American Solidarity Fund - Redistribution to Fight Inequality

[ChiTownDoc 21326]

14 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

So?  If the choice is the poor get a little richer and the rich get a lot richer versus both staying the same, the former is better.  See Margaret Thatcher’s explanation owning the socialists.  

Wealth inequality shouldn’t be the issue.  The issue should be standard of living.  

Ole Johnny and I can agree from time to time...

[bad_teammate 13481]

Just now, ChiTownDoc said:

By burn it up, I mean ‘mismanage the fuck out of’ with the help of improper regulation.  

Which you seem to agree is a very real fear...

A real fear if not properly managed...

like Alaska's Permanent Fund

or like UTIMCO does for UT

It's complicated, expensive, and necessary, but it's already being done right now and done so very well. I have no reason to believe that there's a magic spell that would suddenly make the concept fail.

[ChiTownDoc 21326]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

A real fear if not properly managed...

like Alaska's Permanent Fund

or like UTIMCO does for UT

It's complicated, expensive, and necessary, but it's already being done right now and done so very well. I have no reason to believe that there's a magic spell that would suddenly make the concept fail.

I’ll agree it’s something we should strive for.  And laughing it off as a cynic probably doesn’t help.  

But that’s what our government has done forever.  Suck the life out of any good idea.  

[bad_teammate 13481]

6 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I’ll agree it’s something we should strive for.  And laughing it off as a cynic probably doesn’t help.  

Very good, comrade.

 

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

What if poor people were offered jobs by the government or even better large corporations where in exchange for their labor they are provided with food and lodging and healthcare. They could even sign lifelong contracts if they want to. Seems to me that would be a pretty good deal for everyone. 

[bad_teammate 13481]

15 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

What if poor people were offered jobs by the government or even better large corporations where in exchange for their labor they are provided with food and lodging and healthcare. They could even sign lifelong contracts if they want to. Seems to me that would be a pretty good deal for everyone. 

Or, alternatively, the corporations could just build towns for the people to live and if they do well they get special money from the company that can be spent in the town!

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, Hank Scorpio said:

What if poor people were offered jobs by the government or even better large corporations where in exchange for their labor they are provided with food and lodging and healthcare. They could even sign lifelong contracts if they want to. Seems to me that would be a pretty good deal for everyone. 

Oh yeah, lets bring back the company store while we're at it.

[fattyflattie 4640]

Note to self. Move any real money acquired out of US over next decade. 

[bad_teammate 13481]

1 hour ago, longhornmatt said:

Just as an aside, since UTIMCO was offered as a rebuttal to the idea that big finance would reap a gigantic windfall out of managing the proposed fund, here are the terms UTIMCO has been trying to negotiate with its fund managers (with a sizable portion still operating under even more favorable terms for the fund managers - again, keep in mind these are the terms UTIMCO is fighting for):

https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b19mhggv0x98fx/How-an-Investment-Legend-Is-Trying-to-Beat-Yale

Suck on that New York City big finance guys!  I’m sure none of you were involved in  crafting this idea to create the largest investment funds ever, and forcing the entire country to participate in it!  Occupy Wall Street will finally have its victory over you with this!

Sad flailing. Pathetic, really. It would be a lot more interesting of a discussion if you just admitted your ignorance and/or dishonesty in bringing up NYC firms.

Oh, and for leaving out this part...

These funds have been put on notice that if their returns deteriorate, they will be expected to make their fees more “fair, just, and sustainable.”

Just stop.

26 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Note to self. Move any real money acquired out of US over next decade. 

lol basically all of conservative politics is based on middling-ass schmucks pretending they're either the 1% or just on the cusp of it

Keep reachin' for the brass ring, you'll get it one day!

[elfenix 34661]

Oh yeah, lets bring back the company store while we're at it.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

 

Then it should have been more funnyier.

[bad_teammate 13481]

Even I got the joke and I'm a humorless piece of self-righteous dogshit.

What's your excuse, Onboard?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Even I got the joke and I'm a humorless piece of self-righteous dogshit.

 

Well you forgot confiscatory communist, who wants everyone to be as miserable as you.  Other than that I'm not really paying attention to the posts like you are.  So I guess I missed the joke, fuck me....

[bad_teammate 13481]

Just now, longhornmatt said:

You actually are the one who left out the important part.  Here’s the full quote of the excerpt you took, which says that applied to the remaining 40% of the fund managers who get even better terms than the 1% of managed funds or 30% performance fee.  In other words, they were put on notice that they, too, might have to take the 1% or 30% arrangement instead of their current better deals.

What is your point?

As long as there is a transparent and democratic process to determine these things, I don't care if some people get rich. The purpose of the ASF is not to eliminate the wealth class entirely, so I don't know what point you're trying to make. And I'm sure you don't either.

The purpose of the ASF would be to redistribute wealth among all Americans using the pre-existing financial instruments that our current economy is built on instead of trying to completely change our entire economic system.

If Sally Hedgefundgenius can manage the ASF in such a way that it makes her very rich and returns tremendous dividends for the American people... so what? She would be doing so under the supervision of a democratically accountable board and at any time would be subject to popular accountability.

Quote

Your plan would make a select group of fund managers all richer than Jeff Bezos within 10 years max, and for guzzling transaction costs instead of actually starting something no less.

Do you have any examples of any managers who got exorbitantly and insanely wealthy off UTIMCO? I'm not saying it isn't there, but at some point you should present something that isn't either a lie or misrepresentation.

[fattyflattie 4640]

37 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Lol basically all of conservative politics is based on middling-ass schmucks pretending they're either the 1% or just on the cusp of it

Keep reachin' for the brass ring, you'll get it one day!

I might, might not. I see that per your chart, I’m better off than a fuckload of the country, long before any inheritance (which may or may not come, with illness and whatnot) which is nice.  

So please excuse me if I don’t think standing in line to give my family’s life’s work away is a great idea. I’ll use my discretionary income for charity if I feel the need.  

I’ve discussed similar ideas with the few actual trust fund babies I do know, most don’t gaf about it either. One in particular has regular in home dinners with our secretary of energy and enthuisiastic corn dog lover. You think the rich don’t have a direct line to the people who make the decisions on this shit?  We are talking people who’s great grandparents had the forethought to buy or take enormous tracts of land. They aren’t giving that shit up. They don’t want their grandkids to be like you; they think they are “better”, and will do anything they can to hold onto that.  I’d wager half of them would wipe their ass with it before giving it to the people you are wanting to help.  

*I fully understand there are Uber wealthy people who give and give. I’m speaking more of the 50-500m types who could theoretically actually run out of money in a generation. 

Edited April 3, 2019 by fattyflattie
Fucking autocorrect spelling fails

[bad_teammate 13481]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

You think the rich don’t have a direct line to the people who make the decisions on this shit?  We are talking people who’s great grandparents had the forethought to buy or take enormous tracks of land. They aren’t giving that shit up. They don’t want their grandkids to be like you; they think they are “better”, and will do anything they can to hold onto that.  I’d wager half of them would wipe their ass with it before giving it to the people you are wanting to help.  

That's fine.

[bad_teammate 13481]

Less flippantly, the concept that the rich will forever be able to control everything is both irrational in reality and useless in hypothetical discussions.

Yeah, we get it, bud, the rich aren't going to want to run the jewels. We know. You aren't revealing some grand motherfucking secret.

The issue we're discussing is not what the rich will allow or not allow, but what might be the best and least painful way to redistribute wealth.

[Llano Estacado 1257]

useless in hypothetical discussions...

 

...but what might be the best and least painful way to redistribute wealth.

 

Your hypothetical includes pissing off 40-83% of the market you’re trying to invest in. And/or giving some handful of bureaucrats power over 40-83%.

 

Look at the power of democracy holding all the bad parties responsible.

 

https://ig.ft.com/jailed-bankers/

 

Useless BT hypothetical is useless. This shit ain’t never going to happen.

 

[Zavala 1384]

Democrats control California, worst inequality in the nation, worse than Mexico. I'm sure they have all the brilliant ideas to fix it nationally.

https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2018/01/17/californian-income-inequality-tops-mexico/

[Zavala 1384]

3 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

So?  If the choice is the poor get a little richer and the rich get a lot richer versus both staying the same, the former is better.  See Margaret Thatcher’s explanation owning the socialists.  

Wealth inequality shouldn’t be the issue.  The issue should be standard of living.  

 

[fattyflattie 4640]

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Less flippantly, the concept that the rich will forever be able to control everything is both irrational in reality and useless in hypothetical discussions.

Yeah, we get it, bud, the rich aren't going to want to run the jewels. We know. You aren't revealing some grand motherfucking secret.

The issue we're discussing is not what the rich will allow or not allow, but what might be the best and least painful way to redistribute wealth.

Let me reveal another grand fucking secret for you.   99% of the people who don't need a fucking two bit handout, doesn't want to have their money taken from them.  So lets forget the rich.  Let's talk about the 150k/yr college educated engineer.  

Govt: Engineer, you might as well not buy a house/land/boat/etc. as we are going to take it from your kids, to give it to people who didn't "get lucky" like you.

Engineer: Fuck you.

The end.

[bad_teammate 13481]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Let me reveal another grand fucking secret for you.   99% of the people who don't need a fucking two bit handout, doesn't want to have their money taken from them.  So lets forget the rich.  Let's talk about the 150k/yr college educated engineer.  

Govt: Engineer, you might as well not buy a house/land/boat/etc. as we are going to take it from your kids, to give it to people who didn't "get lucky" like you.

Engineer: Fuck you.

The end.

How the fuck would that $150k/year engineer have over $20M to leave behind? Can you read?

It's amazing how stupid the smart people are.

Also, did someone just unironically post Jordan Peterson?

[bad_teammate 13481]

9 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

Look at the power of democracy holding all the bad parties responsible.

What point do you imagine that you're making? Because it seems like evidence that a very conservative and anti-regulation governmental system (US 2008) is far less effective at managing financial crimes than a very liberal and pro-regulation governmental system (Iceland 2008).

You guys fucking suck at this.

[gsoda3 3358]

5 hours ago, Bat Guano said:

Yes

https://www.npr.org/2017/03/01/517975766/while-trump-touts-stock-market-many-americans-left-out-of-the-conversation

 

Edit: More recent (2017):

 

ah i completely misread what you meant.  thanks.

[Zavala 1384]

17 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Let me reveal another grand fucking secret for you.   99% of the people who don't need a fucking two bit handout, doesn't want to have their money taken from them.  So lets forget the rich.  Let's talk about the 150k/yr college educated engineer.  

Govt: Engineer, you might as well not buy a house/land/boat/etc. as we are going to take it from your kids, to give it to people who didn't "get lucky" like you.

Engineer: Fuck you.

The end.

Yup. 

The top dogs they always pretend to target pay lawyers to scheme their way out of paying taxes.

[Incredulity 11861]

5 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

The management fees with NYC firms and experts to “consult” and assist in managing it, the bureaus set up to administer it, the process/bribery for deciding which companies receive the mega fund investments, the monopoly control over the corporate decisions of every company out there when the largest investor is the same Washington mega fund ... you should be having the biggest shit fit of all time at this idea if you’re against those evil elites taking too much power for themselves.   You’d just be replacing some current elites with much more powerful ones, most of whom are already calling the shots now.

Which is 100% the problem with socialism.

[fattyflattie 4640]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How the fuck would that $150k/year engineer have over $20M to leave behind? Can you read?

It's amazing how stupid the smart people are.

Also, did someone just unironically post Jordan Peterson?

I forgot about your arbitrary 20M figure.  To be honest, I scan over your work more than actually reading it.  It's mostly rah rah lets help everyone be one and kumbaya bullshit anyhow.  I truly believe you don't believe in it, or you wouldn't live where you do.  You troll a board slap full of educated, well to do, and highly likely to inherit a good deal of money type residents with incendiary bullshit.  

Care to explain how 20M isn't gross wealth inequality?   If every "wealthy" person magically only had 20M, and all the poors had, say, 100k extra magically and immediately appear in their accounts, there would still be one hell of a lot of wealth disparity.      You know as well as I do 100k isn't a fucking gnat on 20M's ass.

 

 

[bad_teammate 13481]

15 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I forgot about your arbitrary 20M figure.  To be honest, I scan over your work more than actually reading it. 

Well it's a good thing you decide to post anyway, because you're DEFINITELY adding more than me lol

Quote

Care to explain how 20M isn't gross wealth inequality?

I'm not saying it isn't. I chose a number as a point of discussion. You can offer different numbers if you think they make more sense in the context of this hypotehtical.

But you're emotionally upset; discussion isn't really your goal.

Quote

 If every "wealthy" person magically only had 20M, and all the poors had, say, 100k extra magically and immediately appear in their accounts, there would still be one hell of a lot of wealth disparity.

Yes, there would be. And... what? What's your point?

Look at the chart again:

Is the American ideal a situation in which everyone has the exact same amount of wealth and wealth inequality is 100% eliminated?

Look hard.

Look really hard.

[bad_teammate 13481]

It's fucking depressing how many of you should be on aggy boards.

[Zavala 1384]

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's fucking depressing how many of you should be on aggy boards.

Yeah that will convince rational people that socialism will work this time, call em aggy

[Llano Estacado 1257]

jones.jpg?w=590[/img]

Is the American ideal a situation in which everyone has the exact same amount of wealth and wealth inequality is 100% eliminated?

Look hard.

Look really hard.

 

You’re the aggy, and 5000 Americans surveyed suck at math.

 

Top 1/5th posses ~30% of the wealth and bottom 1/5th posses ~10% of the wealth. Has any modern country come close to reflecting that? That’s a terribly small distribution.

 

Show a data set like that, please. $20MM top 1/5th and 1/5th at or below 50k is going to blow that the hell up.

[bad_teammate 13481]

I re-pointed that out to show that what we consider ideal is not the 100% elimination of wealth inequality, simply addressing yet another lie from the fiscal conservatives.

Also, it indicates that we want less economic inequality.

There is nothing misleading about the chart; it is clearly labelled as "What They (Americans) Would Like It To Be".

It is not labelled as "What Is Reflected In Other Modern Countries" or "What Is A More-Comfortable-To-Llano Distribution Curve".

It doesn't mean they suck at math. There's no math for them to suck at there, because it's a roughly desired distribution averaged across 5000 people's responses. Unless you think 5000 people all came up with that exact chart... which I guess you might think.

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Well it's a good thing you decide to post anyway, because you're DEFINITELY adding more than me lol

I'm not saying it isn't. I chose a number as a point of discussion. You can offer different numbers if you think they make more sense in the context of this hypotehtical.

But you're emotionally upset; discussion isn't really your goal.

Yes, there would be. And... what? What's your point?

Look at the chart again:

Is the American ideal a situation in which everyone has the exact same amount of wealth and wealth inequality is 100% eliminated?

Look hard.

Look really hard.

I would argue I'm adding the same amount as you.  Opinions and anecdotal musings.  They are just on different sides of this fence.

My number would look something more like absolutely no death/inheritance/gift tax up to 500M.  Above that, cap at 20%.  Even then I believe it's complete bullshit for someone who's been paying more tax in a year than most in their lives to have to give even more, just for striving to be successful.

I'm not emotional at all.  This won't happen in my lifetime, and I'm on the correct side of that graph.  My friends and acquaintances are on the correct side of that graph. The vast majority of my family are on the correct side of that graph, and the ones that aren't will not be affected by a paltry welfare.  They would just buy more cigarettes, lottery tickets, aggy hats, and maybe new mud tires for the old pick em up truck.

No one that took that survey is going to lose access to 50M coming from PaPa when he passes.  

Edited April 3, 2019 by fattyflattie

[bad_teammate 13481]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

My number would look something more like absolutely no death/inheritance/gift tax up to 500M.  Above that, cap at 20%.  Even then I believe it's complete bullshit for someone who's been paying more tax in a year than most in their lives to have to give even more, just for striving to be successful.

Such emotionalism.

But on $20M vs. $500M. Yeah sure, whatever, I was using a number  to play out a hypothetical.

Quote

I'm not emotional at all. 

"JUST FOR STRIVING TO BE SUCCESSFUL!"

It's taxation. No one is killing anyone here.

Quote

This won't happen in my lifetime, and I'm on the correct side of that graph.  My friends and acquaintances are on the correct side of that graph. The vast majority of my family are on the correct side of that graph, and the ones that aren't will not be affected by a paltry welfare.  They would just buy more cigarettes, lottery tickets, aggy hats, and maybe new mud tires for the old pick em up truck.

What does it mean to be on the "correct" side of the graph? Does it mean you drive a Dodge Stratus and are very important?

Also, love to be unemotional but mock the poor anyway because of how not emotional I am.

[fattyflattie 4640]

I was mocking my own East Texas family.  I should be able to do that.  They are dipshits, and they brought most of the poor on themselves, after all.  

No, I don't own a Dodge anything, and am not very important in the grand scheme.  But I have enough to not need to whine about how much more others have, and stomp my feet like a petulant teenage girl about how unfair it all is.  

I don't have the intellectual ability that any (all) of the countries billionaires do.  That's not fair either.  But, it's life and this is America, where even a dumbass like me can find himself well past your 20M (ever been to Morgan City?) in a few years of a white hot WTI run.  South La is littered with people that started poor and LOL at your 20M.  So tell me why these first generation "rich" need to be restricted on what they can pass down to their heirs again?   So that some kid who never had the want to do to anything can get a few extra bucks and make them more "equal"?  What about the folks that decided drugs and teenage pregnancy was cooler than college?  Why the do I owe them anything again?  You are trying to take away the natural force of "thems the breaks".   

[workswithseed 2201]

3 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Oh yeah, lets bring back the company store while we're at it.

I thought he was actually putting a thought, a fucking dumbass one, but one nonetheless.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

9 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

It's fucking depressing how many of you should be on aggy boards.

You seem emotionally upset.

[bad_teammate 13481]

When someone builds a narrative about their own life that is predicated on their financial success being a sign of their moral superiority to the people around them such that they're bitterly mocking and insulting of their family and community, you're talking to someone who, at a young age, got class shame and familial/social acceptance wires crossed and is working out some psychological issues in public.

You hate to see it.

But on topic...

"Thems the breaks" is not a natural force and it is not based on any justice. It's just a common saying for jerks who don't want to have to think about others.

The "breaks", such as they are, are multi-faceted. We're all wired differently, and in a capitalist society only certain types of wiring are prone to lead to "success". Sociopathy, vanity, and greed, for instance, are traits that can be very useful in achieving wealth and/or fame. Those traits are not, however, things most of us would consider admirable. In that case, you have a successful and morally inferior person.

Further, there's nothing "natural" about capitalist pursuit, achieving wealth and/or fame in a capitalist society is not something Baby Jesus breathed into our nature and it's certainly nothing he talked about. Meritless YouTube evo-psych aside, there's nothing evolutionary driving us towards an ability to understand and master complex financial instruments and money. It's a game that some people are good at and some people are bad at. Hard work and virtue have very little to do with it.

Where and when an individual is born also matters a great deal in terms of likelihood of success.

Poverty is a destructive cycle that profoundly harms the majority of children who grow up in it.

Since generational poverty is a destructive force that makes society worse, we need to combat it. To do that, we need to redistribute wealth so that kids aren't being raised in poverty anymore. Even if you are someone with emotional and psychological issues that lead to irrational anti-poor hostility, surely even someone with that brain waste can acknowledge that children did not "earn" the poverty the are raised in, yes?

As to the whole "WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHTS!?" thing vis-a-vis inheritance, the dead are dead and don't have rights anymore. You can want as many things as you want, and that's fine, but once you're dead you don't exist anymore. What exists upon your death is your estate.

I think that someone who amasses wealth should be able to leave a significant amount of wealth to their children ($20M, $30M, I don't care about the number I'm happy to discuss the best ones). I also believe that those children should be able to pursue wealth of their own, even using their head start inheritance to push them forward. I also recognize that generational wealth and oligarchy are massive social and economic problems and that we need to combat those two pernicious

 

I forgot, in the OP, to mention Cory Booker's baby bonds.

[American Swindle 102]

15 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Probably a lot. The masses spend the money they get, which is a good reason to take it out of the hands of the wealthy, where it does relatively little.

 

I disagree.

Have you ever heard the argument that the wealthy folks do not just sit on their money and swim in it like Scrooge McDuck?  They actually take the money, much like how my small business was started, and invest it in business ventures which give people opportunities by way of jobs.  

That's why they should definitely earn the rewards from whatever becomes of said ventures or investments, because they are taking their own money (which resulted in time, energy, stress and tears to accumulate on their own, remember property rights...self-ownership) and risking it in a venture that could go bankrupt if it flops.  Unlike the bailouts of GM and the Banking Cartels, private ventures like this are not immune to free market forces (as in, if they have a fucking horrible idea and it flops, then they lose all of that capital they risked.) As opposed to government backed ventures, where the taxpayers are the ones taking the risks, they can do whatever the fuck they want (e.i. USPS) and stay in business (or like Solyndra, be able to get massive salaries thanks to taxpayers while you go belly up)  

 

 

 

[Incredulity 11861]

8 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

I disagree.

Have you ever heard the argument that the wealthy folks do not just sit on their money and swim in it like Scrooge McDuck?  They actually take the money, much like how my small business was started, and invest it in business ventures which give people opportunities by way of jobs.  

That's why they should definitely earn the rewards from whatever becomes of said ventures or investments, because they are taking their own money (which resulted in time, energy, stress and tears to accumulate on their own, remember property rights...self-ownership) and risking it in a venture that could go bankrupt if it flops.  Unlike the bailouts of GM and the Banking Cartels, private ventures like this are not immune to free market forces (as in, if they have a fucking horrible idea and it flops, then they lose all of that capital they risked.) As opposed to government backed ventures, where the taxpayers are the ones taking the risks, they can do whatever the fuck they want (e.i. USPS) and stay in business (or like Solyndra, be able to get massive salaries thanks to taxpayers while you go belly up)  

 

 

 

Arggggschyjncfxxz!!!!!! 50 cent letter coast to coast!!?1!!/surlylib

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

28 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

I disagree.

Have you ever heard the argument that the wealthy folks do not just sit on their money and swim in it like Scrooge McDuck?  They actually take the money, much like how my small business was started, and invest it in business ventures which give people opportunities by way of jobs.  

That's why they should definitely earn the rewards from whatever becomes of said ventures or investments, because they are taking their own money (which resulted in time, energy, stress and tears to accumulate on their own, remember property rights...self-ownership) and risking it in a venture that could go bankrupt if it flops.  Unlike the bailouts of GM and the Banking Cartels, private ventures like this are not immune to free market forces (as in, if they have a fucking horrible idea and it flops, then they lose all of that capital they risked.) As opposed to government backed ventures, where the taxpayers are the ones taking the risks, they can do whatever the fuck they want (e.i. USPS) and stay in business (or like Solyndra, be able to get massive salaries thanks to taxpayers while you go belly up)  

 

 

 

I’d love to see some statistics related to what the  ultra wealthy do with their money. I do think some portion of it goes to private investments like you said...I wonder how that portion relates to general spending (houses, jets, cars, etc.) versus cash/stocks/bonds.

Obviously, at a basic level, you’re arguing that trickle down economics work which we know is not the case, but if anyone has stats related to the above I’d be curious what that money does.

[Bat Guano 363]

17 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

So?  If the choice is the poor get a little richer and the rich get a lot richer versus both staying the same, the former is better.  See Margaret Thatcher’s explanation owning the socialists.  

Wealth inequality shouldn’t be the issue.  The issue should be standard of living.  

Is that your well-reasoned opinion, or the babbling of a cognitive cripple in an ideological straitjacket?

That is, do you really think wealth inequality is 'not the issue?' You think ever-increasing wealth inequality won't lead to bad outcomes for society? You think giving crumbs to the poor while they watch the wealthy grow ever more wealthy will make them happy? More importantly, have you not seen the increasing domination of policy outcomes by the economic elite, to the extent that the United States is functionally the equivalent of an oligarchy? Have you seen the evidence that inequality increases the fragility of economic growth? That there are links between inequality and increasing political polarization?

Put it this way: the logical extreme for wealth inequality would be for one individual to own everything and everybody else to own nothing. That individual would, in practice, have complete and total power over everybody else in the world, regardless of whatever ostensible political systems are in play at the time; they would be functionally meaningless. Obviously that's a reductio ad absurdam illustration, but it's where the system would go if it could go toward ever-increasing inequality for a long enough period of time. I'm assuming you wouldn't like this state of affairs; correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe you'd like it if you were the one person who owned everything, but let's stipulate that's not going to happen. I'm also assuming you don't find the present level of inequality objectionable. That means there must be some level in between the current state and the hypothetical future of one person owning everything that would be too much inequality, even for you. What would that level be? How much power should the wealthy class have over everybody else? How would you propose to forestall such a level?

Edited April 3, 2019 by Bat Guano

[Incredulity 11861]

Ok, how much is enough “wealth” for everyone to be given?

100k, 500k....

What about the guy who just can’t catch a break with their given wealth?  Do they get just a little more...only if they fit certain “desirable” classes....promises to vote D?

 

[bad_teammate 13481]

2 hours ago, American Swindle said:

Have you ever heard the argument that the wealthy folks do not just sit on their money and swim in it like Scrooge McDuck?  They actually take the money, much like how my small business was started, and invest it in business ventures which give people opportunities by way of jobs.

Yes, I've heard of trickle down economics. Thanks.

Quote

Unlike the bailouts of GM and the Banking Cartels, private ventures like this are not immune to free market forces (as in, if they have a fucking horrible idea and it flops, then they lose all of that capital they risked.)

GM and the banking cartels were private ventures that required bailing out with public money. I don't follow you here.

Quote

As opposed to government backed ventures, where the taxpayers are the ones taking the risks, they can do whatever the fuck they want (e.i. USPS) and stay in business (or like Solyndra, be able to get massive salaries thanks to taxpayers while you go belly up) 

The USPS is fine. It operates at a profit. It's been under assault and regressives are trying to kill it with absurd pension moves, but it's a perfectly functional and profitable venture.

Solyndra is an example of a loan that went bad. I know people like you are stepped in paranoid right-wing conspiracies, but the reality is that the loan program that Solyndra was part of worked out pretty well overall even with some failures (like Solyndra itself).

Investments don't always work out, and that is true of both private and public investments.

[bad_teammate 13481]

1 hour ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

I’d love to see some statistics related to what the  ultra wealthy do with their money. I do think some portion of it goes to private investments like you said...I wonder how that portion relates to general spending (houses, jets, cars, etc.) versus cash/stocks/bonds.

The diminishing marginal utility of wealth is well-established.

If Joe Rich has $30M and you give him $1k, he's not going to do anything with it. It's going to sit in an account where it will move slowly between big funds in the financial sector. Joe Rich has no incentive to make that $1k go to work because it's such a meaningless amount of money in his life.

If Joe Poor has $10 to his name and you give him $1k, he's going to put all of it back into the economy pretty much immediately. Joe Poor has tremendous incentive to put that $1k to work immediately to improve his life.

It's common sense and it's borne out in reality.

When we give a bunch of money to the people, they spend it in the economy.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

14 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

Is that your well-reasoned opinion, or the babbling of a cognitive cripple in an ideological straitjacket?

That is, do you really think wealth inequality is 'not the issue?' You think ever-increasing wealth inequality won't lead to bad outcomes for society? You think giving crumbs to the poor while they watch the wealthy grow ever more wealthy will make them happy? More importantly, have you not seen the increasing domination of policy outcomes by the economic elite, to the extent that the United States is functionally the equivalent of an oligarchy? Have you seen the evidence that inequality increases the fragility of economic growth? That there are links between inequality and increasing political polarization?

Put it this way: the logical extreme for wealth inequality would be for one individual to own everything and everybody else to own nothing. That individual would, in practice, have complete and total power over everybody else in the world, regardless of whatever ostensible political systems are in play at the time; they would be functionally meaningless. Obviously that's a reductio ad absurdam illustration, but it's where the system would go if it could go toward ever-increasing inequality for a long enough period of time. I'm assuming you wouldn't like this state of affairs; correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe you'd like it if you were the one person who owned everything, but let's stipulate that's not going to happen. I'm also assuming you don't find the present level of inequality objectionable. That means there must be some level in between the current state and the hypothetical future of one person owning everything that would be too much inequality, even for you. What would that level be? How much power should the wealthy class have over everybody else? How would you propose to forestall such a level?

Socialism makes everyone poorer.  But it tightens the wealth gap.  Capitalism makes everyone wealthier and with a higher standard of living, but there is a much greater wealth gap.  I prefer the latter.  You apparently prefer the former.

Rich people aren't just going to sit around and say fuck it, take all my shit.  Capital will be moved to places that won't confiscate wealth.  Just like the estate tax.  It raises about $10 billion a year.  That isn't shit.  All it does is make a lot of money for lawyers and accountants.  It's main benefit is incentivizing charitable giving through foundations.  American private foundations have well over a trillion dollars in wealth and give about $60 billion a year away.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

If you want people to have money, they need to have jobs. And to have a job, they have to work for a company. And for a company to hire people to do jobs, the  companies need money. For the companies to have money, they need tax cuts and government hand outs. If we just give corporations enough money and tax breaks we can certainly count on them to use that money to hire more workers and pay them well. This is just basic macroeconomics. 

[Bat Guano 363]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Socialism makes everyone poorer.  But it tightens the wealth gap.  Capitalism makes everyone wealthier and with a higher standard of living, but there is a much greater wealth gap.  I prefer the latter.  You apparently prefer the former.

Rich people aren't just going to sit around and say fuck it, take all my shit.  Capital will be moved to places that won't confiscate wealth.  Just like the estate tax.  It raises about $10 billion a year.  That isn't shit.  All it does is make a lot of money for lawyers and accountants.  It's main benefit is incentivizing charitable giving through foundations.  American private foundations have well over a trillion dollars in wealth and give about $60 billion a year away.

Well, at least you answered the first question.

What I prefer is a capitalism that has appropriate controls so that the vast majority of people are not horribly exploited by the wealthy few. Some inequality is inevitable, but too much will lead to the system destroying itself, as history shows us.

[bad_teammate 13481]

America is #13 right now in HDI Standard-of-Living measurements.

As for capital flight, I ain't that worried about it. It already happens and has been happening for decades. We can fight capital flight; there are plenty of ways of dealing with the wealthy who engage in the practice and the nations who serve as havens.

[American Swindle 102]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, I've heard of trickle down economics. Thanks.

GM and the banking cartels were private ventures that required bailing out with public money. I don't follow you here.

The USPS is fine. It operates at a profit. It's been under assault and regressives are trying to kill it with absurd pension moves, but it's a perfectly functional and profitable venture.

Solyndra is an example of a loan that went bad. I know people like you are stepped in paranoid right-wing conspiracies, but the reality is that the loan program that Solyndra was part of worked out pretty well overall even with some failures (like Solyndra itself).

Investments don't always work out, and that is true of both private and public investments.

What you call trickle down economics, I call economic reality.  As I said, if you have a ton of liquidity, you just don't let it sit in a bank account, you put it in vehicles that put that money to work: businesses, investments, gold, bitcoin...whatever.  Many jobs are created (yes, poor people are among those that get employed in all of this) to facilitate the services that are required to run said business and administer said investments.  If you want to label that trickle down economics as if it is a bad connotation, then whatever...

As it comes to GM and the banks, they were kept up by the bailouts.  Do smaller businesses have the same luxury to be bailed out?  Hell to the no.  Why not allow the market to correct itself and allow GM and the banks fail?  Oh yeah, cronyism.  The exact thing that gets exponentially worse the bigger government gets.  And you want to invite more of the same by centralizing more power to a supposed panel of people that decide who gets to distribute the money from the estates of the fallen wealthy?  That wouldn't invite more corruption or croynism at all would it? 

 

As far as USPS and profitability, I may need to dig into more numbers since 2015 and can't find any info, but below is what is out there:

https://freebeacon.com/issues/u-s-postal-service-has-not-earned-a-profit-in-almost-a-decade/

https://www.thoughtco.com/postal-service-losses-by-year-3321043

 

Interesting history of USPS below:

Quote

 The post office has been on the loser list for many decades. Most recently, it has been included on the GAO's high-risk list, increasing its debt to $10.2 billion and incurring a cash shortfall of $1 billion.

Note that the post office is not being shut down for this mess. On the contrary, it is being subsidized not only with tax dollars but, most importantly, with laws. Title 18 (I.83.1696) says that "Whoever establishes any private express for the conveyance of letters or packets" can be fined and jailed. Moreover, another law (39.I.6.606) says that any letter delivered by unlawful means can be seized and stolen by the government. It is immune from antitrust action and criminal liability. You can read the whole Post Office Gosplan here.

If the post office were really a market institution, it would go belly up in about half an hour. So, no, there is no competition here. Only the government is permitted to deliver first-class letters. How do UPS and Fed-Ex get away with it? They slip through a hole in the law by delivering packages, not mail. And even then it wasn't easy for them to survive .

Just as in the 19th century when the federal government waged war on Lysander Spooner's American Letter Mail Company and on Wells Fargo (and Benjamin Tucker defended "private enterprise in the letter-carrying business"), the government has been hounding private services in our time, whether through wicked labor-union bullying or by restricting their services as much as possible.

The freedom of UPS and Fed-Ex to operate at all is hard won. But the government has succeeded in destroying the private marketplace in the one area that government monopolizes by law. It took the innovation of digital messaging to finally horn in on that area. And this has worked in a big way, with a massive collapse in the number of people choosing government mails over digital alternatives.