What issues would the question, is income inequality bad for society raise?

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
That's fair. We tend to judge others based on their value to us and society. Whether this is entirely a social construct or partially an instinctive behavior could be debated. I believe such judgmental behavior would probably still occur even in a true post-scarcity society, though to a lesser degree. On the surface this seems cruel, and it is cruel to the individual, but it is possible that this behavior serves a purpose for our species as a whole. That's not to say we must accept the inevitable, but to acknowledge not only the difficulty of the problem, but the possible unintended consequences associated with changing something that may be pretty deeply ingrained.

It's entirely appropriate and a good thing we do exactly that judging. Even in a post-scarcity society the people who create no value should enjoy no reputation or anything beyond basic survivial needs provided by society. Whether it's Whuffie or any other means, if you're a selfish slacker you deserve nothing but the disdain of those around you. Which is exactly why I said earlier that focusing on "inequality" is pointless since giving money to the poor doesn't create in them a sense of purpose, motivation, or accomplishment but only gives them the ability to enjoy some momentary consumer indulgence at another's expense. Bread and Circuses didn't work in the Roman Empire days and won't now.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
It's entirely appropriate and a good thing we do exactly that judging. Even in a post-scarcity society the people who create no value should enjoy no reputation or anything beyond basic survivial needs provided by society.

So you are saying we should strip Paris Hilton of all her money and send her to the poorhouse. I agree.

You see the problem here? You seem to equate wealth with value-creation. Even if it's a mafioso, drug lord, or useless heir of a hotel empire.

Whereas a poor, but hardworking janitor actually creates value for his employer, yet you spit on him and want to give him nothing just because he's poor.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
So you are saying we should strip Paris Hilton of all her money and send her to the poorhouse. I agree.

You see the problem here? You seem to equate wealth with value-creation. Even if it's a mafioso, drug lord, or useless heir of a hotel empire.

Whereas a poor, but hardworking janitor actually creates value for his employer, yet you spit on him and want to give him nothing just because he's poor.

Why do you have such a hard-on for Paris Hilton? And no, she wouldn't go to the poorhouse because she's not relying on society for her money. You're the person who needs to know what her bank account balance is before you decide whether she is "worthy" of money or not. If she were trailer trash instead you'd be falling over yourself to take money from some other poor schmuck to give to her in the name of "inequality." What difference does it make if her rich daddy gave her money, or Uncle Sam gives her money? You think one is great and the other terrible, are you schizophrenic or just honestly think you're helping someone when you shield them from accountability?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
That's fair. We tend to judge others based on their value to us and society. Whether this is entirely a social construct or partially an instinctive behavior could be debated. I believe such judgmental behavior would probably still occur even in a true post-scarcity society, though to a lesser degree. On the surface this seems cruel, and it is cruel to the individual, but it is possible that this behavior serves a purpose for our species as a whole. That's not to say we must accept the inevitable, but to acknowledge not only the difficulty of the problem, but the possible unintended consequences associated with changing something that may be pretty deeply ingrained.

I much prefer your post here to the one glenn1 makes following yours. I see in yours compassion and understanding of the complexity of the problem, and in his only formulaic hard certainty, a half truth based on a realization that another half truth is ineffective. People act irresponsibility because they were conditioned to feel worthless and manifest that quality in reality. The answer is not to give them things but to create an environment in which they can heal. That is done in two ways, to attack the conditioning with therapy, of which there are many kinds, and via direct evidence of reward for achievement. You don't give beaten down people money for free, you pay them to take tiny steps as a devise to make them feel via reward that their efforts are of value. This is why, in the third world, where opportunity to achieve is so terribly lacking, carefully managed micro-loans lift people from abject poverty. glenn only perpetrates on those who were shamed into feeling worthless, more and more of what caused them to be that way. It's actually quite stupid, but caused by a need not to know how he was shamed. He is one of those who were damaged in reverse, one with Stockholm's syndrome.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
You don't know? It's because money can't buy love.

You are not answering the question. If love and money are different, then why are you mixing them?

I love my sister, and I like my boss. I don't try and equate the value of the two, because the two things cannot be equated. My sister does not represent the same value to my company as my boss, which is why my company would pay my boss more than my sister.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Why do you have such a hard-on for Paris Hilton? And no, she wouldn't go to the poorhouse because she's not relying on society for her money. You're the person who needs to know what her bank account balance is before you decide whether she is "worthy" of money or not. If she were trailer trash instead you'd be falling over yourself to take money from some other poor schmuck to give to her in the name of "inequality." What difference does it make if her rich daddy gave her money, or Uncle Sam gives her money? You think one is great and the other terrible, are you schizophrenic or just honestly think you're helping someone when you shield them from accountability?

You will go to any lengths to maintain belief, apparently.

I really have nothing against Paris Hilton, but she def depends on society's money like the rest of us. If nobody stayed in the hotels or purchased goods & services from her other interests she'd go broke.

And, of course, there's no shield from accountability better than great inherited wealth. It's hard to screw that up.

You also completely discount the changes in attitude among our economic leadership. Our best days were in the New Deal influenced post-WW2 period, when business & labor were forced to partner to create the middle class of today. Increasingly, American capitalists don't need American labor at all so that deal is gone, poisoned by right wing rhetoric, trickle down economics, offshoring & automation. We still depend on that leadership & capital even with their decreased sense of responsibility towards us. They moved upscale, went multinational so we're no better in their eyes than the Greeks. If they can make money driving us into the dirt, they won't hesitate.

And you'll cheer them on doing it, too, because of some twisted sense of the protestant work ethic.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
Why do you have such a hard-on for Paris Hilton? And no, she wouldn't go to the poorhouse because she's not relying on society for her money. You're the person who needs to know what her bank account balance is before you decide whether she is "worthy" of money or not. If she were trailer trash instead you'd be falling over yourself to take money from some other poor schmuck to give to her in the name of "inequality." What difference does it make if her rich daddy gave her money, or Uncle Sam gives her money? You think one is great and the other terrible, are you schizophrenic or just honestly think you're helping someone when you shield them from accountability?

No, read what I wrote. You seem to think if someone is rich the are responsible creators of value. You ASSUME it. It's in your various retarded posts like comparing responsible-value-creator-rich with parents and parasitic-worthless-poor with children. You even had the gall to imply that poor people just want the equivalent of sugary cereal or whatnot.

Look bud, nobody can do it alone. Did you make the electronic device you use to post your drivel? Sew your own shirt? Grow your own food? Nobody does everything themselves, and it's been that way since we left ape-dom forgood, and people began to specialize in farming, hunting, gathering nuts/berries, etc. It's because of specialization and cooperation that we have a surplus... so the inventor doesn't have to spend every moment hauling water, growing her own food, disposing his own sewage, etc.

Obama very clumsily made this point with his "you didn't build that" speech. The point being that the US govt infrastructure (highways, internet, etc.), investment in education, enforcement of property rights, etc. made it possible for businesspeople to identify wants and needs and create wealth.

His point was that some people need to face reality, that nobody does it alone and that the rich need to get the fuck over themselves and be more okay with paying taxes, because they didn't create wealth in a vacuum.

I'm not saying that we should completely disincentivize economic activity. I am saying that wealth is often inherited, and I have no problem with taxing capital gains at a more reasonable rate. Right now you have guys like Romney paying ~15% on their income taxes while middle class people pay more like 25+%.

I don't even want to hear your three-times-repeated argument about double taxation on this, because you don't get taxed on an asset until you sell it (appreciation over time), and with dividends, the government is taking its cut of an ongoing stream but you are retaining the bulk of the benefit. (Not to mention you can reinvest dividends tax-free, and with retirement accounts, if you save money in a 401K you don't even get taxed on it till much later and it can keep appreciating; with a Roth you get taxed once and then it's tax-free forever.) The argument that cap gains tax penalizes investment would make more sense in an environment where we had too little savings, but for over a decade we've had too MUCH savings with nowhere to go. There just isn't much demand for capital hence low interest rates. There is PLENTY of room for a higher capital gains tax. At least bring it on par with ordinary income taxes, for crying out loud.

The thing is, people WANT to work and be productive. It's in our DNA to think of ourselves as good, productive people. It's a myth that most people want to sit on their asses. They only do that if they are completely disillusioned/depressed. That's why so many lotto winners keep their jobs, or leave and then go right back after several months. They are bored and want to feel like they are doing something meaningful.

As it stands, the USA is like a poor, middle class, and rich guy. The rich guy has 9 cookies, middle class guy 1, and poor guy none. The rich guy deflects attention away from this by telling the middle class guy "watch out, middle class guy, that lazy bum poor guy is eyeing your cookie!"

The people who believe the Republican talking points are the morons who worry about losing their one cookie when they should be asking tough questions about how and why those 9 cookies are with the rich guy. It's not like even Dems are proposing 3.33 cookies each, but more like 1-2-7 cookies. But the sheeplike Republicans pretend like even modest tax reforms will make it 9 cookies for the poor 1 for the middle and 0 for the rich guy. Bullshit.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
No, read what I wrote. You seem to think if someone is rich the are responsible creators of value. You ASSUME it. It's in your various retarded posts like comparing responsible-value-creator-rich with parents and parasitic-worthless-poor with children. You even had the gall to imply that poor people just want the equivalent of sugary cereal or whatnot.

Look bud, nobody can do it alone. Did you make the electronic device you use to post your drivel? Sew your own shirt? Grow your own food? Nobody does everything themselves, and it's been that way since we left ape-dom forgood, and people began to specialize in farming, hunting, gathering nuts/berries, etc. It's because of specialization and cooperation that we have a surplus... so the inventor doesn't have to spend every moment hauling water, growing her own food, disposing his own sewage, etc.

Obama very clumsily made this point with his "you didn't build that" speech. The point being that the US govt infrastructure (highways, internet, etc.), investment in education, enforcement of property rights, etc. made it possible for businesspeople to identify wants and needs and create wealth.

His point was that some people need to face reality, that nobody does it alone and that the rich need to get the fuck over themselves and be more okay with paying taxes, because they didn't create wealth in a vacuum.

I'm not saying that we should completely disincentivize economic activity. I am saying that wealth is often inherited, and I have no problem with taxing capital gains at a more reasonable rate. Right now you have guys like Romney paying ~15% on their income taxes while middle class people pay more like 25+%.

I don't even want to hear your three-times-repeated argument about double taxation on this, because you don't get taxed on an asset until you sell it (appreciation over time), and with dividends, the government is taking its cut of an ongoing stream but you are retaining the bulk of the benefit. (Not to mention you can reinvest dividends tax-free, and with retirement accounts, if you save money in a 401K you don't even get taxed on it till much later and it can keep appreciating; with a Roth you get taxed once and then it's tax-free forever.) The argument that cap gains tax penalizes investment would make more sense in an environment where we had too little savings, but for over a decade we've had too MUCH savings with nowhere to go. There just isn't much demand for capital hence low interest rates. There is PLENTY of room for a higher capital gains tax. At least bring it on par with ordinary income taxes, for crying out loud.

The thing is, people WANT to work and be productive. It's in our DNA to think of ourselves as good, productive people. It's a myth that most people want to sit on their asses. They only do that if they are completely disillusioned/depressed. That's why so many lotto winners keep their jobs, or leave and then go right back after several months. They are bored and want to feel like they are doing something meaningful.

As it stands, the USA is like a poor, middle class, and rich guy. The rich guy has 9 cookies, middle class guy 1, and poor guy none. The rich guy deflects attention away from this by telling the middle class guy "watch out, middle class guy, that lazy bum poor guy is eyeing your cookie!"

The people who believe the Republican talking points are the morons who worry about losing their one cookie when they should be asking tough questions about how and why those 9 cookies are with the rich guy. It's not like even Dems are proposing 3.33 cookies each, but more like 1-2-7 cookies. But the sheeplike Republicans pretend like even modest tax reforms will make it 9 cookies for the poor 1 for the middle and 0 for the rich guy. Bullshit.

Oh, it's the rerun of the "it takes a village" trope. The political version of friend-zone thinking: instead of "you should have sex with me because I'm nice to you" you turn it into support social welfare because we built a road. Let me give you a dose of reality - you had nothing to fucking do with someone who created value except for living on the same planet. Steve Jobs didn't take his inspiration from you, you didn't help Shakespeare write his sonnets. You're just a flea riding on their ass.

You also need to get a new schtick with the cookies thing. The cookies didn't appear magically, someone had to pay for the ingredients, kitchen to cook them in, and actually do the work of baking them. In your world the person who does that is simply a mark to take from and give to the others who did no work in the name of "fairness."
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
Oh, it's the rerun of the "it takes a village" trope. The political version of friend-zone thinking: instead of "you should have sex with me because I'm nice to you" you turn it into support social welfare because we built a road. Let me give you a dose of reality - you had nothing to fucking do with someone who created value except for living on the same planet. Steve Jobs didn't take his inspiration from you, you didn't help Shakespeare write his sonnets. You're just a flea riding on their ass.

You also need to get a new schtick with the cookies thing. The cookies didn't appear magically, someone had to pay for the ingredients, kitchen to cook them in, and actually do the work of baking them. In your world the person who does that is simply a mark to take from and give to the others who did no work in the name of "fairness."

"Let me give you a dose of reality - you had nothing to fucking do with someone who created value except for living on the same planet. Steve Jobs didn't take his inspiration from you, you didn't help Shakespeare write his sonnets. You're just a flea riding on their ass." -- Humble Internet Keyboard Warrior Glenn1

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." -- Sir Isaac Newton, whose list of scientific accomplishments is too long to list here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

Did Steve Jobs change his own diapers, not go to school, haul his own water, dispose of his own sewage, make his own shirts? Did he do everything in the company himself, relying on zero other employees who themselves went to public schools and relied on American infrastructure? (You conveniently forget other factors like Woz. I guess in your fantasy-land Woz and other employes were absolute shit and Jobs, Jobs, Jobs was the only person who mattered. Keep guzzling that Jobs cum, bro.)

And I'd hate to break it to you but YOU need to face reality: if Jobs didn't invent the iPhone, someone else would have, eventually, given the same environment. Same with Einstein and relativity. Give people enough time to think beyond how they're going to get their next meal--in other words, cooperate and specialize--and people will come up with ideas.

Furthermore you try to make it sound like big thinkers get rich. Not necessarily; Shakespeare if he existed wasn't some magnate, and in reality the ranks of the wealthy include tons of heirs, such as the kids of the guy who started Wal-Mart. Those kids haven't been that noteworthy but each is worth what, $20 billion give or take.

So you can stop with the worship of the individual. You never did address my questions about why it is that some countries do so well despite having crappy natural resources. Or why Silicon Valley is in California and not in, say, Mississippi. I'll answer it for you: legal rights incl. property rights, public investment in education and infrastructure, and other elements of proper governance.

Yet you still subscribe and propagate the "I did it all by myself" myth. Yeah why don't we launch you to Mars and you can be the wealthiest person on the planet. Lol.

You know the sad part about this is if you cast the same argument in a different light, you'd be slurping it up like Jobs juice. Example: Apple's marketplace. They've allowed countless app and game developers to make money by providing a reasonably secure infrastructure, curation and moderation where appropriate, etc. Do you have a problem with Apple taking a 30% cut of app profits?

Guess what, the US government is like Apple Marketplace. They provide the infrastructure everyone else piggybacks on. You seem to think the government should get zero. Yet without any governance, EVERYBODY gets zero. Just ask Libyans.

For blastingcap-

Not to mention that the misconceptions about the whole subject are enormous.

The way it is, the way we think it is & the way we think it should be are very different-

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/what_americans_think_about_inc.html

Yes, and you have useful idiots who unfortunately vote according to their misconceptions. They really have no idea how unequal the proverbial cookie distribution is, especially compared to historical norms.
 
Last edited:

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,521
2,111
146
Maybe a skilled band of assassins could begin 'encouraging' those at the very top to be more charitable. Not that it would to a whole lot in real terms, but it might make a lot of people feel better, and that is important.

Kidding aside, I am interested in hearing about ways to change society that would result in a voluntary shift towards more material egalitarianism with little resort to the heavy hand of authority. Promulgation of a new kind of social currency, perhaps, where philanthropy and minimalistic lifestyles are a path to the esteem of one's peers, and the flaunting of wealth is shunned as crude and outmoded.

Actually, that sounds like kidding wasn't actually put aside. But it would be interesting to see.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Maybe a skilled band of assassins could begin 'encouraging' those at the very top to be more charitable. Not that it would to a whole lot in real terms, but it might make a lot of people feel better, and that is important.

Kidding aside, I am interested in hearing about ways to change society that would result in a voluntary shift towards more material egalitarianism with little resort to the heavy hand of authority. Promulgation of a new kind of social currency, perhaps, where philanthropy and minimalistic lifestyles are a path to the esteem of one's peers, and the flaunting of wealth is shunned as crude and outmoded.

Actually, that sounds like kidding wasn't actually put aside. But it would be interesting to see.

Back in the 30's, after the financial elite wrecked the economy & misery was very widespread, America had an epiphany. We figured out who fucked us & how, acted accordingly. The message to our economic leadership was that if we were going down then they were coming with us & made it so. We bound them more tightly to us with tariffs, labor acts, regulation & prohibition of the private ownership of gold. We instituted much higher taxes on huge incomes & estates. We learned that too great a concentration of economic power was anathema to stability.

We forgot all that, of course. The only reasons we didn't have to learn it all over again was a complete reversal of Bush Admin hands off the financial sector policy & constructive action by the FRB.

Righties just use that to maintain denial, of course, hold to the ideology of failure.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Back in the 30's, after the financial elite wrecked the economy & misery was very widespread, America had an epiphany. We figured out who fucked us & how, acted accordingly. The message to our economic leadership was that if we were going down then they were coming with us & made it so. We bound them more tightly to us with tariffs, labor acts, regulation & prohibition of the private ownership of gold. We instituted much higher taxes on huge incomes & estates. We learned that too great a concentration of economic power was anathema to stability.

We forgot all that, of course. The only reasons we didn't have to learn it all over again was a complete reversal of Bush Admin hands off the financial sector policy & constructive action by the FRB.

Righties just use that to maintain denial, of course, hold to the ideology of failure.

You are wrong about the great depression.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Revisionist history is part of the right wing complex of denial, no doubt.

Good thing I am not right wing. I believe in gay rights. I don't believe Obama is the devil. I do believe G.W.B. a bad president. I am for a social safety net. I am not racist. I don't believe in god.

I could go on an on, but I am by far not a right wing person, so it would be funny if I had a right wing complex.

The great depression was mainly due to monetary policy above all else. It did not help when we transferred all of our gold supply to France.

Don't feel bad though. I was on the same track as you because it was what I had been taught in high school. If you do some research now, you will find that what you were taught was wrong. I am only 28 so its not like HS was 20 years ago either.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Good thing I am not right wing. I believe in gay rights. I don't believe Obama is the devil. I do believe G.W.B. a bad president. I am for a social safety net. I am not racist. I don't believe in god.

I could go on an on, but I am by far not a right wing person, so it would be funny if I had a right wing complex.

The great depression was mainly due to monetary policy above all else. It did not help when we transferred all of our gold supply to France.

Don't feel bad though. I was on the same track as you because it was what I had been taught in high school. If you do some research now, you will find that what you were taught was wrong. I am only 28 so its not like HS was 20 years ago either.

Monetary policy just made it worse, policy that favored holders of great wealth & gold. The best time to be rich is when everybody else is broke, busted & begging. Mellon's FRB set out to make it so.

Credit collapsed on its own as everybody fled to liquidity, gold & currency being the refuges of the time. The flow of gold was effectively reversed by the gold act of 1934 & dollar devaluation.
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
I like this a lot and and came to a similar conclusion with a twist. My self-analysis led me to the conclusion, not that I am unique, but that we are all the same, and since I am not bad, being equal with others can't bE a negative.

Everybody seems to think they are unique while living in terror of being called different. I see that as the result of ego, a pretext and self invention designed to hide deeply felt and deeply hidden feelings of inferiority, the very thing that motivates so many to compensate via wealth achievement.

What in fact people are saying when they say inequality is necessary for our economic system is that the economy would collapse of people were mentally healthy

I harbor no delusion that I am compelled to work due to societal pressures. I want to enjoy experiences that money brings in our society. Travel, nice food, toys, etc. I find those things augment my life.

I agree that the only reason for work is to experience more in your life. If you are absolutely content then there is no need to see other locations, learn new things, experience new situations. If you are absolutely and perfectly content, then the world has nothing more to offer you. In a sense, a person that has reached absolute contentment is the same as the person who is severely depressed. The world no longer holds anything of value to them any longer.

So I do not see striving to experience more as a disease. I do not find self doubt or feelings of inferiority as a bad thing. They are needed to live life and strive for "more", that is all life is about.
 

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
Obama very clumsily made this point with his "you didn't build that" speech. The point being that the US govt infrastructure (highways, internet, etc.), investment in education, enforcement of property rights, etc. made it possible for businesspeople to identify wants and needs and create wealth.

His point was that some people need to face reality, that nobody does it alone and that the rich need to get the fuck over themselves and be more okay with paying taxes, because they didn't create wealth in a vacuum.

I'm not saying that we should completely disincentivize economic activity. I am saying that wealth is often inherited, and I have no problem with taxing capital gains at a more reasonable rate. Right now you have guys like Romney paying ~15% on their income taxes while middle class people pay more like 25+%.

As it stands, the USA is like a poor, middle class, and rich guy. The rich guy has 9 cookies, middle class guy 1, and poor guy none. The rich guy deflects attention away from this by telling the middle class guy "watch out, middle class guy, that lazy bum poor guy is eyeing your cookie!"

Just because the benefit of a thing is greater for one person than another doesn't mean that the first should pay more for it than the second. Should a computer programmer pay more for a computer than a home maker?

The top income quintile pays more taxes than anyone else, the top two quintiles pay the gross majority of income taxes. While a relative handful of tax units are able to benefit from having armies of accountants it is hardly a panacea of untapped social spending. If anything it's an argument for a simplified tax code and you can bet that's never going to happen.

The baker doesn't bake cookies because he doesn't want your children to starve.

If it is hard for you to see, take it to the extreme: how would the Earth operate if 1 person owned 100% and the other 7+ billion owned nothing?

Society does not function well when a small fraction benefits from the toil of everyone else. History has demonstrated this over and over again. The economy caters to the whims of the elite and does not serve the people's needs.

Usually if things get too far out of hand, there is a revolution and heads roll. Democracies are supposed to help change things before they get that bad. But what if the rich own the politicians as well? What if the rich ARE the politicians?/

That one person would have to be omnipotent and omniscient or people would take from him. He would have to establish a hierarchy to protect his annexations.

Too big to fail and too big to jail are pretty entrenched now. Change™ made it worse and if you think Hilldawg is going to upset that apple cart then I have an Eiffel tower for sale (4th owner).

Democracies are trash on most scales which is why the US is a republic, basic political theory is hard though so the difference is obfuscated in favor of populism and the hilarious idea that if we do away with the right bits of capitalism the super rich won't run things.

Again, capitalism does not mean the strong own the weak. I really cant stress this enough, because it is the basis of your flawed argument. The only way to own all things, is to own human labor, and that is slavery not capitalism. Capitalism just means that individual people can own capital, instead of the state.

So, capitalism does not give a single person any more ability to own all things. Socialism in reality would increase that chance more than capitalism, because you would need only to corrupt the government, instead of every single person on the planet.

I think the bigger problem of socialism is that without functioning price signals scarce resources are wasted. The benefit of capitalism that is never addressed is that the worker who makes the product is usually paid before the product is sold, thus the risk is almost entirely absorbed by the capitalist.

You see the problem here? You seem to equate wealth with value-creation. Even if it's a mafioso, drug lord, or useless heir of a hotel empire.

Whereas a poor, but hardworking janitor actually creates value for his employer, yet you spit on him and want to give him nothing just because he's poor.

Because economically if an idea has value there will be new entrants to the market until there is no marginal value left. Given the obvious limitations on hotels it is not possible for there to be 4,5 or 20 upscale hotels so the market is essentially split between IHG (Candlewood), Hilton, Wyndham, and Mariott. Since people continue to need hotels, as long as they remain competitive with each other they will continue to bask in the revenues and create generally worthless heirs.

The janitor creates marginally less value for the employer than the people producing the product that the employer sells. The janitor who works in intel's clean rooms probably gets paid handsomely.

You don't know? It's because money can't buy love.

Love and happiness can be rented.
 

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
I agree that the only reason for work is to experience more in your life. If you are absolutely content then there is no need to see other locations, learn new things, experience new situations. If you are absolutely and perfectly content, then the world has nothing more to offer you. In a sense, a person that has reached absolute contentment is the same as the person who is severely depressed. The world no longer holds anything of value to them any longer.

So I do not see striving to experience more as a disease. I do not find self doubt or feelings of inferiority as a bad thing. They are needed to live life and strive for "more", that is all life is about.

[emphasis added]

I strongly disagree with this unless we're conflating "economically productive work" with "work." I've noticed a trend among above average earners (particularly in mentally stressful fields) to purchase land (read: hobby farms) so they can do something completely opposite to what granted them the wealth to buy the property. I think the economics of the modern US is rekindling a back to the land movement a-la the 70's.

Also, this:
Thoreaus_quote_near_his_cabin_site,_Walden_Pond.jpg
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76

I've made the point repeatedly that wealth inequality is an order of magnitude worse than income inequality and the real problem is wealth distribution. Would you rather be getting $200k in distributions from a $20 million base or work like a dog for $200k? Exactly.

The whole "quintile pays X%" income taxes doesn't address the underlying wealth inequality. Also, there are other payments besides income taxes, like sales tax, property tax, fuel taxes, etc. which lower-income people pay as well. So it's misleading to focus just on income taxes alone because that makes it look like the rich pay a larger share than they do.

If people weren't so ignorant, maybe there would be more support for raising capital gains marginal tax rates at the top tier. As was posted earlier: http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ual-country-they-just-dont-realize-it/260639/
 
Last edited:

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,521
2,111
146
Back in the 30's, after the financial elite wrecked the economy & misery was very widespread, America had an epiphany. We figured out who fucked us & how, acted accordingly. The message to our economic leadership was that if we were going down then they were coming with us & made it so. We bound them more tightly to us with tariffs, labor acts, regulation & prohibition of the private ownership of gold. We instituted much higher taxes on huge incomes & estates. We learned that too great a concentration of economic power was anathema to stability.

We forgot all that, of course. The only reasons we didn't have to learn it all over again was a complete reversal of Bush Admin hands off the financial sector policy & constructive action by the FRB.

Righties just use that to maintain denial, of course, hold to the ideology of failure.
Perhaps what feels like the heavy hand of authority to me, feels like the loving caress of a gentle benefactor to you. But given that a great many people don't feel as you do about the benevolence of authority, I would encourage you and other participants to envision ways that might move towards similar ends voluntarily, without the implied threat of violence that hangs like a dim shadow behind every government pronouncement. In a world where money seems to mean so much, it's a difficult proposition, but the pervasiveness of social media have opened up some possibilities which have not existed before.
 

Knowing

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,522
13
46
The "wealth problem" is a totally separate issue from the "paying their fair share" mostly non-problem.

People who consume more pay more sales tax, people who have more valuable property pay more property tax, people who burn more fuel pay more fuel tax. All of those taxes were designed specifically to tax the commerce of the underlying commodity. It is literally impossible for them to not function exactly as intended.

While I could be inclined to support more comprehensive taxes on capital gains as long as the rules were written simply and fell almost exclusively on those whose monetary success is financialized with exemptions for venture capital, and inheritance tax as long as it serves as an incentive to divest ones self of resources rather than as a mechanism to transfer them to the state.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Perhaps what feels like the heavy hand of authority to me, feels like the loving caress of a gentle benefactor to you. But given that a great many people don't feel as you do about the benevolence of authority, I would encourage you and other participants to envision ways that might move towards similar ends voluntarily, without the implied threat of violence that hangs like a dim shadow behind every government pronouncement. In a world where money seems to mean so much, it's a difficult proposition, but the pervasiveness of social media have opened up some possibilities which have not existed before.

Please. The hand of govt was a lot lighter than that of free market Capitalism for the vast, vast majority of Americans at the time. Modern conservatives worship at the altar of capitalism, grant it higher authority than the govt of the people, same as back then.

The rest?

Tough shit for you guys, because I’m not tired of talking about it. I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

Voluntary? What planet is this, anyway? What do you think that decades of right wing propaganda have been all about, anyway?
 

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,521
2,111
146
Please. The hand of govt was a lot lighter than that of free market Capitalism for the vast, vast majority of Americans at the time. Modern conservatives worship at the altar of capitalism, grant it higher authority than the govt of the people, same as back then.

The rest?



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

Voluntary? What planet is this, anyway? What do you think that decades of right wing propaganda have been all about, anyway?
If all you want to do is approach issues from a purely ideological stance, there's not much I can say. I'm not participating in this discussion in order to be drawn into the futility of partisan mudslinging.