take photos of my kids. Amazon is pretty great, too. Also schoolchildren in my state have had free school breakfast & lunch since Covid.
  - HNisCIS 9mo ago
    Do you see what's going on around you or do you just stare at pictures of cats on your iPhone™
  - shimman 9mo ago
    Yes and you should care about the world your children are inheriting. What happens after you die? What happens if they get injured and can no longer work? What happens if they lose their job and can't afford their rent? What happens when it turns out they aren't as capable as you thought and require assistance to simply navigate the world? This is the problem with people like you, you simply lost your humanity because you care more about trinkets than literally shaping a better world for your children.
  - Bnjoroge 9mo ago
    incredible self awareness - well done
- luses 9mo ago
  oh so your a filthy commie, an evil domestic terrorist. dont you know they're the job creators? you should be grateful for your stable bed and stop being greedy. imagine the horror of free loaders eating free lunches, living in affordable apartments close to school, and riding high speed rail each weekend to visit nature. will anyone think of our lords? and what about my iphone? obviously phones will cease to exist once we implement these communist pipe dreams. just look at china, they've got all of this and they clearly hate it. no phones, no brand clothes, oh the terror. you should be locked up in an insane asylum immediately
HNisCIS 9mo ago
When you invest you get shares. Shares come with votes. Do you think these people are voting to make your life better or do you think they're voting to arbitrarily raise prices to increase the value of their shares?

pfannkuchen 9mo ago

Isn’t hoarded wealth a no-op? It just reduces the supply of whatever they are hoarding. Would the people benefit from redistributing the things they are hoarding? Corporate stock that pays little to no dividends, mainly? It’s not like they are hoarding wheat. I don’t really get what people think will happen if we redistribute the stored wealth. All wealth is, is a claim to direct labor and materials, the magnitude of which is relative to the total amount of wealth competing to direct those at present. If some portion of the wealth is locked away, the labor and materials are still being deployed, just the total pool of wealth competing to direct them is smaller than it would be otherwise. Unlocking wealth does not actually bring more stuff into existence. Now, it could redirect labor and materials used to built yachts or luxury homes into more practical goods. But my impression is that the labor and materials used for those things are minuscule compared to the overall economy, and most of the wealth of the very wealthy is not actually used for those sorts of things.

enraged_camel 9mo ago
>> Isn’t hoarded wealth a no-op? It just reduces the supply of whatever they are hoarding. It’s not. Wealth creates political power, which the wealthy wield to stack the odds in their own favor at the expense of everyone else.
- pfannkuchen 9mo ago
  Is that the topic of discussion? I thought it was something along the lines of “tax the rich so we can do things with the money”. That is the area I’m saying it is a no-op in. Statements without context frequently don’t mean the same as what they mean with context.
  - luses 9mo ago
    this argument ignores basic opportunity costs. taxing that wealth allows the state to redirect labor and materials production and distribution toward high-utility public goods: high-speed rail, dense urban cores, and affordable housing. instead of subsidizing insolvent suburbs, we could be modernizing the logistics network and actually growing the real economy. worse, you completely miss the political dimension. hoarded wealth buys the lobbying power to prevent these necessary structural changes. you are engaging in the exact kind of apologetics that has led to american infrastructure collapsing while the capital class extracts rent. thinking that resource allocation is a 'no-op' is economically illiterate