4 ms·

Hmm, I don't think anyone seriously believes that a system where you can't choose your job would be superior to capitalism (after all, it wouldn't be very free)

Hmm, I don't think anyone seriously believes that a system where you can't choose your job would be superior to capitalism (after all, it wouldn't be very free). I think a more serious competitor is one where the underpinnings of capitalism remain in place, but some form of wealth distribution prevents all the gains from accumulating at the top (our current and probably dire within a few decades situation). For example, after world war two, the top tax rate was 90% and the world didn't end. This decimated the concentrations of wealth at the upper reaches of society and excessive luxury spending plummeted (for instance, once basic needs are satisfied, rich people start trading around excessively expensive pieces of art or excessively large houses). It, amongst other policies, also broke the intergenerational passage of wealth. However, it didn't remove the temptation to still create wealth. Think of it like playing a game on hard mode, you only get 1/10th the points a n00b gets, but you can still increase your relative position compared to others (which is what I assume rich people really care about when it comes to personal finances). I'm not advocating a particular course of action, but it seems the current course is unsustainable and similar things have been done successfully before. The political rhetoric is out of control these days though. Also, for what it's worth, guitars and canvases don't really cost that much. ;) EDIT: Thinking about this, what if we explicitly posed tax rates as validations of people's success and allowed them to get "achievements" past a certain point? Then playing the game at a harder difficulty would be a badge of prestige. This sounds a little crazy here, but in, e.g. the netherlands has entirely public tax returns and it's been debated and enacted here at various times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14disclose.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/yourtaxes/14discl...

bmelton 12y ago
> For example, after world war two, the top tax rate was 90% and the world didn't end. No, but it also wasn't nearly as easy then to emigrate to another country. Considering that the rich can file a few forms and gain citizenship in a tax-friendlier haven, and that is all that is required to recoup some 50% of their earnings, it seems unlikely that wealth would continue to be concentrated in America. Though expatriation numbers are relatively low overall, the rate of expatriation is currently at record highs. So long as there are countries not charging 90% tax rates, it seems unlikely that tax revenues would climb significantly, especially considering that the effective tax revenues stays relatively constant, it seems unlikely to change all that much. As far as all that goes, if you're not talking about supplanting capitalism, then it seems like we can agree that capitalism isn't actually Satan incarnate. If the "fix" for Capitalism is more of what we have (since we do already have redistribution, in spades), then we aren't talking about changing the game at all, but perhaps just some of the rules. As for the unsustainability of the current course, what, in particular, indicates that the current course is doing so horribly? We had a giant bust, and a slowly recovering recession, but that doesn't necessarily put capitalism as the culprit. I look at Twitter, and I see #resistcapitalism trending, and it seems everybody's trying to blame capitalism for police brutality. Maybe I'm just missing the bigger picture, but I can't figure out how the two are linked, even just a little bit.
- SapphireSun 12y ago
  For what it's worth, I agree, I think capitalism + some rule tweaks is fine. The culprit is really the beauty of capitalism: accelerating returns on investment. If you get to the head of the race you tend to start to accrue more and more wealth. The problem is that it's sucking the pond dry as there is a relatively stable money supply and much of it is circulating in the stratosphere (often as corporate stock buybacks). Hence the need for rule tweaks to enhance recirculation. This is a cool video I saw a while back that shows the current issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM I also agree that movement between countries is a modern problem that probably invalidates the old solution (unless multiple countries coordinate - unlikely). So, we have a problem that wealth will continue to concentrate absent controls on the distribution. The US has a lot of political problems right now, and the major commonality is that people at the bottom get the shaft every time. I think it's too much to try to solve every problem facing civilization in one conversation though, so I'll stick to distributions. ;) For what it's worth, believe me, I'm not a hippie. I want to start a company and get rich one day like all of you. I just think it's important to pay attention to the steady state of the system we are participating in.

bmelton 12y ago

> For example, after world war two, the top tax rate was 90% and the world didn't end. No, but it also wasn't nearly as easy then to emigrate to another country. Considering that the rich can file a few forms and gain citizenship in a tax-friendlier haven, and that is all that is required to recoup some 50% of their earnings, it seems unlikely that wealth would continue to be concentrated in America. Though expatriation numbers are relatively low overall, the rate of expatriation is currently at record highs. So long as there are countries not charging 90% tax rates, it seems unlikely that tax revenues would climb significantly, especially considering that the effective tax revenues stays relatively constant, it seems unlikely to change all that much. As far as all that goes, if you're not talking about supplanting capitalism, then it seems like we can agree that capitalism isn't actually Satan incarnate. If the "fix" for Capitalism is more of what we have (since we do already have redistribution, in spades), then we aren't talking about changing the game at all, but perhaps just some of the rules. As for the unsustainability of the current course, what, in particular, indicates that the current course is doing so horribly? We had a giant bust, and a slowly recovering recession, but that doesn't necessarily put capitalism as the culprit. I look at Twitter, and I see #resistcapitalism trending, and it seems everybody's trying to blame capitalism for police brutality. Maybe I'm just missing the bigger picture, but I can't figure out how the two are linked, even just a little bit.

SapphireSun 12y ago
For what it's worth, I agree, I think capitalism + some rule tweaks is fine. The culprit is really the beauty of capitalism: accelerating returns on investment. If you get to the head of the race you tend to start to accrue more and more wealth. The problem is that it's sucking the pond dry as there is a relatively stable money supply and much of it is circulating in the stratosphere (often as corporate stock buybacks). Hence the need for rule tweaks to enhance recirculation. This is a cool video I saw a while back that shows the current issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM I also agree that movement between countries is a modern problem that probably invalidates the old solution (unless multiple countries coordinate - unlikely). So, we have a problem that wealth will continue to concentrate absent controls on the distribution. The US has a lot of political problems right now, and the major commonality is that people at the bottom get the shaft every time. I think it's too much to try to solve every problem facing civilization in one conversation though, so I'll stick to distributions. ;) For what it's worth, believe me, I'm not a hippie. I want to start a company and get rich one day like all of you. I just think it's important to pay attention to the steady state of the system we are participating in.