4 ms·

I didn't downvote, but I think your point is weak nonetheless. Spending should be a function of available resources. If you have $100k you're going to spend it

I didn't downvote, but I think your point is weak nonetheless. Spending should be a function of available resources. If you have $100k you're going to spend it more or less the same as if you had $1mil and the gov. taxed you heavily leaving you with $100k. Also, the spending function (as a fraction of income) is generally understood to decrease (as far as I know) -- the wealthy spend less of their income due to lower marginal expenses. That goes for the 'stripping wealth from the people' claim. I also generally don't believe artisanal products or organic produce can meaningfully reverse this trend. And if an artisanal product has no measurable distinction from a mass-manufactured one, and wealthy people may more for them, I'd say that's one mechanism for income boosting (albeit a very inefficient one I suppose).

crdoconnor 11y ago
>I didn't downvote, but I think your point is weak nonetheless. Spending should be a function of available resources. If you have $100k you're going to spend it more or less the same as if you had $1mil and the gov. taxed you heavily leaving you with $100k. Uh, yes. I think it would be stupid to deny this. >Also, the spending function (as a fraction of income) is generally understood to decrease (as far as I know) -- the wealthy spend less of their income due to lower marginal expenses. The wealthy save more. Again, not controversial in the slightest. >That goes for the 'stripping wealth from the people' claim. By stripping wealth I am talking about the financialization of the economy - for example, driving Detroit taxpayer's money into derivatives so that they slash pensions. Or lowering property taxes, driving that stream of revenue directly into the banks' pockets via a stream of mortgage interest payments. Or thousands of other examples that have nothing to do with the wealthy's propensity to save, but has driven dumptrucks of wealth into the pockets of the 0.1%. >I also generally don't believe artisanal products or organic produce can meaningfully reverse this trend. Which trend? The gradual wealth stripping trend that has been accelerating over the last 30 years or this automation trend that been continuing for at least two centuries? Yeah, I don't think the (real, albeit small) job creating power of craft beer is going to overwhelm the job destroying power of Wall Street either.

crdoconnor 11y ago

>I didn't downvote, but I think your point is weak nonetheless. Spending should be a function of available resources. If you have $100k you're going to spend it more or less the same as if you had $1mil and the gov. taxed you heavily leaving you with $100k. Uh, yes. I think it would be stupid to deny this. >Also, the spending function (as a fraction of income) is generally understood to decrease (as far as I know) -- the wealthy spend less of their income due to lower marginal expenses. The wealthy save more. Again, not controversial in the slightest. >That goes for the 'stripping wealth from the people' claim. By stripping wealth I am talking about the financialization of the economy - for example, driving Detroit taxpayer's money into derivatives so that they slash pensions. Or lowering property taxes, driving that stream of revenue directly into the banks' pockets via a stream of mortgage interest payments. Or thousands of other examples that have nothing to do with the wealthy's propensity to save, but has driven dumptrucks of wealth into the pockets of the 0.1%. >I also generally don't believe artisanal products or organic produce can meaningfully reverse this trend. Which trend? The gradual wealth stripping trend that has been accelerating over the last 30 years or this automation trend that been continuing for at least two centuries? Yeah, I don't think the (real, albeit small) job creating power of craft beer is going to overwhelm the job destroying power of Wall Street either.