US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1024
Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On April 29 2014 03:29 oneofthem wrote: because different income types have different realization schedule and volatility insofar as year to tear irs numbers go. spending on credit is also not in there. Yeah that's why I thought it wasn't surprising. Why does it matter though, are you inferring something from it? And why would spending of any kind be in there? | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 29 2014 03:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Yeah that's why I thought it wasn't surprising. Why does it matter though, are you inferring something from it? And why would spending of any kind be in there? the implication is just that income shows more volatility than wealth and thus paints a different mobility/churn rate. credit spending is how some wealthy people spend rather than spending on incone alone so that adds even more unevenness to the income numbers. income is a poor measure of volatility of well to do ness . so for example wilpons dont need to sell the mets to fund their daily yacht racing activities | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On April 29 2014 03:39 oneofthem wrote: the implication is just that income shows more volatility than wealth and thus paints a different mobility/churn rate. credit spending is how some wealthy people spend rather than spending on incone alone so that adds even more unevenness to the income numbers. income is a poor measure of volatility of well to do ness . so for example wilpons dont need to sell the mets to fund their daily yacht racing activities What does that add beyond what the temporal factor adds? Someone who earns $1mm+ 10 years in a row is more well to do than someone who earns $1mm+ for only 1 year. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 29 2014 03:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote: uh because it's volatility due to cap gains realization rather than any real change in fortunes? if your study is meant to measure some meaningful change in amount of stuff, income is a poor way of doing it due to the cap gains thing, and the consumption smoothing effect of credit. What does that add beyond what the temporal factor adds? Someone who earns $1mm+ 10 years in a row is more well to do than someone who earns $1mm+ for only 1 year. i do not see how having a time window helps. consider a guy who realized 10m in one year and 1 dollar the next, is he worse off than a guy who earned 1m for 2 years? what about the guy with 500m saved up in off the book accounts and have no income to report at all and instead spend out of a bank's credit account | ||
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
| ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On April 29 2014 04:09 corumjhaelen wrote: Here's what I read in this article : I did a study on inequalities where I decided to change how it is mreasured because I didn't like the conclusions. By choosing something more volatile, I arrived at the conclusions things were more volatile, which is exactly what I wanted. Please use my study in politics, it's great science. Peace. No, it didn't change how anything was measured. It measured something different. It didn't change how income is measured, it measured how volatile income is. | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On April 29 2014 03:56 oneofthem wrote: uh because it's volatility due to cap gains realization rather than any real change in fortunes? if your study is meant to measure some meaningful change in amount of stuff, income is a poor way of doing it due to the cap gains thing, and the consumption smoothing effect of credit. i do not see how having a time window helps. consider a guy who realized 10m in one year and 1 dollar the next, is he worse off than a guy who earned 1m for 2 years? what about the guy with 500m saved up in off the book accounts and have no income to report at all and instead spend out of a bank's credit account Hrmm, maybe I'm misreading you? Were you being critical of the article I posted and the studies it referenced? Or income studies in general? | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 28 2014 18:27 Introvert wrote: + Show Spoiler + On April 28 2014 15:39 IgnE wrote: + Show Spoiler + On April 26 2014 18:40 Introvert wrote: Many ideas bleed into other sections , for the record. One of his most famous quotes, which Danglers provided, talks of soft tyranny [volume 2, part 2, ch 6]. Volume 2, part 4, chapter 4: Equality isn't bad (he likes it! Though I'm not sure you and him have the same criteria for what is equality, so let's be careful) but it is a tool used to reach despotism. He preached against permanent classes- something conservatives agree with. His criticisms of the exploitation of industrial workers he viewed as the exception, not the rule [Vol.2, Pt 3, Ch7.] He also advocated a powerful yet narrow central authority [numerous places, including the cite I gave before:Volume 1, part2, ch 8]- exactly what the Constitution was meant to be after the Articles. He never advocated that people's wealth be taken from them, so far as I know. There should be no guarantee of success. To try and spin him into a high taxing, high regulation advocate just shows you using your very warped lens in viewing him. Just because he didn't like primogeniture doesn't mean he would march the state in to take it. I think your primary misunderstanding is that he emphasized the citizen of the US, not the state. He talked of many ills, but how were they to be prevented? With a just, Judeo-Christian value system, Catholics in particular. (Volume 1, part 2, chapter 9.). Not an all powerful central government. He also considered culture and morality of utmost importance. So much of his book comes back the idea that America needs a strong moral, religious society. You could pick out every quote on equality from him and I doubt find any sort of backing for the type of action you want taken. Thanks for making me look back at my book- I've been itching to read it again. If we are going to discuss de Tocqueville honestly, let us at least use the terms he uses in the sense that he meant them. So when he writes of "socialism" as Danglars quoted, he wasn't talking about what passes for socialism on Fox News (i.e. anything you want), he was talking about planned economies that involved some degree of state ownership of the means of production, probably with a rationalist, scientific bent. Socialism has been debased in today's verbal coinage to such an extent that you have Danglars quoting a French liberal aristocrat talking about early 19th century socialism and applying it to liberal democratic taxation. To pretend that the democrats aren't a capitalist party makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about. So let's start off with this peremptory dismissal of de Tocqueville's criticisms of industrial aristocracy. Introvert said: I'm not really surprised by this laconic summary, but an honest appraisal of the text reveals a somewhat different complexion to de Tocqueville's actual thoughts on the matter. In the passage you cite: "I think that, upon the whole, it may be asserted that a slow and gradual rise of wages is one of the general laws of democratic communities. In proportion as social conditions become more equal, wages rise; and as wages are higher, social conditions become more equal. But a great and gloomy exception occurs in our own time. I have shown in a preceding chapter that aristocracy, expelled from political society, has taken refuge in certain departments of productive industry, and has established its sway there under another form; this powerfully affects the rate of wages. As a large capital is required to embark in the great manufacturing speculations to which I allude, the number of persons who enter upon them is exceedingly limited: as their number is small, they can easily concert together, and fix the rate of wages as they please. [. . .] This state of dependence and wretchedness, in which a part of the manufacturing population of our time lives, forms an exception to the general rule, contrary to the state of all the rest of the community; but, for this very reason, no circumstance is more important or more deserving of the especial consideration of the legislator; for when the whole of society is in motion, it is difficult to keep any one class stationary; and when the greater number of men are opening new paths to fortune, it is no less difficult to make the few support in peace their wants and their desires. " So you completely ignore here the fact that he says that where this supposedly rare exception occurs, legislators should take especial note. This seems to be calling for express action on the part of government to do something about preventing an underclass of laborers for whom wages don't raise, and wherein social inequality worsens. Wages haven't risen since the 1970s for the average worker in the United States. That's an entire generation without rising wages across a country far larger, far more productive, and far more diverse than the one de Tocqueville was writing about. It seems clear that he did not anticipate the degree to which capital came to dominate labor in the United States. A closer look at some of his other writings shows that he drastically underestimated the danger that capital posed to freedom in a democratic country. Earlier in the second volume he says this: "But this kind of aristocracy by no means resembles those kinds which preceded it. It will be observed at once, that as it applies exclusively to manufactures and to some manufacturing callings, it is a monstrous exception in the general aspect of society. The small aristocratic societies which are formed by some manufacturers in the midst of the immense democracy of our age, contain, like the great aristocratic societies of former ages, some men who are very opulent, and a multitude who are wretchedly poor. The poor have few means of escaping from their condition and becoming rich; but the rich are constantly becoming poor, or they give up business when they have realized a fortune. Thus the elements of which the class of the poor is composed are fixed; but the elements of which the class of the rich is composed are not so. To say the truth, though there are rich men, the class of rich men does not exist; for these rich individuals have no feelings or purposes in common, no mutual traditions or mutual hopes; there are therefore members, but no body [. . .] I am of opinion, upon the whole, that the manufacturing aristocracy which is growing up under our eyes is one of the harshest which ever existed in the world; but at the same time it is one of the most confined and least dangerous. Nevertheless the friends of democracy should keep their eyes anxiously fixed in this direction; for if ever a permanent inequality of conditions and aristocracy again penetrate into the world, it may be predicted that this is the channel by which they will enter. " So he clearly says that his views are predicated on a society where those who are relatively rich rise easily and fall just as easily, based on merit, not on inheritance. But he singles out the "manufacturing" or capitalist aristocracy as the harshest which ever existed in the world, before wrongly assuming that the social equality in democracy would prevent the rise of such a class. All of the evidence available to us shows growing inequality in the United States, decreasing social mobility, and the rise of a rich 1% and super rich <0.1% that have effectively insulated themselves from the tumult of democracy and the necessity of labor for their descendents. Why does de Tocqueville view this capitalist aristocracy as the harshest in existence? Because the capitalist aristocracy has no bond to the working man and does not trouble himself to share the prosperity. The "manufacturing" aristocracy does not feel a duty to the working man beyond paying him the lowest price he can for his labor. This is one point where it is very obvious de Tocqueville's peculiar context leads him to underestimate the balance of power in a democracy, which has as its defining characteristic, a social equality that is a necessary precondition for its existence. For de Tocqueville, freedom and equality are in tension, but equality is the fundamental foundation for the democracy that makes freedom possible. "When hereditary wealth, the privileges of rank, and the prerogatives of birth have ceased to be, and when every man derives his strength from himself alone, it becomes evident that the chief cause of disparity between the fortunes of men is the mind [. . .] In free and enlightened democratic ages, there is nothing to separate men from each other or to retain them in their peculiar sphere; they rise or sink with extreme rapidity. All classes live in perpetual intercourse from their great proximity to each other." De Tocqueville himself describes the equality in the America he is writing about as such: "The number of large fortunes there is small, and capital is still scarce. Yet no people in the world has made such rapid progress in trade and manufactures as the Americans: they constitute at the present day the second maritime nation in the world; and although their manufactures have to struggle with almost insurmountable natural impediments, they are not prevented from making great and daily advances. In the United States the greatest undertakings and speculations are executed without difficulty, because the whole population is engaged in productive industry, and because the poorest as well as the most opulent members of the commonwealth are ready to combine their efforts for these purposes. The consequence is, that a stranger is constantly amazed by the immense public works executed by a nation which contains, so to speak, no rich men." It is true that de Tocqueville says that equality can lead to despotism: "I think that democratic communities have a natural taste for freedom: left to themselves, they will seek it, cherish it, and view any privation of it with regret. But for equality, their passion is ardent, insatiable, incessant, invincible: they call for equality in freedom; and if they cannot obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery. They will endure poverty, servitude, barbarism—but they will not endure aristocracy. This is true at all times, and especially true in our own. All men and all powers seeking to cope with this irresistible passion, will be overthrown and destroyed by it. In our age, freedom cannot be established without it, and despotism itself cannot reign without its support." But this is not the depotism of democratic taxation and redistribution. There is nothing despotic that is inherent to redistribution. For de Tocqueville, democracy, i.e. the participation of the citizens in government, is anathema to despotism. The association of free citizens in "free institutions" is the cure of despotism. It is a shame then, that those who are so afraid of despotism as to dismantle all government have knowingly aided and abetted the destruction of those institutions that tied the mass of people together and kept them involved in politics. Labor unions, workers' groups, and leftist groups that grew up during the great depression and briefly thrived in the middle of the century were systematically dismantled in favor of an atomized working class, comprising nuclear families who were unable to stand up to the repeated assault on the masses' rights and interests by corporations throughout the 70s and 80s. In contrast to the virtuous individualism espoused by conservatives, de Tocqueville lambasts individualism and egotism, saying: "In democratic countries the science of association is the mother of science; the progress of all the rest depends upon the progress it has made. Amongst the laws which rule human societies there is one which seems to be more precise and clear than all others. If men are to remain civilized, or to become so, the art of associating together must grow and improve in the same ratio in which the equality of conditions is increased." Indeed, it is odd that anyone who has read de Tocqueville would assert that he would be opposed to taxation and redistribution, especially in light of the facts that inequality is increasing, millions remain unemployed and out of work, and oligarchy has swallowed up our political process. To suggest that he would be for reducing income taxes, capital gains taxes, and inheritance taxes is a bridge too far. "The Americans, on the contrary, are fond of explaining almost all the actions of their lives by the principle of interest rightly understood; they show with complacency how an enlightened regard for themselves constantly prompts them to assist each other, and inclines them willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property to the welfare of the State." Near the end of the second volume, he writes that to preserve free institutions, a requirement for freedom to flow in democracy, a legislator must "take equality for his first principle and his watchword." To establish a free government, he says: "[T]he power of government amongst them must be more uniform, more centralized, more extensive, more searching, and more efficient than in other countries [. . .] [A]mongst aristocratic nations, the mass is often sacrificed to the individual, and the prosperity of the greater number to the greatness of the few. It is both necessary and desirable that the government of a democratic people should be active and powerful: and our object should not be to render it weak or indolent, but solely to prevent it from abusing its aptitude and its strength." These are not the words of a man who is for "small government" whatever that means. While it must be admitted that de Tocqueville saw dangers in the equality inherent in democracy, a reading of his work grounded in his historical context puts the lie to the idea that the man was a Tea Partier before his time. Equality was a necessary precondition for the liberal democracy he envisioned, and while he longed for the great men that were nobly born in more ancient regimes, his foundational assumptions were that democracy is strongest when prosperity was spread amongst the society, when associations between men were politically active and strong, when wages rose with increasing productivity. It is a macabre intellect that would turn his arguments for the protection of private rights into a libertarian screed. Reasonable taxation and redistribution legislated and executed by democratically elected officials are a far cry from the despotism he warned about. The weekend draws to end and the hour is late. Alas, my reply will be shorter. But let me commend you for putting actual effort into it. Unfortunately most of it operates under a few assumptions that I challenge. I do wish you would give particular citations so I could find them. But no matter. Let's set some stuff straight. I don't think I ever painted him as a libertarian. Obviously given his views on and relationship with aristocracy, I do not share his view in a great many things- I don't view him as a "Tea Partier." A specific quote was used in a particular conversational context- tyranny of the majority. His views on "individualism" are largely irrelevant to the topic as it was being discussed. The two are different enough that they can be separated. As far as they are connected, he feared that individualism would, among other things, cause the individual to be too weak against the power of the majority. He had his idea of "self-interest rightly understood." But that's for another time. So let's focus on the power of government. Note I never said he was opposed to taxation. For Heaven's sake stop saying that. I AM NOT opposed to taxation. I connected what he said on tyranny of the majority and desire for equality with the problem of redistributionary programs. This connection I made was the logical leap from his fear of popular tyranny to criticism of the welfare state, a concept obviously not really realized in the context in which he was writing. I think it is my own fault for not delineating properly, but at the same time given that he never advocates redistribution, nor opposes taxation it should not have been read into his work. Let's look at what I said: From DiA: 1. He likes equality. 2. He feared the growing industrial "problem." 3. He was in favor of a strong central government, but does not advocate redistribution. On (1) we have no disagreement. On (2) I think you could legitimately argue that I under-emphasized it. Though considering that I spent 2 whole sentences mentioning it, it should have been clear that that was not my primary focus. On(3)- Here is should be patently obvious I did not paint him as some far right radical. He advocated a powerful, yet narrow central authority. And I contend that nothing in your quotation supplies any sort of proof for redistribution, perhaps because the concept was not really fleshed out at the time. I think at most from your quotations he supported the power of elected representatives to remedy the problems by law and presumably force the violators into providing better conditions. And I agree- to an extent. I'm not anti-union in principle, to address your point, but in my view they are far too powerful. I don't think (and I did not portray Tocqueville this way) that everything should be left to pure market forces. Now of course the natural question is "why do I support 'anti-union' legislation?" Because they act like bullies in many situations. Also, because the commerce clause is incredibly limiting. "Indeed, it is odd that anyone who has read de Tocqueville would assert that he would be opposed to taxation and redistribution, especially in light of the facts that inequality is increasing, millions remain unemployed and out of work, and oligarchy has swallowed up our political process. To suggest that he would be for reducing income taxes, capital gains taxes, and inheritance taxes is a bridge too far." This is where you show your own lens bleeding in. You think he would support redistribution because of where we are now. I do not think that is so obvious a claim as you make it to be. I think your bridge extends equally as far in the opposite direction. Fact is, you have no idea what he would propose. He asserts action, but what type of action? Who knows! I don't think redistribution crossed his mind. I never see the idea in his work- at most he talks about how individualism can lead people to care for each other, recognizing the situation they are in. You provided this very quote: I would need more context to know what he means by "the State" however. I feel I do great injustice to you with the manner of this post, to seemingly dismiss what you say in such a way. But I think the foundation of your objection is what needs to be contested before we discuss what he said. Also, what I said needs to considered. My focus was not on the industrial problem. It was on the potential tyranny of the majority, given the modern welfare state. You yourself said he underestimated the problem. How then do you possibly think you could make an assumption about how he would deal with it? In summary: I think we all three oppose a developing aristocracy. Your solution to this problem (whether it is as extreme as you make it out to be or not) is redistribution and tight controls on earnings. My view is that the primary concern ought to be when corporations intertwine with government, as well as creating dependency. Tocqueville's concern is, well exactly as he stated it on your quote. I don't think by itself one could draw what you want from it, however. The quote about tyranny of the majority was used for a specific reason that I used in making a connection. I think the Editor's Intro puts it perfectly: "In America, he [Tocqueville] is, as noted above, quoted with approval by intellectuals and politicians from both the Left and the Right. On the Left he is the philosopher of community and civic engagement who warns against the appearance of an industrial aristocracy and against the bourgeoisie or commercial passion for material well being: in sum, he is for democratic citizenship. On the Right he is quoted for his strictures on 'Big Government" and his liking for decentralized administration, as well as celebrating individual energy and opposing egalitarian excess: he is a balanced liberal, defending both freedom and moderation." I think my use of the "tyranny of the majority" was used correctly. Moreover, I contest that it's hard to positively assert that he would favor your schemes. I don't think I ever said that de Tocqueville talked about redistribution. That isn't my argument. My argument is that the man clearly conceived of equality as a precondition for democracy and the liberty that flows from it. Commensurate with that he believed that a democratic government had to be a "more uniform, more centralized, more extensive, more searching, and more efficient" government than that seen in aristocracies, so as to preserve the equality of conditions necessary for democracy and liberty to flourish, by preventing the rise of powerful moneyed interests who would sacrifice the mass of people for the individual. Therefore, to quote him out of context contra Obama and the pro-business Democrats, like Danglars does, is a farce and a fraud. | ||
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On April 29 2014 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote: No, it didn't change how anything was measured. It measured something different. It didn't change how income is measured, it measured how volatile income is. Thank god for your post, it illuminated my day. I was very wrong about the article, and thanks to your well thought-out comment, that shows an extroardinary ability to read and make interesting distinctions, no doubt gained reading the greatest minds of humanity in business school, I have realized that the writer measured something different (really ? I would have never thought so) and that it didn't try to draw conclusions about inequalities, but solely about what it measured, which you smartly noticed was "income volatility". How could I make this mistake, I wonder, but my inability to understand context must have to do with this. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On April 29 2014 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Hrmm, maybe I'm misreading you? Were you being critical of the article I posted and the studies it referenced? Or income studies in general? Do you really not see what he is saying? It seems pretty clear. It looks more like you are purposely not accepting the obvious claim or even addressing it. Volatile incomes don't really mean much to what were talking about for the reasons he mentioned and plenty more. + Show Spoiler + ![]() So you can see why year to year income isn't really a good measurement of what we are actually trying to get at. Someone in the bottom 60% (most people) would have to be in the top 1% of incomes for over a decade just to get close to bringing them into the top 1% of wealth. Whereas someone in the top 1% of wealth (particularly the top 0.1-0.5% which are nearly impossible to get numbers on and not by accident) can only fall out as a result of unfathomably poor decision making (Think Vanderbilt; although his great-great-great-… granddaughter, Gloria Laura Vanderbilt currently owns capital and assets worth about $200 million. She inherited most of this fortune from her father, Reginald Claypool Vanderbilt.) or complete economic collapse. Really there are a lot of ways to show why income volatility as you have illustrated is not very relevant. + Show Spoiler + ![]() I don't know how conservatives can still say with overwhelming evidence of obviously stagnant wages and clear redistribution of wealth to the top that it simply isn't happening or that there is nothing wrong. Source | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On April 29 2014 06:28 oneofthem wrote: these pages are a pain to scroll up on a phone screen. the study was posted in response to some claim about how much turnover is in the top 1%. top 1% of what? clearly not something as transient as year by year income, but of wealth and ownership of financial capital. the point is volatility in yaer by year income is a poor showing of this, especially when it comes to the top level income which is largely composed of irregularly scheduled cap gains. I usually hear the 1% as top 1% of incomes and inequality expressed in terms of annual incomes. The main complaint being that since the 70's the top 1% of income earners have taken a greater share of income. Hence graphs like this are so common: + Show Spoiler + ![]() But if we're talking about top 1% of wealth the historical record is very different: + Show Spoiler + | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On April 29 2014 08:27 oneofthem wrote: eh the ratio of labor to capital income share is already well discussed. i'm not sure where you got that wealth distribution graph from but it looks rather different from reality. My graph comes from here and matches with GreenHorizon's post. The share of wealth owned by the 1% is very different from what share of income goes to capital vs labor. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On April 29 2014 08:41 oneofthem wrote: that's up to 2000 though. 1% is around 35% in recent years, and potentially more given hidden accounting The actual % depends on your accounting. GH's charts go to 2010 and show a pretty consistent % starting from the 80's. A post 2000's rise would be surprising. The stock market and real estate have been poor performers, and bonds have had low and falling interest rates. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
in any case the volatility in wealth among the top should be way lower than the silly income volatility thing shows. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On April 29 2014 08:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote: My graph comes from here and matches with GreenHorizon's post. The share of wealth owned by the 1% is very different from what share of income goes to capital vs labor. There was lots of interesting information in there. I found this graph particularly interesting in that it gets past the people dragging down averages in the top 1% + Show Spoiler + It would be interesting to see how this graph would look through 2013 But we do know (more or less) that the 400 wealthiest Americans have been dramatically increasing their share of America's wealth (it has at minimum doubled since 1983) While the bottom 50-60%'s share of America's wealth has remained stagnant or gone down. Income is only a piece of the inequality puzzle but it can be clearly seen how it contributes also in graphs like these. + Show Spoiler + ![]() | ||
| ||