3 ms·

This argument has a lot of holes in it. Notably, > Planned economies have historically failed. Very much false - the US war and post-war economy was very heav

by danlitt 8mo ago

This argument has a lot of holes in it. Notably, > Planned economies have historically failed. Very much false - the US war and post-war economy was very heavily planned, and was perhaps the most successful economy in history (precisely until it was gutted in the 70s/80s). > best case scenario, create a proportional inflation You give no reason to expect that this inflation will at best be proportional. It is perfectly possible (in fact likely) that the inflation will be less than proportional, because the price-setters (companies) are being taxed to give money to people on low incomes, who are economically speaking mostly consumers. > Each of this "tax exemptions" or subsidies eats the profits of someone else. Very rarely it's the richest luxuries that are taken away. Defeatist argument. It is obvious from history that taxation can be recouped from the rich, we just don't generally try to do that at the moment. We should start.

fedeb95 8mo ago
Companies are the same that both give salaries to consumers and can up prices. More taxes on companies means higher prices, job cuts, less salary increases. It's not necessary to point out that your quote of the post-war economy is cherry-picking. Plus, after a war it's very easy to get a recovery, especially if you win it. You talk about the US, but look at countries where the state is both heavy on taxes and inefficient. The point is that you delegate decisions on what do do and how to do it to very few people. They can be good, or be bad. Diversifying on an entire market is better. The only thing that can save middle/low class consumers is the hope that the state won't increase taxes faster than we can save money. A culture of proper saving, of not falling for luxury items presented as necessary by our peers (or companies selling them), is the only way out. Focusing on what matters. Most of us are instead living in the illusion that we can live a luxury life.
- danlitt 8mo ago
  > look at countries where the state is both heavy on taxes and inefficient And you accuse me of cherry picking! I have to guess, since I don't know what you regard as "inefficient", but about half of the top-ten-GDP countries are high-tax western european economies. Normalising per capita just leaves oil countries and tax havens, so I'm not sure what metric to use. > The only thing that can save middle/low class consumers is the hope that the state won't increase taxes faster than we can save money Do you have any evidence from history to back this up? Saving has not done the lower/middle class very much good in the last 100 years. Is there any period you can point to where living standards improved because people were saving money faster than taxes increased? Taxes were very low in the 1800s - did it enable lower class people to save money?
_heimdall 8mo ago
Price inflation isn't the only type of inflation. Monetary inflation was historically the "inflation" people focused on, and given that Ireland runs a deficit in their state budget this would be adding to the debt and inflating the money supply.
- danlitt 8mo ago
  > given that Ireland runs a deficit in their state budget is this true? Last I heard Ireland ran a surplus for the last 5 years or so.
  - _heimdall 8mo ago
    Well I'll be damned, I stand corrected! I had looked that up before posting and must have misread the a chart showing a slight surplus as shoeing a slight deficit instead.

by danlitt 8mo ago

fedeb95 8mo ago

Companies are the same that both give salaries to consumers and can up prices. More taxes on companies means higher prices, job cuts, less salary increases. It's not necessary to point out that your quote of the post-war economy is cherry-picking. Plus, after a war it's very easy to get a recovery, especially if you win it. You talk about the US, but look at countries where the state is both heavy on taxes and inefficient. The point is that you delegate decisions on what do do and how to do it to very few people. They can be good, or be bad. Diversifying on an entire market is better. The only thing that can save middle/low class consumers is the hope that the state won't increase taxes faster than we can save money. A culture of proper saving, of not falling for luxury items presented as necessary by our peers (or companies selling them), is the only way out. Focusing on what matters. Most of us are instead living in the illusion that we can live a luxury life.

danlitt 8mo ago
> look at countries where the state is both heavy on taxes and inefficient And you accuse me of cherry picking! I have to guess, since I don't know what you regard as "inefficient", but about half of the top-ten-GDP countries are high-tax western european economies. Normalising per capita just leaves oil countries and tax havens, so I'm not sure what metric to use. > The only thing that can save middle/low class consumers is the hope that the state won't increase taxes faster than we can save money Do you have any evidence from history to back this up? Saving has not done the lower/middle class very much good in the last 100 years. Is there any period you can point to where living standards improved because people were saving money faster than taxes increased? Taxes were very low in the 1800s - did it enable lower class people to save money?

_heimdall 8mo ago

Price inflation isn't the only type of inflation. Monetary inflation was historically the "inflation" people focused on, and given that Ireland runs a deficit in their state budget this would be adding to the debt and inflating the money supply.

danlitt 8mo ago
> given that Ireland runs a deficit in their state budget is this true? Last I heard Ireland ran a surplus for the last 5 years or so.
- _heimdall 8mo ago
  Well I'll be damned, I stand corrected! I had looked that up before posting and must have misread the a chart showing a slight surplus as shoeing a slight deficit instead.