3 ms·

Why We’re in a New Gilded Age

18 points by siavosh 12y ago

Animats 12y ago
Why didn’t the universally enfranchised citizens of France vote in politicians who would take on the rentier class? Well, then as now great wealth purchased great influence—not just over policies, but over public discourse. Upton Sinclair famously declared that “it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Piketty, looking at his own nation’s history, arrives at a similar observation: “The experience of France in the Belle Époque proves, if proof were needed, that no hypocrisy is too great when economic and financial elites are obliged to defend their interest.” This is why Ronald Reagan is referred to as "The Great Communicator" by the right. He turned "greed is good, greed works" into something that could be sold to the white working class.
eliyak 12y ago
The problem with redistribution of wealth is that if the very wealthy have, say, 50% of their income taken away, they have 50% less reason to earn it in the first place, by creating goods and services that other people want to buy. And when they do, they necessarily must transfer wealth to other people, in the form of wages, payment for goods and services, and eventually selling the final product (which the purchaser views as a net benefit, and which he necessarily can afford to purchase). That is why the US, which has high wealth inequality, also has high standards of living overall. A million people with $300 each will not be able to create a million washing machines, but one man with $300 million can make 2 million of them, and when he sells them they will improve the lives of the purchasers in a way they could not do by themselves. If 50% of his profits were to be taken away, he will make a decision such as moving his business to another country or state, which has less taxes. This will result in less income to workers and businesses in the original location, and less taxes for that government. If wealth inequality is an evil, it is an evil of the most necessary kind.
- zzalpha 12y ago
  "That is why the US, which has high wealth inequality, also has high standards of living overall." I see. So countries with more redistributive policies, like Canada, obviously have lower standards of living than the US. Right? It couldn't be that your ideology doesn't actually match reality, could it?

18 points by siavosh 12y ago

Why didn’t the universally enfranchised citizens of France vote in politicians who would take on the rentier class? Well, then as now great wealth purchased great influence—not just over policies, but over public discourse. Upton Sinclair famously declared that “it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Piketty, looking at his own nation’s history, arrives at a similar observation: “The experience of France in the Belle Époque proves, if proof were needed, that no hypocrisy is too great when economic and financial elites are obliged to defend their interest.” This is why Ronald Reagan is referred to as "The Great Communicator" by the right. He turned "greed is good, greed works" into something that could be sold to the white working class.

eliyak 12y ago

The problem with redistribution of wealth is that if the very wealthy have, say, 50% of their income taken away, they have 50% less reason to earn it in the first place, by creating goods and services that other people want to buy. And when they do, they necessarily must transfer wealth to other people, in the form of wages, payment for goods and services, and eventually selling the final product (which the purchaser views as a net benefit, and which he necessarily can afford to purchase). That is why the US, which has high wealth inequality, also has high standards of living overall. A million people with $300 each will not be able to create a million washing machines, but one man with $300 million can make 2 million of them, and when he sells them they will improve the lives of the purchasers in a way they could not do by themselves. If 50% of his profits were to be taken away, he will make a decision such as moving his business to another country or state, which has less taxes. This will result in less income to workers and businesses in the original location, and less taxes for that government. If wealth inequality is an evil, it is an evil of the most necessary kind.

zzalpha 12y ago
"That is why the US, which has high wealth inequality, also has high standards of living overall." I see. So countries with more redistributive policies, like Canada, obviously have lower standards of living than the US. Right? It couldn't be that your ideology doesn't actually match reality, could it?