Support NeoGAF

[Maidenpool?]

Corporations are sitting on cash because there's not enough demand to force them to spend it on human capital to meet that demand.

As has been pointed out, our debt to GDP ratio isn't the highest and most of it, about 2/3, is owed to ourselves.

Are you talking about personal loans the bottom? Paying the piper?

I never said your debt to GDP was the highest, I said your debt was the highest. Your right, there isn't the demand, but that's because Joe Citizen had his pension taken for a ride in 08' and he still is holding on to the ridiculous idea that one day he will actually retire.

Paying the piper, I'm referring to the day when the U.S is no longer the world's reserve currency, and hyperinflation hits like it has never hit anyone before.

 

[Angry Fork]

Saw this a while back, I knew about the inequality so I became more enraged by the labeling of socialism as 'everyone gets the same thing' and doctor's get paid as much as janitor's and whatever other dirty stereotype was mentioned.

I can't be bothered to hear so-called pragmatic people say we need a mix of both. A lot of them misunderstand that socialism isn't just about the nature of a larger state, that's something up for debate even among the left as some people are not too keen on a large state and what that would entail.

The initial goal of socialism was the workplace being under the control of workers. Local work councils, direct democratic referendum for all decisions, participatory planning of society so that the allocation of resources is based on what people need to live a healthy comfortable life rather than giving the rich their own playground. If there has to be bosses for a good reason then they are at least elected by workers, profit is shared amongst everyone rather than distributed to the owner, so on and so on.

This video continued to propagate the idea that socialism is "taking" money from rich people (wealth workers created so technically it's already theirs, but that's another issue always ignored) and spreading it around to everyone as if they get a check in the mail. Then all the shitty ideas that it's human nature to chase money and we need it to get people working and so on. It also does little to talk about why inequality kills democracy and how the wealthy create their own world using laws and rules they create. It just annoyed me because I know the intent of the video is a good one but now it's seen by so many people and I view it as a missed opportunity more than anything else. People will come away from it thinking all we need is higher taxes on the rich and everything will be fine, but maybe if it gets more people questioning this stuff then it's a good thing I'm not sure.

 

[Maidenpool?]

You'd be wrong

My bad, I had it reversed in my head. Point to you.

 

[sphagnum]

Saw this a while back, I knew about the inequality so I became more enraged by the labeling of socialism as 'everyone gets the same thing' and doctor's get paid as much as janitor's and whatever other dirty stereotype was mentioned.

I can't be bothered to hear so-called pragmatic people say we need a mix of both. A lot of them misunderstand that socialism isn't just about the nature of a larger state, that's something up for debate even among the left as some people are not too keen on a large state and what that would entail.

The initial goal of socialism was the workplace being under the control of workers. Local work councils, direct democratic referendum for all decisions, participatory planning of society so that the allocation of resources is based on what people need to live a healthy comfortable life rather than giving the rich their own playground. If there has to be bosses for a good reason then they are at least elected by workers, profit is shared amongst everyone rather than distributed to the owner, so on and so on.

This video continued to propagate the idea that socialism is "taking" money from rich people (wealth workers created so technically it's already theirs, but that's another issue always ignored) and spreading it around to everyone as if they get a check in the mail. Then all the shitty ideas that it's human nature to chase money and we need it to get people working and so on. It also does little to talk about why inequality kills democracy and how the wealthy create their own world using laws and rules they create. It was just dumb and annoyed me because I know the intent of the video is a good one but now it's seen by so many people and I view it as a missed opportunity more than anything else. People will come away from it thinking all we need is higher taxes on the rich and everything will be fine.

I feel pretty much the same way. Taxes aren't the issue, they're a distraction from the core issue, which is labor and who deserves to reap its benefits. Nothing more than a bandaid over the gaping wound.

 

[Fenderputty]

I never said your debt to GDP was the highest, I said your debt was the highest. Your right, there isn't the demand, but that's because Joe Citizen had his pension taken for a ride in 08' and he still is holding on to the ridiculous idea that one day he will actually retire.

Paying the piper, I'm referring to the day when the U.S is no longer the world's reserve currency, and hyperinflation hits like it has never hit anyone before.

Why would you talk about debt as a static number? It's relationship to our GDP is important.

Joe citizens pension is back and better than ever too. Stock market is booming. That has nothing to do with why joe citizen isn't spending money. Where the fuck are you getting this shit?

And there goes that scary hyperinflation word. Can you please explain to me how hyperinflation will start and why? Currently we're below optimum levels of what a healthy economy should see .

 

[Piecake]

I never said your debt to GDP was the highest, I said your debt was the highest. Your right, there isn't the demand, but that's because Joe Citizen had his pension taken for a ride in 08' and he still is holding on to the ridiculous idea that one day he will actually retire.

Paying the piper, I'm referring to the day when the U.S is no longer the world's reserve currency, and hyperinflation hits like it has never hit anyone before.

But if you care about debt, total debt does not matter. debt to gdp matters because that gives an indication if we can actually pay it off. Why is out total debt the highest? Well, we have the biggest economy by far.

The Yen is not the world currency yet they are able to borrow at a very low rate with 210% debt to gdp. Your doom and gloom scenario is not a definite future, nor is it a particularly realistic one because our debt to gdp ratio is on pace to slightly decline (shockingly, a huge financial crises screws up a lot of things)

You seem quite confused on the various forms of debt since you seem to be referring to household debt. That is the average individual's level of debt. Well, ours is pretty high, but it is dropping. Not really sure how it compares to other countries.

 

[Head of Vengarl]

What do I have to do to join them?

 

[Piecake]

What do I have to do to join them?

Be pushed out the vagina of a 1%er. Our social mobility sucks too

 

[CHEEZMO™]

This is a feature, not a bug. The more people understand this the better.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Things are probably going to get even worse for the (Western) middle class in the future. The BRICS (and other developing countries') middle class will still grow, due to absolute growth in wealth. I think the entire world will, on average, most likely settle on a wealth distribution similar to that in America during the 1920s. The lower and the middle class will be paid enough to get by and not start rioting, while the rich will get everything else.

 

[Jimothy]

The more I read and understand history, the more I understand that there is a hidden tax imposed on a population to bolster the power of the wealthy: INFLATION.

Printing money and encouraging debt devalues our purchasing power (aka our annual salaries don't buy us any more goods than they did back in the late 1970's, so we borrow to buy things that we need). Those that control production and financial assets, ride out the inflation tax by hedging against it. The rich get richer... the middle class is destroyed.

Someone needs to press the RESET button.

Isn't inflation at like 2% right now? c'mon son

 

[Slayer-33]

Be pushed out the vagina of a 1%er. Our social mobility sucks too

Haha so true it's not even funny.

 

[Suite Pee]

That's why I still believe in ceding power to nation-states. They may fail me time and time again, but I'd almost always take them over the whims of international institutions (business, finance) that have only their best interests in mind. I'm starting to think that the negatives of globalization need to be countered through a stronger UN or something.

Without state protections, inequality will almost always run rampant. Human desire can only be controlled, not satiated.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Things are probably going to get even worse for the (Western) middle class in the future. The BRICS (and other developing countries') middle class will still grow, due to absolute growth in wealth. I think the entire world will, on average, most likely settle on a wealth distribution similar to that in America during the 1920s. The lower and the middle class will be paid enough to get by and not start rioting, while the rich will get everything else.

But then you end up with a huge unified lower class. So unless you impose dictatorship, it won't work.

What is far more likely to happen is that all that labor will become excess labor in the near future, which will mean that the #1 issue countries will have is an overpopulation issue, not a wage issue. Countries with smaller populations will be able to increase their common well-being; they will need less money for themselves, but more for the improvement of the standard of living of the whole community (services/public spaces/etc.). Meaning when transportation is public, when energy costs collapse, when public parks have good public amenities, when there are more art shows and sport facilities, when gardening is so common that food prices fall and food purchases are reduced as a result of production being much more local, etc., people don't need as much money because they get an increasing quality of life from their environment (economies of scale) rather than from private property.

In that scenario, you don't need as much money, more of it can go to public infrastructure and services. The key to the near-future economic boom will be in price collapse. It will be much easier for smaller populations to adapt. Always easier to turn a small boat than a big one.

 

[Conciliator]

This is a feature, not a bug. The more people understand this the better.

So during all of prior American history, when wealth inequality has been less severe, was it then unfair for the richest people? At what point does it become so inequal that it is no longer working as intended? When the richest one percent have 50 percent of the wealth? 70? 90? 99? 99.9?

 

[Maidenpool?]

Why would you talk about debt as a static number? It's relationship to our GDP is important.

Joe citizens pension is back and better than ever too. Stock market is booming. That has nothing to do with why joe citizen isn't spending money. Where the fuck are you getting this shit?

And there goes that scary hyperinflation word. Can you please explain to me how hyperinflation will start and why? Currently we're below optimum levels of what a healthy economy should see .

To begin with, it's a revelation to discover that Vin Scully swears like a sailor.

Joe Citizen's pension isn't back and better than ever. Because Joe Citizen also saw a booming stock market in the summer of 2008. Then the fall of 2008 came about, and Joe Citizen realized how volatile and propped up the stock market is he would rather avoid it by investing in lower risk funds or avoiding it entirely.

More importantly, your stock market is part of your economy, but isn't at all a correct indicator about the overall health of your economy. Joe Citizen sees that real unemployment (not imagined) is north of 10 percent at least, average household income is starting to trend downward for the first time in forever, and his son and/or grandson's $160 thousand dollar degree is currently only worth an "unpaid internship."

With regards to hyperinflation, you are the reserve currency, so some other country is going to have to proactively make this happen. A break-up of a currency union is most prevalent. If you have an enemy, or enemies that your are dependent on for manufactured goods, and/or energy, and they all the sudden find you expendable because you aren't buying anything anymore, then hyperinflation becomes a reality.

More importantly is the fact that it just isn't a smart idea to put yourself in this position to begin with. Your total debt is important. It's a world record, so it's important. Your debt to GDP may not be number one, but it also sucks! You guys are in 20th or so, right? And you just passed Zimbabwe? That isn't a stat to tote around, that's an embarrassment. If you truly are the world's superpower, don't clown around, don't put yourself in a situation when you one day will be at the mercy of others. That isn't a healthy future.

 

[Angry Fork]

So during all of prior American history, when wealth inequality has been less severe, was it then unfair for the richest people? At what point does it become so inequal that it is no longer working as intended? When the richest one percent have 50 percent of the wealth? 70? 90? 99? 99.9?

Don't want to speak for him but I think he means inequality is inherent within the capitalist system and is rewarded, not something that is the result of a few bad bankers. Cheezmo is a comrade of gaf's far left constituency so he's not praising it as a good thing.

 

[Batman]

If there would ever be such a thing as an income tax cap introduced in the US then the country would no longer be the US, everybody that has money would simply leave and move somewhere else. Then whatever remaining land will be overtaken by Russia, Canada and Mexico.

Wealth re-distribution and an income cap are a delusional person's dream.

 

[The Technomancer]

So during all of prior American history, when wealth inequality has been less severe, was it then unfair for the richest people? At what point does it become so inequal that it is no longer working as intended? When the richest one percent have 50 percent of the wealth? 70? 90? 99? 99.9?

Yeah based on what I know of CHEEZMO he's not saying that its a good thing, he's saying that its capitalism working as intended. Its a criticism of capitalism.

 

[Conciliator]

Don't want to speak for him but I think he means inequality is inherent within the capitalist system and is rewarded, not something that is the result of a few bad bankers. Cheezmo is a comrade of gaf's far left constituency so he's not praising it as a good thing.

Ah OK. I believe in capitalism in a fundemental sense but at some point it goes way beyond being an incentive for hard work and just becomes absurd.

 

[The Technomancer]

Ah OK. I believe in capitalism in a fundemental sense but at some point it goes way beyond being an incentive for hard work and just becomes absurd.

Capitalism is set up to reward those who have access to capital. But the form that reward takes is...more capital. Its a positive feedback loop

This is not to say that we need to dismantle the system for being inherently flawed (although that's an idea I'm open to) but that we should always be aware of this and that institutions like the government that are meant to work for the public good at least theoretically universally are intently aware of what the market system is doing so they can regulate it.

 

[bonercop]

If there would ever be such a thing as an income tax cap introduced in the US then the country would no longer be the US, everybody that has money would simply leave and move somewhere else. .

freeze their assets and/or just print new money

problem solved!

 

[Eric the Red]

I would love to see a poll among the top 1% earners and ask if they were in charge of running the country, what wealth distribution would be ideal. Would it be even higher than now? That would be beyond the pale; even they would have to admit to themselves. Would they then force themselves to set it lower? I would like, even tacit admission that ours is a bad system currently.

 

[Piecake]

I would love to see a poll among the top 1% earners and ask if they were in charge of running the country, what wealth distribution would be ideal. Would it be even higher than now? That would be beyond the pale; even they would have to admit to themselves. Would they then force themselves to set it lower? I would like, even tacit admission that ours is a bad system currently.

My guess is they would be in favor of a more equitable distribution of wealth. Very few people are monsters. Problem is, lot of people are selfish, so they are fine with giving away other people's money, but not their own.

 

[Conciliator]

Capitalism is set up to reward those who have access to capital. But the form that reward takes is...more capital. Its a positive feedback loop

This is not to say that we need to dismantle the system for being inherently flawed (although that's an idea I'm open to) but that we should always be aware of this and that institutions like the government that are meant to work for the public good at least theoretically universally are intently aware of what the market system is doing so they can regulate it.

i'm witchu breh

 

[Jimothy]

If there would ever be such a thing as an income tax cap introduced in the US then the country would no longer be the US, everybody that has money would simply leave and move somewhere else. Then whatever remaining land will be overtaken by Russia, Canada and Mexico.

Wealth re-distribution and an income cap are a delusional person's dream.

oh you're actually serious.

okay.

 

[jimi_dini]

What do I have to do to join them?

work harder

Spoiler

lol

What's more infuriating is that they don't even spend that money.

And on what are they supposed to spend all the money on?

Buy a few yachts every day?

 

[Manabanana]

So if the only people who are ever nominated for office are already millionaires, or become millionaires during/after their term, how can we ever change this? I'm at a loss.

 

[not psycho]

This would be more disturbing if there was some finite amount of wealth that is distributed among the population. But there's not.

There is, however, a finite amount of political power and a finite amount of pricing influence.

The health care situation in America is a direct result of wealth inequality. Prices are ridiculously inflated compared to the rest of the world. See these charts:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/charts-health-care-costs-americans_n_2957266.html

And those charts don't even show the auto-bankruptcy (for a non-1%er) that results from a more serious illness. 60%+ of bankruptcies are health care related, we rank extremely low in health care quality and life span, and the health care industry spends billions lobbying politicians.

This situation would be impossible if there wasn't a tiny percentage of the population with all the money and power. And it is just one example.

 

[Piecake]

So if the only people who are ever nominated for office are already millionaires, or become millionaires during/after their term, how can we ever change this? I'm at a loss.

stop voting in republicans would be a start

 

[MWS Natural]

^^ this is precisely why stimulus should go to the bottom. They spend their money. Rich people just continue to hoard,.

Except the GOP continues to want to give the wealthy tax breaks.

 

[Manabanana]

stop voting in republicans would be a start

Seems pretty equal to me:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2011

 

[Piecake]

Seems pretty equal to me:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2011

I wasnt talking about their wealth. I was talking about their policies

 

[Deleted member 17706]

stop voting in republicans would be a start

As if the majority of democrats aren't bought and paid for, too.

You simply cannot get far in your political career without being bought and paid for.

 

[Fenderputty]

To begin with, it's a revelation to discover that Vin Scully swears like a sailor.

Joe Citizen's pension isn't back and better than ever. Because Joe Citizen also saw a booming stock market in the summer of 2008. Then the fall of 2008 came about, and Joe Citizen realized how volatile and propped up the stock market is he would rather avoid it by investing in lower risk funds or avoiding it entirely.

More importantly, your stock market is part of your economy, but isn't at all a correct indicator about the overall health of your economy. Joe Citizen sees that real unemployment (not imagined) is north of 10 percent at least, average household income is starting to trend downward for the first time in forever, and his son and/or grandson's $160 thousand dollar degree is currently only worth an "unpaid internship."

With regards to hyperinflation, you are the reserve currency, so some other country is going to have to proactively make this happen. A break-up of a currency union is most prevalent. If you have an enemy, or enemies that your are dependent on for manufactured goods, and/or energy, and they all the sudden find you expendable because you aren't buying anything anymore, then hyperinflation becomes a reality.

More importantly is the fact that it just isn't a smart idea to put yourself in this position to begin with. Your total debt is important. It's a world record, so it's important. Your debt to GDP may not be number one, but it also sucks! You guys are in 20th or so, right? And you just passed Zimbabwe? That isn't a stat to tote around, that's an embarrassment. If you truly are the world's superpower, don't clown around, don't put yourself in a situation when you one day will be at the mercy of others. That isn't a healthy future.

I never said the market is the indicator for a healthy economy. I brought it up to counter the notion that everyone's retirement is in the shitter. The market being high is currently a perfect example of the wealth not being spent on human capital.

Unemployment isn't good. Which is why we need a spending bill for jobs. Maybe infrastructure for lasting positives. You're also correct that general wage level suck ass, but I'm curious why you think that is. It's not due to poor levels of productivity that's for sure.

I'm of the opinion that college and schooling should be free. That way we don't leave college with debt and can start spending our crap salary into the economy instead of back into some lenders hands.

Wheat countries would we stop buying from?

Why do you keep ignoring the size of our economy in relation to our debt?

 

[Magwik]

Heres something fitting from George Carlin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYZpWTvre9c

Thanks. I was trying to think of the comedian that was on my mind when I watched this.

 

[leroidys]

To begin with, it's a revelation to discover that Vin Scully swears like a sailor.

Joe Citizen's pension isn't back and better than ever. Because Joe Citizen also saw a booming stock market in the summer of 2008. Then the fall of 2008 came about, and Joe Citizen realized how volatile and propped up the stock market is he would rather avoid it by investing in lower risk funds or avoiding it entirely.

More importantly, your stock market is part of your economy, but isn't at all a correct indicator about the overall health of your economy. Joe Citizen sees that real unemployment (not imagined) is north of 10 percent at least, average household income is starting to trend downward for the first time in forever, and his son and/or grandson's $160 thousand dollar degree is currently only worth an "unpaid internship."

With regards to hyperinflation, you are the reserve currency, so some other country is going to have to proactively make this happen. A break-up of a currency union is most prevalent. If you have an enemy, or enemies that your are dependent on for manufactured goods, and/or energy, and they all the sudden find you expendable because you aren't buying anything anymore, then hyperinflation becomes a reality.

More importantly is the fact that it just isn't a smart idea to put yourself in this position to begin with. Your total debt is important. It's a world record, so it's important. Your debt to GDP may not be number one, but it also sucks! You guys are in 20th or so, right? And you just passed Zimbabwe? That isn't a stat to tote around, that's an embarrassment. If you truly are the world's superpower, don't clown around, don't put yourself in a situation when you one day will be at the mercy of others. That isn't a healthy future.

I don't mean to pile on, but just as an observation from the sidelines...

You're starting with incorrect suppositions about hard facts, and then when corrected just melding that into your arguments as if it doesn't make a difference.

Correct conclusions are rarely drawn if they are made prior to thoroughly considering the facts...

 

[Gotchaye]

As if the majority of democrats aren't bought and paid for, too.

You simply cannot get far in your political career without being bought and paid for.

And yet Democrats are still consistently more in favor of policies that would flatten the income distribution than are Republicans.

Sure, neither party is as far left as people concerned about income inequality and other inequalities associated with that might hope, but one is clearly much better than the other on the issue. If the people now voting Republican simply stopped showing up to the polls, we would very quickly have parties advocating more forcefully for policies addressing income inequality.

Race has fucked up our politics big-time. The poor and middle class have very little consciousness of themselves as classes. And one party banks much more heavily on false consciousness than the other.

 

[Cassius]

Working people aren't being adequately compensated.

We have tax dollars going towards propping up incestuous relationships between government entities and private businesses while working people struggle to get by.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPzDhrCn89k

 

[WonderPup]

Why didn't the junior stay longer to tell us about the wonders of Chicago Economics?

I assume you're talking about me. I didn't abandon the thread; I had a lot to do at work, and then I had family stuff after.

The point is that people don't get incredibly rich due to the free market being free. It's because of government intervention (but not how you think). Because government is eager to intervene, businesses are able to use government to bludgeon competition or exploit loopholes that others cannot. The more complicated you make things, the more difficult it is for the little guy to step onto the scene, start a company, and create jobs.

John Stossel did an exposé on this a couple of years ago, and it was mind boggling. In some places, you need a license to be a florist -- to arrange flowers. When arranged side by side, consumers couldn't tell the difference between the work of licensed and non-licensed florists. But these licenses and permits exist to keep competition out of the market. Lobbyists get things like this set up as protectionism, and it's wrong. I can understand regulation in particular places, but it's getting absolutely out of hand.

Government should be as small as practical (key word) so that competition can flourish. Every dollar that the government takes from you and assigns elsewhere is a dollar that you're not free to choose how is spent. It gets spent or invested regardless; the problem is that government is choosing winners and losers. It's the whole "broken window" fallacy.

Milton Friedman urged that the free market be kept as free as possible. We haven't had that yet, despite what you all may think (and I suspect we never will). Earlier, I said that "practical" was key. The problem is how that gets defined, and who makes that decision. I don't have the answer; all anyone has is their opinion or supposition.

But in reality, I don't do these philosophies justice. I would again urge that "Free to Choose" be sampled if not watched. I'm not trying to push this ideology forcefully onto anyone, but I do believe it's very reasonable and has merit. I'm also interested to see what you all think of it.

EDIT: Those videos also address things like minimum wage, if you all are curious.

 

[Karakand]

How is the taxing of land based on it's earning potential different from what we do now, which is to tax the actual income earned? That takes the difficulty of judging the tax and works under the reasonable assumption people will maximise income.

A proponent of a land value tax believes that the economics of land are unique, and that the economics of other activities essential to subsistence--even ones predicated on land like food--behave in a manner similar to that of inessential items like alcohol or tobacco and not like land. While I agree with you that a land value tax is the same as a tax on profits (i.e. they're both a tax on capital), you have to remember that as part of this great transformative process land will no longer be capital.

A minor bit of clarification, Texas isn't a land value tax single tax state, it has sales taxes and a (controversial) margin tax as well. (I'm probably ignorant of some others, I generally don't work with taxation in that jurisdiction.) I am unaware of any appreciably sized tax regime that is solely land value tax; its capability to support states to which we are accustomed is unproven (I would say specious).

 

[Gotchaye]

John Stossel did an exposé on this a couple of years ago, and it was mind boggling. In some places, you need a license to be a florist -- to arrange flowers. When arranged side by side, consumers couldn't tell the difference between the work of licensed and non-licensed florists. But these licenses and permits exist to keep competition out of the market. Lobbyists get things like this set up as protectionism, and it's wrong. I can understand regulation in particular places, but it's getting absolutely out of hand.

This seems like a bad example. Not because licensure for florists is a good idea - it might be dumb, though I'd like to hear someone make a case for it - but because licensure for florists is just not a very big deal. Googling around, I'm seeing pretty low fees and pretty high pass rates for licensing tests. And the worst case scenario here is that flowers are a little more expensive than they'd otherwise be.

Regulations like this are onerous to the extent that they set standards which are actually difficult to meet, and onerous regulations are problematic to the extent that the standards are needlessly high. Not allowing nurses to qualify to prescribe certain medications is a much better example. But this is more an example of a licensing standard being too high rather than an example of a licensing standard that should be abolished.

Government should be as small as practical (key word) so that business can flourish. Every dollar that the government takes from you and assigns elsewhere is a dollar that you're not free to choose how is spent. It gets spent or invested regardless; the problem is that government is choosing winners and losers. It's the whole "broken window" fallacy.

This isn't really grappling with the possibility that some government interference in the market is actually good. Maybe sometimes people make dumb decisions when freely choosing how to spend their money, or maybe sometimes there are collective action problems that people's independent rational free choices can't optimally deal with. Or maybe highly efficient markets where every transaction is free and mutually beneficial produce distributions of wealth which violate some principle of fairness. Yeah, licensure for florists is dumb. But what about the failures that are likely to exist in a private health care market? And are you confident that we wouldn't see extreme wealth inequality even with a minimal government? "Broken windows" is also a different idea; that has to do with thinking that the real economy is improved by creating useless work for people (although of course useless work actually can be really beneficial, as opposed to doing nothing, when there is a demand shortfall, but not because the work itself is accomplishing anything directly).

 

[YoungHav]

Change isn't coming, it is too easy for the rich to divide people by race. Racism is the lifeblood of this country and it'll have to improve before wealth inequality improves. Most Americans would rather blame "thugs" "welfare queens" and "illegals" before they dare point a finger at their fellow white man in a suit.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

But then you end up with a huge unified lower class. So unless you impose dictatorship, it won't work.

What is far more likely to happen is that all that labor will become excess labor in the near future, which will mean that the #1 issue countries will have is an overpopulation issue, not a wage issue. Countries with smaller populations will be able to increase their common well-being; they will need less money for themselves, but more for the improvement of the standard of living of the whole community (services/public spaces/etc.). Meaning when transportation is public, when energy costs collapse, when public parks have good public amenities, when there are more art shows and sport facilities, when gardening is so common that food prices fall and food purchases are reduced as a result of production being much more local, etc., people don't need as much money because they get an increasing quality of life from their environment (economies of scale) rather than from private property.

In that scenario, you don't need as much money, more of it can go to public infrastructure and services. The key to the near-future economic boom will be in price collapse. It will be much easier for smaller populations to adapt. Always easier to turn a small boat than a big one.

It worked in the 1920s, why wouldn't it work now? The change is gradual, not a rapid one. If you told someone in the 1960s that current day inequality in the US would become a new normal, would he believe you? And if the change went from 1960s equality to today's inequality in one day, there would be a revolution. But, since its gradual, most people don't notice it until there's a fundamental shock (like The Great Recession).

And I don't really understand your economics theory. Productivity is always rising, prices of many items are falling, while new stuff comes to take their place. If you think that labor is going to become extinct in the next decades, you're sorely mistaken. Also, rich people don't want more money to increase their life standard. It's more of a game and a way to climb the social ladder. So, having public transportation, cheap food etc. doesn't fundamentally change the economy in absolutely any way.

 

[Norwegian Rudo]

That's why I still believe in ceding power to nation-states. They may fail me time and time again, but I'd almost always take them over the whims of international institutions (business, finance) that have only their best interests in mind. I'm starting to think that the negatives of globalization need to be countered through a stronger UN or something.

Without state protections, inequality will almost always run rampant. Human desire can only be controlled, not satiated.

This is how it is supposed to work. However the wealthy now own the politicians and the Supreme Court, and if they get their way, which they probably will, it will only get worse

 

[Sanky Panky]

Isn't inflation at like 2% right now? c'mon son

And prices have increased tenfold since the 1970's because of money printing. Real wages for the middle class have not increased since the early 1980's.

Come on son.

 

[thezerofire]

If there would ever be such a thing as an income tax cap introduced in the US then the country would no longer be the US, everybody that has money would simply leave and move somewhere else. Then whatever remaining land will be overtaken by Russia, Canada and Mexico.

Wealth re-distribution and an income cap are a delusional person's dream.

ahahahahahahaha

oh my god you're serious

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Rhomega Beta]

If there would ever be such a thing as an income tax cap introduced in the US then the country would no longer be the US, everybody that has money would simply leave and move somewhere else. Then whatever remaining land will be overtaken by Russia, Canada and Mexico.

Wealth re-distribution and an income cap are a delusional person's dream.

Income tax cap? You mean like what FDR did in the '40s where the government took everything you earned over a certain amount?

 

[Lagspike_exe]

And prices have increased tenfold since the 1970's because of money printing. Real wages for the middle class have not increased since the early 1980's.

Come on son.

Core inflation and inflation including energy and food prices are vastly different things. Targeting core inflation is the right thing to do, as that's the only way to employ full capacity of the economy ans generate maximum output. Including food and energy distorts this.

Income tax cap? You mean like what FDR did in the '40s where the government took everything you earned over a certain amount?

That was in a warfare enviorement. Income cap is borderline thivery in normal conditions.

 

[The Technomancer]

Core inflation and inflation including energy and food prices are vastly different things. Targeting core inflation is the right thing to do, as that's the only way to employ full capacity of the economy ans generate maximum output. Including food and energy distorts this.



That was in a warfare enviorement. Income cap is borderline thivery in normal conditions.

Eh, depends on how much inherent value you ascribe to wealth. In a capitalist system operating by capitalist philosophy it would be basically thievery, but concepts like ownership and earnings are cultural constructs, even if they're very deeply embedded ones. We can conceive of systems not founded on them.