|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 24 2014 09:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 07:52 Danglars wrote:On April 24 2014 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2014 06:33 Danglars wrote:On April 24 2014 06:00 GreenHorizons wrote:A series of IRS documents, provided to ThinkProgress under the Freedom of Information Act, appears to contradict the claims by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only Tea Party organizations applying for tax-exempt status “received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs.” The 22 “Be On the Look Out” keywords lists, distributed to staff reviewing applications between August 12, 2010 and April 19, 2013, included more explicit references to progressive groups, ACORN successors, and medical marijuana organizations than to Tea Party entities. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JQBePOr.jpg) Other types of groups received explicit scrutiny for longer than “progressive” or “Tea Party” organizations. These included applicants involved with “medical marijuana” but not “exclusively education” (19 appearances in the “watch list” section of the lists), which were to be forwarded to a “group 7888″ and groups believed to be possible successor-groups to ACORN, the now-shuttered Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (12 appearances on the “watch list” section). Those applications were also to be elevated to managers for further review. All 22 documents also flagged applicants with Puerto Rico addresses and certain types of “Testamentary Trusts.” In Issa’s committee’s recent report, “Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives,” the Republican majority staffers wrote that while the Be On the Lookout lists’ language was “changed to broader ‘political advocacy organizations,’ the IRS still intended to identify and single out Tea Party applications for scrutiny.” The report goes to great lengths to distinguish the different types of scrutiny provided to each of these types of flagged group. But the actual IRS records indicate that at least some additional scrutiny was required for groups of all types that had names that sounded political — and that the explicit heightened scrutiny for left-leaning groups was even longer-standing than for Tea Party groups ThinkProgress still trying to wish away the scandal. The delays spanning years were conservative groups, the quick approvals were progressives. It's a bad faith effort, but what would you expect from TP regardless. Food for progressives that won't read the report to continue the whitewashing. Most humorous part was "goes to great lengths to distinguish the different types of scrutiny provided." As if Be on the Lookout-TAG Historical (In Testimony, issues that haven't come up for a while aka progressives) and BOLO-TAG Emerging Issues (tea party) are even close. 298 cases selected for political review. 3 had "progressive". 0 had "occupy". IRS independent inspector general testimony. 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were process as potential political cases. In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit.
Russel George, the IRS independent IG The report is damning. The congressional testimony alone is damning, staffers aside. At least one of the higher ups, likely Lois Lerner, had her department silence conservative 501c4 groups in advance of the 2012 election, affecting voter turnout. The left knows this is a case of abuse of power, and thus employ so much effort burying the story and raising as many flimsy arguments as possible to cast doubt. One last time for anyone reading that has a good faith desire to learn both sides of the story: The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's report Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives had her department silence conservative 501c4 groups in advance of the 2012 election Even if all of what you are saying was true and accurate (which I don't believe it is, but that conversation is going nowhere), no one was really ' silenced'. I'm not the one saying it. It's included in testimony from the independent inspector general, IRS employees, IRS auditors, men and women throughout the organization. Allowing one group to organize and receive donations they don't have to pay a tax on and denying that to another ... how is that not silencing? Freedom of assembly granted to one solely based on the group ideology they chose, and denied to another. Those organizations could of said whatever they wanted to say whenever they wanted to say it, they just wouldn't be able to do it tax-free...?
So was there probably some lazy and potentially illegal things happening like using keywords to identify the rush of potentially illegitimate 501c4's... maybe? That's not what the investigation and the testimony points to. I do however like how you use "lazy and potentially illegal things." No scandal here, just some lazy and potentially illegal things. I don't even see you getting somewhere with all this quibbling on language. But acting like the government actually prevented anyone from expressing their view is pretty disingenuous.
It wouldn't have even been an issue if we didn't create ridiculous groups like 501c4's to start with. Or if blatantly political organizations weren't trying to get the status when they are clearly stretching the interpretation of the statute to it's limits.
If they just formed as Super/PAC's they would have been fine. Criticize the current setup of 501(c)(4)'s if you want. Congress writes the laws and they can be changed. However, don't imply that allowing one side of the ideological spectrum to raise money, conceal donor lists, and engage in turn out the vote operations and denying that to the other side is anything short of silencing the opposition. If the laws are to have any force, they must be applied fairly to everyone. Greenhorizons, is equality before the law at all important to you? They insist their intention was social welfare but then people like Danglars complain that it negatively impacted Republican/'Conservative' turnout...
Not really surprised when Danglars gets so upset about something like this though when he, as far as I've been able to extract, would prefer unlimited secret donations? Not sure though because he never got back to me on that. Both sides use 501(c)(4)'s, but the federal government under the Obama administration under its approval or without its knowledge made it so one side didn't get approvals. That's abuse of power. That's why this scandal is important for the future of our republic. You adopt a pretty cavalier attitude when the government sics their IRS on you. Maybe lazy, potentially illegal ... are you now in the business of getting behind a podium and announcing, "Mistakes were made?" When they ask illegally for information, you comply ... they have great power at their disposal to punish you for failure to comply. GreenHorizons, what are the content of your prayers? The IRS wants to know. I know I know, no big deal. It's not silencing, not intimidating, not antagonistic to free speech of the political kind. You just want to form a group that your neighbor did. The only problem is, we have disagreements with the way you think about government and not the way he thinks. Show nested quote +Allowing one group to organize and receive donations they don't have to pay a tax on and denying that to another ... how is that not silencing? Silenc ing: cause to become silent; prohibit or prevent from speaking. They didn't do that? What the IRS is being accused of in no way prevented anyone from speaking...You keep conflating the ability to assemble or speak with the ability to do it and maintain a 'tax-exempt' status. Show nested quote +Freedom of assembly granted to one solely based on the group ideology they chose, and denied to another. Did I miss the IRS kicking in peoples doors or teargassing tea party rallies saying they couldn't meet and discuss their ideas? Show nested quote + No scandal here, just some lazy and potentially illegal things. I don't even see you getting somewhere with all this quibbling on language. There are several reasons I don't view what did or didn't happen as the bombshell sandal right leaning folks do. Given the worst case scenario you've described (which I obviously disagree with) where 'conservative' 'non-political' 501c4's were systematically scrutinized and detoured from obtaining tax-exempt status and liberal ones were not I see that as more of a reason to get rid of them than go loco over it. Show nested quote +Both sides use 501(c)(4)'s, but the federal government under the Obama administration under its approval or without its knowledge made it so one side didn't get approvals. That's abuse of power. That's why this scandal is important for the future of our republic. Really? On that tenuous/non-existent and largely unsubstantial connection, you want to plant your flag of 'abuse of power'....? /sigh There are countless examples much worse you can find anywhere on the political spectrum with vastly more significant impacts on the ' future of our republic' than this... I would reserve 'scandal' and 'gates' for seriously significant stuff that isn't easily remedied or so tenuously based. This here is another example of why your positions seem disingenuous. You make a big stink about this alleged 'impact on voter turnout' but don't see the problem with openly supported Republican endorsed voter suppression? Which is clearly anti-democratic and a much more direct, immediate, and clearly intentional threat to our republic. Just so it's clear if everything you said was true (I don't believe it is) I would say that, it was bad and shouldn't have happened. The IRS should not be used to unilaterally target political enemies based only on their political affiliations. If any crimes were committed appropriate penalties should apply. I'm sure sometime this decade charges will be filed since so many are convinced there was a crime here beyond a reasonable doubt? For me the political use of 501c4's the way that orgs were trying to use them regardless of political bend is more disturbing. I would of preferred if they all could of been delayed and the law rewritten to prevent them from existing on either side. They and anything that happened at the IRS is a symptom of broken political finance law. The IRS 'scandal' serves more as a distraction from the real issue than any significant display of 'abuse of power' or than it represents a threat to the 'future of our republic'. At first I thought you were quibbling on language, but now I gather you hadn't heard of the other ways silencing is used. To curtail the expression of; suppress. That's exactly what I'm getting at with the intimidation (disturbing letters sent to applicants violating their 501(c)(4) legal rights and asking private information) and impacting the fundraising of the groups (501(c)(4)'s don't pay taxes on their received income. It was already taxed once). The IRS intimidated and suppressed the applications of these groups. Who wants to participate in the process when you see conservative friend of yours subjected to audits (congressional testimony) and IRS interviews for abiding by the laws?
Can't raise money, can't conduct voting drives, can't organize volunteers to get on the street. The progressive group across the way is doing all these 2 months after applying. It really strikes to the core.
You may have gathered that the only objection I have to unlimited secret donations is to dissuade corruption of buying of candidates. If we presume for an instant that $1,000,000 or single donors to a certain percentage might be fishy, then have the law of the land be for disclosure. The greater danger these days is witchhunts for political beliefs i.e. special interest groups poring over donor lists trying to burn anyone prominent at the stake. Find somebody that donated something 4 years ago and get him fired. Ample protections must be in place to protect against that kind of persecution. Now this right, to participate in democracy through political contributions, is a core right protected by the First Amendment. I don't care if you change the laws and do away with the 501 this or thats, do it and apply it fairly to all groups. The IRS is charged with collecting revenue, not punishing groups based on their political beliefs.
|
President Obama is in Japan and did this interview supporting Japan:
President Obama: America is and always will be a Pacific nation, and at my direction the United States is once again playing a leading role in the region, in close partnership with allies like Japan. We seek security, where international law and norms are upheld and disputes are resolved peacefully. We seek prosperity, where trade and investment leads to broad-based economic growth and nations play by the same rules. We seek respect for fundamental freedoms and universal human rights, because we believe in the inherent dignity of every human being.
Our strategy is a long-term commitment to this region and its people, and I’m proud of our progress so far. Our alliances, including with Japan, are stronger than ever and we’re modernizing our defense posture across the region. Our trade is growing and we’re working to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We’re deepening our ties with emerging powers like China, India and Indonesia. We’re more closely engaged with regional institutions like ASEAN and the East Asia Summit. We’re standing with citizens, including the people of Burma, as they work toward a democratic future.
With regard to China, the new model of relations we seek between our two countries is based on my belief that we can work together on issues of mutual interest, both regionally and globally, and that both our nations have to resist the danger of slipping into conflict, which is not inevitable. For example, both the United States and China have an interest in the global economic recovery, the denuclearization of North Korea and addressing climate change. In other words, we welcome the continuing rise of a China that is stable, prosperous and peaceful and plays a responsible role in global affairs. And our engagement with China does not and will not come at the expense of Japan or any other ally.
At the same time, the United States is going to deal directly and candidly with China on issues where we have differences, such as human rights. I’ve also told President Xi that all our nations have an interest in dealing constructively with maritime issues, including in the East China Sea. Disputes need to be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy, not intimidation and coercion. The policy of the United States is clear—the Senkaku Islands are administered by Japan and therefore fall within the scope of Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. And we oppose any unilateral attempts to undermine Japan’s administration of these islands.
Very direct at the end here, which has angered China quite a lot.
Q: The Abe administration is attempting to revise its interpretation of the Japanese Constitution to exercise the right to “collective self-defense,” which would enable Japan to support U.S. military activities when it comes to Asian security. How would you evaluate the policy change in terms of its contribution to the U.S.-Japan alliance?
A: Decisions about the Japanese constitution, of course, belong to the people and leaders of Japan. I would simply say that the United States has the greatest respect for the service and professionalism of the Japanese Self Defense Forces. Our militaries train and exercise together and we’re both stronger for it. Our forces worked together as part of the humanitarian efforts after the typhoon in the Philippines. Japanese peacekeepers serve with courage in United Nations missions around the world. The world is better off because of Japan’s long-standing commitment to international peace and security.
That is why we have enthusiastically welcomed Japan’s desire to play a greater role in upholding international security. I commend Prime Minister Abe for his efforts to strengthen Japan’s defense forces and to deepen the coordination between our militaries, including by reviewing existing limits on the exercise of collective self-defense. We believe that it’s in the interest of both our countries for Japanese Self Defense Forces to do more within the framework of our alliance. Likewise, U.N. peacekeeping missions would benefit from even greater Japanese participation. We very much appreciate Tokyo’s outreach to other nations, including sending officials to foreign capitals to explain Japan’s evolving defense policies. In fact, Japan’s efforts are a model of the transparency and dialogue with neighbors that we need more of in the region.
|
Gonna disagree with that language choice; silence implies ACTUALLY stopping speech; not making it less convenient (which it doesn't really do either, it only affects the tax exemption, which they don't even HAVE to apply to the irs for, asking the irs to confirm that they're a proper 501c4 is optional last I checked).
When there are dictatorships in the world where ACTUAL silencing of speech happens, the distinction is very important.
It's also abundantly clear that neither the conservative NOR liberal groups should get the 501c4 exemption for what they do. So while the unequal treatment must be addressed; the correct fix is to step up the scrutiny on the liberal groups, not lessen that on the conservative ones.
|
On April 24 2014 11:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 11:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:Like say, they implemented a rule saying that worker wages would increase proportionally to company profits or something? Like there could be a fairly low minimum wage which would be of the "barely scraping by" kind (where it currently is) and then there'd be an extra wage determined by company profits, and then you could say that company profits would be split in two, half evenly divided to the workers through this bonus system whereas the rest was returned to investors or retained by the company or how that really works. (I have no background in economics but am eager to learn!  ) So then when walmart employing 2.1 million people and seeing $15billion profits, $7.5 billion from that year would be divided between the 2.1 million, granting them all a $3kish bonus that year. (Less than the $5k I said earlier but I'll backtrack on that - I think split in half is better and more achievable.) If the company had a negative year, then obviously no bonus - and maybe even downsizing. I also think this system would grant workers a feeling of if not ownership then accountability, where their collective efforts would directly correlate with their pay. And if I understand it correctly (and as would be my goal) it would alleviate the problem of return of investments being greater than the return of labor. But I might be mis-thinking some here. It's not unusual for a company to have a profit sharing plan. I think Walmart does to an extent as well. Typically that doesn't add a whole lot, and it kind of can't because you'd have to take it back in a down year, and employees generally don't want to be exposed to that kind of volatility. I'm not sure how you'd calculate a rate of return on labor. I imagine it would far exceed a rate of return on capital.
I may be wrong but I think this is more or less what he is getting at.
We can run a quick thought experiment. What is worth more, ones ability to labor or, ones access to capital?
Let's have someone inherit $1 million and invest it all at once, while not spending any of the money or adding outside funds for 50 years at various interest rates (using a basic compound interest calculation).
We will have someone else work full time for 50 years not spending or investing any money.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aVE6Wy1.png)
Looks pretty obvious to me that having capital is much more profitable than working. It might be a bit harder to see with a $1 million inheritance so here's the results for $5 million
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EzELjgg.png)
If you inherit $5 million it's almost impossible to make less than the top of the labor field, for simply having an investment in your name (even if you never work a day in your life).
Said another way. No matter how hard you work your labor will essentially never be more profitable than someone who inherits $5-10+ million.
Some people think it's a bit ridiculous to think someone who never works a day in their life could 'make/earn more money' than the most skilled laborers in the world. I guess some prefer it that way?
|
That seems rather disingenuous, to let one side use compound interest, but refuse to let the other side use it as well by investing some of the income it earned.
After factoring in inflation, returns of more than 3% aren't that likely in most economies these days; maybe up to 5%, past that there's a lot of risks.
what are you allowing to qualify as "labor"?
Really it seems like there's a lot of flaws with that argument as presented green.
|
On April 24 2014 14:56 zlefin wrote:
That seems rather disingenuous, to let one side use compound interest, but refuse to let the other side use it as well by investing some of the income it earned.
After factoring in inflation, returns of more than 3% aren't that likely in most economies these days; maybe up to 5%, past that there's a lot of risks.
what are you allowing to qualify as "labor"?
Really it seems like there's a lot of flaws with that argument as presented green.
It's super simple.
The laborer doesn't invest but the investor doesn't labor.
$300,000 and under covers 98-99% of incomes in the US so pretty much all of them.
The point is really to illustrate the general tendency for money to make more money than labor.
|
On April 24 2014 14:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 11:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 24 2014 11:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:Like say, they implemented a rule saying that worker wages would increase proportionally to company profits or something? Like there could be a fairly low minimum wage which would be of the "barely scraping by" kind (where it currently is) and then there'd be an extra wage determined by company profits, and then you could say that company profits would be split in two, half evenly divided to the workers through this bonus system whereas the rest was returned to investors or retained by the company or how that really works. (I have no background in economics but am eager to learn! ) So then when walmart employing 2.1 million people and seeing $15billion profits, $7.5 billion from that year would be divided between the 2.1 million, granting them all a $3kish bonus that year. (Less than the $5k I said earlier but I'll backtrack on that - I think split in half is better and more achievable.) If the company had a negative year, then obviously no bonus - and maybe even downsizing. I also think this system would grant workers a feeling of if not ownership then accountability, where their collective efforts would directly correlate with their pay. And if I understand it correctly (and as would be my goal) it would alleviate the problem of return of investments being greater than the return of labor. But I might be mis-thinking some here. It's not unusual for a company to have a profit sharing plan. I think Walmart does to an extent as well. Typically that doesn't add a whole lot, and it kind of can't because you'd have to take it back in a down year, and employees generally don't want to be exposed to that kind of volatility. I'm not sure how you'd calculate a rate of return on labor. I imagine it would far exceed a rate of return on capital. I may be wrong but I think this is more or less what he is getting at. We can run a quick thought experiment. What is worth more, ones ability to labor or, ones access to capital? Let's have someone inherit $1 million and invest it all at once, while not spending any of the money or adding outside funds for 50 years at various interest rates (using a basic compound interest calculation). We will have someone else work full time for 50 years not spending or investing any money. + Show Spoiler +Looks pretty obvious to me that having capital is much more profitable than working. It might be a bit harder to see with a $1 million inheritance so here's the results for $5 million If you inherit $5 million it's almost impossible to make less than the top of the labor field, for simply having an investment in your name (even if you never work a day in your life). Said another way. No matter how hard you work your labor will essentially never be more profitable than someone who inherits $5-10+ million. Some people think it's a bit ridiculous to think someone who never works a day in their life could 'make/earn more money' than the most skilled laborers in the world. I guess some prefer it that way?
Apples to oranges math. One is compounding, the other isn't.
You can't have one side compound and the other not, when both sides have access to compounding. Not to mention that you should be getting a raise after 25 years.
|
On April 24 2014 15:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 14:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 24 2014 11:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 24 2014 11:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:Like say, they implemented a rule saying that worker wages would increase proportionally to company profits or something? Like there could be a fairly low minimum wage which would be of the "barely scraping by" kind (where it currently is) and then there'd be an extra wage determined by company profits, and then you could say that company profits would be split in two, half evenly divided to the workers through this bonus system whereas the rest was returned to investors or retained by the company or how that really works. (I have no background in economics but am eager to learn! ) So then when walmart employing 2.1 million people and seeing $15billion profits, $7.5 billion from that year would be divided between the 2.1 million, granting them all a $3kish bonus that year. (Less than the $5k I said earlier but I'll backtrack on that - I think split in half is better and more achievable.) If the company had a negative year, then obviously no bonus - and maybe even downsizing. I also think this system would grant workers a feeling of if not ownership then accountability, where their collective efforts would directly correlate with their pay. And if I understand it correctly (and as would be my goal) it would alleviate the problem of return of investments being greater than the return of labor. But I might be mis-thinking some here. It's not unusual for a company to have a profit sharing plan. I think Walmart does to an extent as well. Typically that doesn't add a whole lot, and it kind of can't because you'd have to take it back in a down year, and employees generally don't want to be exposed to that kind of volatility. I'm not sure how you'd calculate a rate of return on labor. I imagine it would far exceed a rate of return on capital. I may be wrong but I think this is more or less what he is getting at. We can run a quick thought experiment. What is worth more, ones ability to labor or, ones access to capital? Let's have someone inherit $1 million and invest it all at once, while not spending any of the money or adding outside funds for 50 years at various interest rates (using a basic compound interest calculation). We will have someone else work full time for 50 years not spending or investing any money. + Show Spoiler +Looks pretty obvious to me that having capital is much more profitable than working. It might be a bit harder to see with a $1 million inheritance so here's the results for $5 million If you inherit $5 million it's almost impossible to make less than the top of the labor field, for simply having an investment in your name (even if you never work a day in your life). Said another way. No matter how hard you work your labor will essentially never be more profitable than someone who inherits $5-10+ million. Some people think it's a bit ridiculous to think someone who never works a day in their life could 'make/earn more money' than the most skilled laborers in the world. I guess some prefer it that way? Apples to oranges math. One is compounding, the other isn't. You can't have one side compound and the other not, when both sides have access to compounding. Not to mention that you should be getting a raise after 25 years.
Seriously... Labor doesn't compound... And if you think the laborer investing will close the gap more than allowing the investor to labor it just reaffirms the original point.
As for the raise the logical presumption is that they wouldn't make $300,000 for 50 years (that would put a 20 y.o. neurosurgeon at 70 yo still practicing)either.
I figured you guys would have the sense to realize most people would probably be in between 2 salaries maybe 3 over a 50 year career. So calculating the raises would actually skew most of the wage numbers lower not higher. 50k is probably the most representative number as even if you end up making over 100k a year, chances are you didn't spend 50 years there. When you think about the years spent earning a lower annual salary it would probably average out closer to 50-75 k #'s. The 20 and 30k numbers are primarily to illustrate how someone who is too 'lazy' to get better employment or too 'ignorant' to invest, compares to a 'trust fund baby' who 'earns' their money while potentially never working a day in their life.
|
Proving that large quantities of starting funds earn more than typical laborers wasn't in dispute though; so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, especially when adding so many silly unrealistic assumptions to it.
If you have a thesis statement, I'd like it to be clearer.
If your thesis is that it's possible for someone to have a privileged life, then that's not new information.
And I maintain that your not letting both invest is disingenuous, that's just showing the power of compounding.
|
On April 24 2014 16:05 zlefin wrote:
Proving that large quantities of starting funds earn more than typical laborers wasn't in dispute though; so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, especially when adding so many silly unrealistic assumptions to it.
If you have a thesis statement, I'd like it to be clearer.
If your thesis is that it's possible for someone to have a privileged life, then that's not new information.
And I maintain that your not letting both invest is disingenuous, that's just showing the power of compounding.
Thesis: Winning the birth lottery alone is more profitable than working alone.
It isn't disingenuous but the refined thesis removes it from consideration.
But again if you allow the worker to invest you have to let the investor work. If you think the laborer closes the gap by being allowed to invest and the investor being able to labor, it strengthens my point not weakens it. (this idea obviously doesn't account for the fact that the investor who adds laboring to their lifetime earnings could invest equally to their primarily working counterpart where the laborer cant make a comparable investment.
(That would also not account for the increase in probability for high paying jobs for the investor example vs the labor example as borne out by real world data.)
But I suppose we can just keep it to the thesis and example?
|
Ok, that thesis is plausible, though it depends considerably on what constitutes "winning the birth lottery" vs what constitutes "work"; also, do you mean more profitable: always, on average, or what?
Some reasonable definitions could lead to counterexamples.
As another question: if the thesis is true, so what? The world isn't a perfect place.
|
On April 24 2014 17:03 zlefin wrote:
Ok, that thesis is plausible, though it depends considerably on what constitutes "winning the birth lottery" vs what constitutes "work"; also, do you mean more profitable: always, on average, or what?
Some reasonable definitions could lead to counterexamples.
As another question: if the thesis is true, so what? The world isn't a perfect place.
The world isn't perfect and you better like it that way, godammit.
|
On April 24 2014 14:56 zlefin wrote:
That seems rather disingenuous, to let one side use compound interest, but refuse to let the other side use it as well by investing some of the income it earned.
After factoring in inflation, returns of more than 3% aren't that likely in most economies these days; maybe up to 5%, past that there's a lot of risks.
what are you allowing to qualify as "labor"?
Really it seems like there's a lot of flaws with that argument as presented green.
In fact, what he didn't take into consideration, and what completly change the picture, is that the rate of return on capital investment is - obviously - bigger for big portfolio than for small one. So the problem is not that, after 25 years, it is better to just get an inheritance than to work - which is an obvious fact - but that the rate of return for high portfolio today is around 4 to 5 %, way higher than growth and way higher than the rate of return on small portfolio (my washing machine is a capital and doesn't give me a 5% rate of return you know) which result in a rising inequality (until when ?) between labor and capital, the second taking most of the wealth created for itself and with higher and higher concentration.
But I'm not inventing anything, it's basically the pitch of Piketty's book, that we talked about already. Not to mention {CC}StealthBlue posted a really good interview about it a few pages ago.
On April 24 2014 13:52 coverpunch wrote:President Obama is in Japan and did this interview supporting Japan:Show nested quote +President Obama: America is and always will be a Pacific nation, and at my direction the United States is once again playing a leading role in the region, in close partnership with allies like Japan. We seek security, where international law and norms are upheld and disputes are resolved peacefully. We seek prosperity, where trade and investment leads to broad-based economic growth and nations play by the same rules. We seek respect for fundamental freedoms and universal human rights, because we believe in the inherent dignity of every human being.
Our strategy is a long-term commitment to this region and its people, and I’m proud of our progress so far. Our alliances, including with Japan, are stronger than ever and we’re modernizing our defense posture across the region. Our trade is growing and we’re working to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We’re deepening our ties with emerging powers like China, India and Indonesia. We’re more closely engaged with regional institutions like ASEAN and the East Asia Summit. We’re standing with citizens, including the people of Burma, as they work toward a democratic future.
With regard to China, the new model of relations we seek between our two countries is based on my belief that we can work together on issues of mutual interest, both regionally and globally, and that both our nations have to resist the danger of slipping into conflict, which is not inevitable. For example, both the United States and China have an interest in the global economic recovery, the denuclearization of North Korea and addressing climate change. In other words, we welcome the continuing rise of a China that is stable, prosperous and peaceful and plays a responsible role in global affairs. And our engagement with China does not and will not come at the expense of Japan or any other ally.
At the same time, the United States is going to deal directly and candidly with China on issues where we have differences, such as human rights. I’ve also told President Xi that all our nations have an interest in dealing constructively with maritime issues, including in the East China Sea. Disputes need to be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy, not intimidation and coercion. The policy of the United States is clear—the Senkaku Islands are administered by Japan and therefore fall within the scope of Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. And we oppose any unilateral attempts to undermine Japan’s administration of these islands. Very direct at the end here, which has angered China quite a lot. Show nested quote +Q: The Abe administration is attempting to revise its interpretation of the Japanese Constitution to exercise the right to “collective self-defense,” which would enable Japan to support U.S. military activities when it comes to Asian security. How would you evaluate the policy change in terms of its contribution to the U.S.-Japan alliance?
A: Decisions about the Japanese constitution, of course, belong to the people and leaders of Japan. I would simply say that the United States has the greatest respect for the service and professionalism of the Japanese Self Defense Forces. Our militaries train and exercise together and we’re both stronger for it. Our forces worked together as part of the humanitarian efforts after the typhoon in the Philippines. Japanese peacekeepers serve with courage in United Nations missions around the world. The world is better off because of Japan’s long-standing commitment to international peace and security.
That is why we have enthusiastically welcomed Japan’s desire to play a greater role in upholding international security. I commend Prime Minister Abe for his efforts to strengthen Japan’s defense forces and to deepen the coordination between our militaries, including by reviewing existing limits on the exercise of collective self-defense. We believe that it’s in the interest of both our countries for Japanese Self Defense Forces to do more within the framework of our alliance. Likewise, U.N. peacekeeping missions would benefit from even greater Japanese participation. We very much appreciate Tokyo’s outreach to other nations, including sending officials to foreign capitals to explain Japan’s evolving defense policies. In fact, Japan’s efforts are a model of the transparency and dialogue with neighbors that we need more of in the region.
The starting phrase is so not convincing lol (America, pacific ? Really...). Japan getting back its military can become a problem for the stability of the region in the long run, considering the remnant of their imperialists "tendancies".
|
On April 24 2014 18:28 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 14:56 zlefin wrote:
That seems rather disingenuous, to let one side use compound interest, but refuse to let the other side use it as well by investing some of the income it earned.
After factoring in inflation, returns of more than 3% aren't that likely in most economies these days; maybe up to 5%, past that there's a lot of risks.
what are you allowing to qualify as "labor"?
Really it seems like there's a lot of flaws with that argument as presented green. In fact, what he didn't take into consideration, and what completly change the picture, is that the rate of return on capital investment is - obviously - bigger for big portfolio than for small one. So the problem is not that, after 25 years, it is better to just get an inheritance than to work - which is an obvious fact - but that the rate of return for high portfolio today is around 4 to 5 %, way higher than growth and way higher than the rate of return on small portfolio (my washing machine is a capital and doesn't give me a 5% rate of return you know) which result in a rising inequality (until when ?) between labor and capital, the second taking most of the wealth created for itself and with higher and higher concentration. But I'm not inventing anything, it's basically the pitch of Piketty's book, that we talked about already. Not to mention {CC}StealthBlue posted a really good interview about it a few pages ago. [
I don't understand. The size (im assuming you mean number of assets) of a portfolio is unrelated to its rate of return, you can have an arbitrarily large expected return with just 2 assets, going long in one and short in the other. Also the returns on market portfolios are around 8% (systemic risk premium is 4-6%).
Do you mean its easier to earn a higher rate of return with more money due to transaction costs, or do you not mean rate of return at all and just absolute returns?
|
On April 24 2014 18:45 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 18:28 WhiteDog wrote:On April 24 2014 14:56 zlefin wrote:
That seems rather disingenuous, to let one side use compound interest, but refuse to let the other side use it as well by investing some of the income it earned.
After factoring in inflation, returns of more than 3% aren't that likely in most economies these days; maybe up to 5%, past that there's a lot of risks.
what are you allowing to qualify as "labor"?
Really it seems like there's a lot of flaws with that argument as presented green. In fact, what he didn't take into consideration, and what completly change the picture, is that the rate of return on capital investment is - obviously - bigger for big portfolio than for small one. So the problem is not that, after 25 years, it is better to just get an inheritance than to work - which is an obvious fact - but that the rate of return for high portfolio today is around 4 to 5 %, way higher than growth and way higher than the rate of return on small portfolio (my washing machine is a capital and doesn't give me a 5% rate of return you know) which result in a rising inequality (until when ?) between labor and capital, the second taking most of the wealth created for itself and with higher and higher concentration. But I'm not inventing anything, it's basically the pitch of Piketty's book, that we talked about already. Not to mention {CC}StealthBlue posted a really good interview about it a few pages ago. [ I don't understand. The size (im assuming you mean number of assets) of a portfolio is unrelated to its rate of return, you can have an arbitrarily large expected return with just 2 assets, going long in one and short in the other. Also the returns on market portfolios are around 8% (systemic risk premium is 4-6%).
No it is not because, as I said, most of the capital possessed by "average" people has a low rate of return - talking about washing machine (who gives a service), television, car and small house those are capital you know, the kind of capital you invest in when you start your life. There is a difference between that and an "investment" on capital market.
Rate of return on market portfolio are around 8% big with a higher risk. The average rate of return is 4 to 5 % (and was 2% fifty years ago, back then economists thought it was the law).
And if you talk only about financial market, with a bigger portfolio you can diversify and thus mitigate the risk, pay a good trader to maximize your profit, etc.
When I talk about capital, I talk about it in the global economic sense, not just finance (an element of patrimony that play a part in the production).
|
On April 24 2014 18:59 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 18:45 Crushinator wrote:On April 24 2014 18:28 WhiteDog wrote:On April 24 2014 14:56 zlefin wrote:
That seems rather disingenuous, to let one side use compound interest, but refuse to let the other side use it as well by investing some of the income it earned.
After factoring in inflation, returns of more than 3% aren't that likely in most economies these days; maybe up to 5%, past that there's a lot of risks.
what are you allowing to qualify as "labor"?
Really it seems like there's a lot of flaws with that argument as presented green. In fact, what he didn't take into consideration, and what completly change the picture, is that the rate of return on capital investment is - obviously - bigger for big portfolio than for small one. So the problem is not that, after 25 years, it is better to just get an inheritance than to work - which is an obvious fact - but that the rate of return for high portfolio today is around 4 to 5 %, way higher than growth and way higher than the rate of return on small portfolio (my washing machine is a capital and doesn't give me a 5% rate of return you know) which result in a rising inequality (until when ?) between labor and capital, the second taking most of the wealth created for itself and with higher and higher concentration. But I'm not inventing anything, it's basically the pitch of Piketty's book, that we talked about already. Not to mention {CC}StealthBlue posted a really good interview about it a few pages ago. [ I don't understand. The size (im assuming you mean number of assets) of a portfolio is unrelated to its rate of return, you can have an arbitrarily large expected return with just 2 assets, going long in one and short in the other. Also the returns on market portfolios are around 8% (systemic risk premium is 4-6%). No it is not because, as I said, most of the capital possessed by "average" people has a low rate of return - talking about washing machine (who gives a service), television, car and small house those are capital you know, the kind of capital you invest in when you start your life. There is a difference between that and an "investment" on capital market. Rate of return on market portfolio are around 8% big with a higher risk. The average rate of return is 4 to 5 % (and was 2% fifty years ago, back then economists thought it was the law). And if you talk only about financial market, with a bigger portfolio you can diversify and thus mitigate the risk, pay a good trader to maximize your profit, etc.
The things you mention are considered consumed and not invested, this is confusing to me. I know you can consider things like a car and washing machine investments since they save time that can then be put to productive use, but I really don't see the relevance, also in that sense you could see those investments as potentially having very large rates of return.
The reason average people have a lower rate of return on the financial market than rich people and financial institutions is that they differ in their degree of risk aversion, expertise, liquidity preference and ability to mitigate transaction costs through scale advantages.
Joe the plumber is more likely to prefer to put his couple thousand on a savings account because he might decide to buy a new washing machine tomorrow and needs money right away, is unlikely to to know anything at all about financial assets, is likely to have to pay fees to brokers that partially offset higher returns on stock protfolios, and is more likely to prefer to be certain to have a couple thousand instead of risking large losses in return for higher returns.
I agree that these differences will, in the end, result in large and impossible to justify wealth inequality in the real world, but this discussion is very confusing.
|
On April 24 2014 19:19 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 18:59 WhiteDog wrote:On April 24 2014 18:45 Crushinator wrote:On April 24 2014 18:28 WhiteDog wrote:On April 24 2014 14:56 zlefin wrote:
That seems rather disingenuous, to let one side use compound interest, but refuse to let the other side use it as well by investing some of the income it earned.
After factoring in inflation, returns of more than 3% aren't that likely in most economies these days; maybe up to 5%, past that there's a lot of risks.
what are you allowing to qualify as "labor"?
Really it seems like there's a lot of flaws with that argument as presented green. In fact, what he didn't take into consideration, and what completly change the picture, is that the rate of return on capital investment is - obviously - bigger for big portfolio than for small one. So the problem is not that, after 25 years, it is better to just get an inheritance than to work - which is an obvious fact - but that the rate of return for high portfolio today is around 4 to 5 %, way higher than growth and way higher than the rate of return on small portfolio (my washing machine is a capital and doesn't give me a 5% rate of return you know) which result in a rising inequality (until when ?) between labor and capital, the second taking most of the wealth created for itself and with higher and higher concentration. But I'm not inventing anything, it's basically the pitch of Piketty's book, that we talked about already. Not to mention {CC}StealthBlue posted a really good interview about it a few pages ago. [ I don't understand. The size (im assuming you mean number of assets) of a portfolio is unrelated to its rate of return, you can have an arbitrarily large expected return with just 2 assets, going long in one and short in the other. Also the returns on market portfolios are around 8% (systemic risk premium is 4-6%). No it is not because, as I said, most of the capital possessed by "average" people has a low rate of return - talking about washing machine (who gives a service), television, car and small house those are capital you know, the kind of capital you invest in when you start your life. There is a difference between that and an "investment" on capital market. Rate of return on market portfolio are around 8% big with a higher risk. The average rate of return is 4 to 5 % (and was 2% fifty years ago, back then economists thought it was the law). And if you talk only about financial market, with a bigger portfolio you can diversify and thus mitigate the risk, pay a good trader to maximize your profit, etc. The things you mention are considered consumed and not invested, this is confusing to me. I know you can consider things like a car and washing machine investments since they save time that can then be put to productive use, but I really don't see the relevance, also in that sense you could see those investments as potentially having very large rates of return. The reason average people have a lower rate of return on the financial market than rich people and financial institutions is that they differ in their degree of risk aversion, expertise, liquidity preference and ability to mitigate transaction costs through scale advantages. Joe the plumber is more likely to prefer to put his couple thousand on a savings account because he might decide to buy a new washing machine tomorrow and needs money right away, is unlikely to to know anything at all about financial assets, is likely to have to pay fees to brokers that partially offset higher returns on stock protfolios, and is more likely to prefer to be certain to have a couple thousand instead of risking large losses in return for higher returns. I agree that these differences will, in the end, result in large and impossible to justify wealth inequality in the real world, but this discussion is very confusing.
Because you're not talking about capital but money. A capital asset can be a bond or a loan certificate but it also can be a machine used throughout production. As I said, it's all element of patrimony used throughout production - savings are no capital by themselves.
When you consume a good, it is destroyed or transformed while capital last for several production cycle (like washing machine).
What I'm saying is that, when you think about the rate of return on capital investment, we are also talking about someone investing X in a machine and the return he will get on that investment. I guess it's my fault for using the word portfolio.
|
On April 24 2014 19:42 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 19:19 Crushinator wrote:On April 24 2014 18:59 WhiteDog wrote:On April 24 2014 18:45 Crushinator wrote:On April 24 2014 18:28 WhiteDog wrote:On April 24 2014 14:56 zlefin wrote:
That seems rather disingenuous, to let one side use compound interest, but refuse to let the other side use it as well by investing some of the income it earned.
After factoring in inflation, returns of more than 3% aren't that likely in most economies these days; maybe up to 5%, past that there's a lot of risks.
what are you allowing to qualify as "labor"?
Really it seems like there's a lot of flaws with that argument as presented green. In fact, what he didn't take into consideration, and what completly change the picture, is that the rate of return on capital investment is - obviously - bigger for big portfolio than for small one. So the problem is not that, after 25 years, it is better to just get an inheritance than to work - which is an obvious fact - but that the rate of return for high portfolio today is around 4 to 5 %, way higher than growth and way higher than the rate of return on small portfolio (my washing machine is a capital and doesn't give me a 5% rate of return you know) which result in a rising inequality (until when ?) between labor and capital, the second taking most of the wealth created for itself and with higher and higher concentration. But I'm not inventing anything, it's basically the pitch of Piketty's book, that we talked about already. Not to mention {CC}StealthBlue posted a really good interview about it a few pages ago. [ I don't understand. The size (im assuming you mean number of assets) of a portfolio is unrelated to its rate of return, you can have an arbitrarily large expected return with just 2 assets, going long in one and short in the other. Also the returns on market portfolios are around 8% (systemic risk premium is 4-6%). No it is not because, as I said, most of the capital possessed by "average" people has a low rate of return - talking about washing machine (who gives a service), television, car and small house those are capital you know, the kind of capital you invest in when you start your life. There is a difference between that and an "investment" on capital market. Rate of return on market portfolio are around 8% big with a higher risk. The average rate of return is 4 to 5 % (and was 2% fifty years ago, back then economists thought it was the law). And if you talk only about financial market, with a bigger portfolio you can diversify and thus mitigate the risk, pay a good trader to maximize your profit, etc. The things you mention are considered consumed and not invested, this is confusing to me. I know you can consider things like a car and washing machine investments since they save time that can then be put to productive use, but I really don't see the relevance, also in that sense you could see those investments as potentially having very large rates of return. The reason average people have a lower rate of return on the financial market than rich people and financial institutions is that they differ in their degree of risk aversion, expertise, liquidity preference and ability to mitigate transaction costs through scale advantages. Joe the plumber is more likely to prefer to put his couple thousand on a savings account because he might decide to buy a new washing machine tomorrow and needs money right away, is unlikely to to know anything at all about financial assets, is likely to have to pay fees to brokers that partially offset higher returns on stock protfolios, and is more likely to prefer to be certain to have a couple thousand instead of risking large losses in return for higher returns. I agree that these differences will, in the end, result in large and impossible to justify wealth inequality in the real world, but this discussion is very confusing. Because you're not talking about capital but money. A capital asset can be a bond or a loan certificate but it also can be a machine used throughout production. As I said, it's all element of patrimony used throughout production - savings are no capital by themselves. When you consume a good, it is destroyed or transformed while capital last for several production cycle (like washing machine). What I'm saying is that, when you think about the rate of return on capital investment, we are also talking about someone investing X in a machine and the return he will get on that investment.
I'm not talking about money, I thought I was very clear, but whatever, I don't know how to express it any better and I have no idea what your point is.
|
On April 24 2014 19:47 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 19:42 WhiteDog wrote:On April 24 2014 19:19 Crushinator wrote:On April 24 2014 18:59 WhiteDog wrote:On April 24 2014 18:45 Crushinator wrote:On April 24 2014 18:28 WhiteDog wrote:On April 24 2014 14:56 zlefin wrote:
That seems rather disingenuous, to let one side use compound interest, but refuse to let the other side use it as well by investing some of the income it earned.
After factoring in inflation, returns of more than 3% aren't that likely in most economies these days; maybe up to 5%, past that there's a lot of risks.
what are you allowing to qualify as "labor"?
Really it seems like there's a lot of flaws with that argument as presented green. In fact, what he didn't take into consideration, and what completly change the picture, is that the rate of return on capital investment is - obviously - bigger for big portfolio than for small one. So the problem is not that, after 25 years, it is better to just get an inheritance than to work - which is an obvious fact - but that the rate of return for high portfolio today is around 4 to 5 %, way higher than growth and way higher than the rate of return on small portfolio (my washing machine is a capital and doesn't give me a 5% rate of return you know) which result in a rising inequality (until when ?) between labor and capital, the second taking most of the wealth created for itself and with higher and higher concentration. But I'm not inventing anything, it's basically the pitch of Piketty's book, that we talked about already. Not to mention {CC}StealthBlue posted a really good interview about it a few pages ago. [ I don't understand. The size (im assuming you mean number of assets) of a portfolio is unrelated to its rate of return, you can have an arbitrarily large expected return with just 2 assets, going long in one and short in the other. Also the returns on market portfolios are around 8% (systemic risk premium is 4-6%). No it is not because, as I said, most of the capital possessed by "average" people has a low rate of return - talking about washing machine (who gives a service), television, car and small house those are capital you know, the kind of capital you invest in when you start your life. There is a difference between that and an "investment" on capital market. Rate of return on market portfolio are around 8% big with a higher risk. The average rate of return is 4 to 5 % (and was 2% fifty years ago, back then economists thought it was the law). And if you talk only about financial market, with a bigger portfolio you can diversify and thus mitigate the risk, pay a good trader to maximize your profit, etc. The things you mention are considered consumed and not invested, this is confusing to me. I know you can consider things like a car and washing machine investments since they save time that can then be put to productive use, but I really don't see the relevance, also in that sense you could see those investments as potentially having very large rates of return. The reason average people have a lower rate of return on the financial market than rich people and financial institutions is that they differ in their degree of risk aversion, expertise, liquidity preference and ability to mitigate transaction costs through scale advantages. Joe the plumber is more likely to prefer to put his couple thousand on a savings account because he might decide to buy a new washing machine tomorrow and needs money right away, is unlikely to to know anything at all about financial assets, is likely to have to pay fees to brokers that partially offset higher returns on stock protfolios, and is more likely to prefer to be certain to have a couple thousand instead of risking large losses in return for higher returns. I agree that these differences will, in the end, result in large and impossible to justify wealth inequality in the real world, but this discussion is very confusing. Because you're not talking about capital but money. A capital asset can be a bond or a loan certificate but it also can be a machine used throughout production. As I said, it's all element of patrimony used throughout production - savings are no capital by themselves. When you consume a good, it is destroyed or transformed while capital last for several production cycle (like washing machine). What I'm saying is that, when you think about the rate of return on capital investment, we are also talking about someone investing X in a machine and the return he will get on that investment. I'm not talking about money, I thought I was very clear, but whatever, I don't know how to express it any better and I have no idea what your point is.
My point is basically that when you start your life, the rate of return you will get on your capital investment will not be the same as someone who invest a million dollar in something.
|
On April 24 2014 19:52 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 19:47 Crushinator wrote:On April 24 2014 19:42 WhiteDog wrote:On April 24 2014 19:19 Crushinator wrote:On April 24 2014 18:59 WhiteDog wrote:On April 24 2014 18:45 Crushinator wrote:On April 24 2014 18:28 WhiteDog wrote:On April 24 2014 14:56 zlefin wrote:
That seems rather disingenuous, to let one side use compound interest, but refuse to let the other side use it as well by investing some of the income it earned.
After factoring in inflation, returns of more than 3% aren't that likely in most economies these days; maybe up to 5%, past that there's a lot of risks.
what are you allowing to qualify as "labor"?
Really it seems like there's a lot of flaws with that argument as presented green. In fact, what he didn't take into consideration, and what completly change the picture, is that the rate of return on capital investment is - obviously - bigger for big portfolio than for small one. So the problem is not that, after 25 years, it is better to just get an inheritance than to work - which is an obvious fact - but that the rate of return for high portfolio today is around 4 to 5 %, way higher than growth and way higher than the rate of return on small portfolio (my washing machine is a capital and doesn't give me a 5% rate of return you know) which result in a rising inequality (until when ?) between labor and capital, the second taking most of the wealth created for itself and with higher and higher concentration. But I'm not inventing anything, it's basically the pitch of Piketty's book, that we talked about already. Not to mention {CC}StealthBlue posted a really good interview about it a few pages ago. [ I don't understand. The size (im assuming you mean number of assets) of a portfolio is unrelated to its rate of return, you can have an arbitrarily large expected return with just 2 assets, going long in one and short in the other. Also the returns on market portfolios are around 8% (systemic risk premium is 4-6%). No it is not because, as I said, most of the capital possessed by "average" people has a low rate of return - talking about washing machine (who gives a service), television, car and small house those are capital you know, the kind of capital you invest in when you start your life. There is a difference between that and an "investment" on capital market. Rate of return on market portfolio are around 8% big with a higher risk. The average rate of return is 4 to 5 % (and was 2% fifty years ago, back then economists thought it was the law). And if you talk only about financial market, with a bigger portfolio you can diversify and thus mitigate the risk, pay a good trader to maximize your profit, etc. The things you mention are considered consumed and not invested, this is confusing to me. I know you can consider things like a car and washing machine investments since they save time that can then be put to productive use, but I really don't see the relevance, also in that sense you could see those investments as potentially having very large rates of return. The reason average people have a lower rate of return on the financial market than rich people and financial institutions is that they differ in their degree of risk aversion, expertise, liquidity preference and ability to mitigate transaction costs through scale advantages. Joe the plumber is more likely to prefer to put his couple thousand on a savings account because he might decide to buy a new washing machine tomorrow and needs money right away, is unlikely to to know anything at all about financial assets, is likely to have to pay fees to brokers that partially offset higher returns on stock protfolios, and is more likely to prefer to be certain to have a couple thousand instead of risking large losses in return for higher returns. I agree that these differences will, in the end, result in large and impossible to justify wealth inequality in the real world, but this discussion is very confusing. Because you're not talking about capital but money. A capital asset can be a bond or a loan certificate but it also can be a machine used throughout production. As I said, it's all element of patrimony used throughout production - savings are no capital by themselves. When you consume a good, it is destroyed or transformed while capital last for several production cycle (like washing machine). What I'm saying is that, when you think about the rate of return on capital investment, we are also talking about someone investing X in a machine and the return he will get on that investment. I'm not talking about money, I thought I was very clear, but whatever, I don't know how to express it any better and I have no idea what your point is. My point is basically that when you start your life, the rate of return you will get on your capital investment will not be the same as someone who invest a million dollar in something.
I agree but for reasons that seem to be very different from yours. I would think the rate of return on a washing machine would be enormous. 500$ for a washing machine, if your time is worth just 10$ an hour, and a washing machine saves you an hour each time you run it, well, you do the math.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
