Comments on: Reducing inequality: what to do about the top 1%

By: Doctor Science

Doctor Science — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:23:57 +0000

what you’ll note, not not.

By: Doctor Science

Doctor Science — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:17:27 +0000

james’ strawman is also a false dichotomy, of a sort that is both (a) IME very common among libertarians, and (b) relevant to the “neoliberal” discussion in the other thread.

What you’ll not about james’ dichotomy is it opposes wealth as held by individuals to wealth as held by The State—but there is no mention of the principle holders of wealth in our society, families and/or corporations. Painting the big opposition as between individuals and The State is a way of distracting attention from where the money is really going.

By: Watson Aname

Watson Aname — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:26:14 +0000

james—you might want to look up the word ‘strawman’ again, it didn’t stick the first time.

By: james

james — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:51:04 +0000

Barry – Yes, I have come right out and stated that one of the justifications for this kind of wealth redistribution is the belief that all wealth ultimately belongs to the State.

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:04:58 +0000

“This whole thread presupposes that all wealth ultimately belongs to the State. ”

You might want to look up the word ‘strawman’.

By: james

james — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:48:06 +0000

Barry – This whole thread presupposes that all wealth ultimately belongs to the State. With such a crowd, it is simply prudent to suggest a goal of equally rich rather than the implied movement towards equally poor. The actual reality in the US is that wealth belongs to the individual. The State’s power to exercise takings, is granted by the citizens, in an effort to achieve goals not possible individually.

By: watson aname

watson aname — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:22:08 +0000

As opposed to the current system?

Of course. After all, privatizing profit and socializing loss is what made this country what it is today, no?

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:19:30 +0000

Tom West 04.19.09 at 3:07 am

“The area where the US really outshines the rest of the world is in entrepreneurship.”

I hear this a lot.

“These are the guys that might think twice about investing their life savings (and the savings of their friends and family) in a business that is 90% likely to go bust if they realize that they are unlikely to see much of the payoff in the unlikely event that they manage to strike it rich. ”

Considering that we’re discussing rates for which we have historical data, and that the historical data suggests better performance than now, I think that few will ‘think twice’.

“One might see it as privatizing losses and socializing profit.”

As opposed to the current system?

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:13:06 +0000

James, if you think that is at all applicable to the US, then you’re a bit detached from reality. Although it is a standard line.

By: james

james — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:28:17 +0000

There is a joke a Russian colleague likes to tell:

A poor German farmer lives down the road from a rich farmer. A passing stranger stops by talk. He asks the poor German farmer what he thinks about the rich farmer. The poor German farmer swears “by God, I will work, my wife will work, and my children will work, day and night, until we are as rich as he is!”.

A poor Russian farmer lives down the road from a rich farmer. A passing stranger stops by talk. He asks the poor Russian farmer what he thinks about the rich farmer. The poor Russian farmer swears “by God, I will work, my wife will work, and my children will work, day and night, until he is as poor as we are!”.

Personally, not so much a fan of Plan B.

By: Alderson Warm-Fork

Alderson Warm-Fork — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:37:44 +0000

“If you threaten to eat the rich, they will move. They will shop for a tax-lite country.”
That’s called class struggle. And if one side is already fighting, and the other sitting around in confusion…

By: Tom West

Tom West — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 03:16:00 +0000

the labor markets are broken.

Given your previous postings, I come up with two possible meaning of ‘broken’.

(1) The workers do not receive enough of the surplus they create.

(2) The other is that some workers are in positions that do not create much (or any) surplus, although their work might ‘appear’ valuable. Examples of the latter might be providing quality child-care, for which nobody is willing to pay what some might feel it is worth, or workers in industries where demand for their product has collapsed.

Are you arguing (1) or (2)? Or have I misconstrued the meaning of ‘broken’ altogether?

By: Tom West

Tom West — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 03:07:32 +0000

The area where the US really outshines the rest of the world is in entrepreneurship. These are the guys that might think twice about investing their life savings (and the savings of their friends and family) in a business that is 90% likely to go bust if they realize that they are unlikely to see much of the payoff in the unlikely event that they manage to strike it rich. One might see it as privatizing losses and socializing profit.

By: Barry

Barry — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:44:31 +0000

“If you threaten to eat the rich, they will move. ” There are a lot of countries where the rich would be taxed less; it’s amazing that they haven’t all fled by now.

By: ScentOfViolets

ScentOfViolets — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:43:17 +0000

Ah, good Capitalists all – even the liberals. The question really comes down to this: the labor markets are broken.

How do you fix them? And how did they come to be broken in the first place?