|
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. |
United States44286 Posts
My point was that the lack of progress with fusion is more a testament to the degree to which it's underfunded that some intrinsic issue with fusion. The reason that every projected deadline for working fusion is missed is not because all the deadlines were unrealistic but rather that the effort being put into fusion is diminishing at a rate which was not built into the estimates.
|
On March 30 2016 23:52 hfglgg wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2016 23:10 RvB wrote:On March 30 2016 22:36 Acrofales wrote:On March 30 2016 22:27 RvB wrote:On March 30 2016 21:37 Wolfstan wrote:On March 30 2016 03:00 Ghanburighan wrote:
The idea that we ought to increase the 2 percent central bank target is interesting for discussion. I hope you don't mind if I pull it apart from the rest of the discussion.
First, a few things need to be set aside. This isn't a political decision, but is done by the central bank, which is an apolitical institution (in fact, if there's an inkling that the central bank is no longer independent, people start losing confidence in the management of the economy which leads to FDI running off, and suchlike). That doesn't mean that it might not be a good idea for central bank governors to consider.
The trade off is generally between those that own property and those that do not. It's not simple though. As I understand, generally speaking the biggest winners are people with few savings and price-adjusted income (take someone who takes out bank loans to rent out apartments to other people: their loan loses value quickly, while they can increase rent reasonably often). The greatest losers are those with little income that live off their savings (old people). I don't know how to calculate the impact though, for example, I don't know how much larger the trade off would be from changing it from 2% to 3%. Inflation has a positive effect if an individual has debt and hurts if an individual has savings. This typically helps a poor person as they are living paycheck to paycheck and are saddled with debt. It hurts the wealthy as their wealth has to find returns greater than inflation or they get poorer. There are many ripple effects to take into account. Let's start with some: bank loans will have higher interest rates. As bank loans will lose value quicker as the price of money depreciates, banks must ask for higher interest rates to make it worthwhile to give out loans. These can become prohibitive and slow down financial markets in that people cannot afford the interest rates. This is a problem for both private individuals and companies (and banks themselves). This happens in opposite order with opposite results historically. Central banks raise interest rates to combat inflation. It adds another viable asset class(debt) to invest in as opposed to capital flooding to hard assets causing inflation. One danger is that the people who are most likely to suffer ill effects are the most vulnerable. With high inflation, the cost of basic goods increases, so people who cannot scale back consumption suffer the most. Poor people spend more of their income on basic necessities such as rent, food, commutes, etc; costs you cannot live without easily. So their real income would decrease unless there's fast wage growth. This is generally unfortunate for competitiveness as companies would need to be able to quickly and frequently increase their revenue to keep up. If they hit a hitch, they'll lose competitiveness. Companies in countries with less inflation might be more inclined to innovate and spend on research and development because their loss of competitiveness isn't quite as quick. Yes the elderly are hurt as they have saving typically have their savings in fixed income(debt). On the plus side, they should have real estate that should increase in value but they may have to liquidate at an inopportune time. The poor are typically helped by inflation as they live paycheck to paycheck anyway. Companies are typically affected the opposite regarding R+D and inflation. If inflation is high the want to spend MORE on R+D and M+A as they need their cash to return more growth quickly as sitting on cash is bad and they want to spend it. This is why central banks raise interest rates to slow down inflation because if companies spend too recklessly trying to get rid of the devaluing cash, they end up making poor R+D and M+A choices. When these poor choices come to roost it hurts the general economy. This isn't to say that there aren't merits to this. For a country that is behind its neighbors in terms of wages and a general level of living standards might prefer such a shake-up. I don't quite see how this would apply to the US, though. Also, with higher inflation and resulting wage growth, exports become relatively more difficult to sell as your labour and manufacture costs as a whole increase, requiring you to either cut profits to remain competitive (see the point about R&D above) or to increase your prices. On the reverse, imports become more desirable as you can buy them relatively cheaply. This will probably skew your trade balance. As the US already exports a great deal less than it imports (Source), this might be a problem. I hope this serves as an introduction to the discussion. There's a great deal more to this topic but I ran out of time. I would also be glad if someone provided a way to quantify the effects. A goal of 2-3% inflation is fine and typically a worthy central bank goal. Their primary mandates are controlling inflation with catastrophic failures being hyperinflation(Weimar Germany/Zimbabwe) and deflation(Great Depression/recession) and stable growth. I personally find inflation to be one of the best solutions to wealth inequality with the other being cutting the work week from 40 to 32ish hours by legislating overtime at 32 hours. Raising taxes on the rich may help income inequality but will do little to affect wealth inequality. I don't see cutting the work week helping at all. Higher management already has a workweek way above the 40 hours. It's already factored in their wage. Senior management isn't going to work or make less because of a 32 hour work week and neither will wealthy business owners. What has higher management got to do with cutting the work week? You don't cut the work week for higher management, but for the bottom of the pyramid. Cut work week to 32 hours: you now have to hire 6 people to do the same work (measured in number of hours) as you used to have 5 people. Either that, or you pay the 5 people overtime (assuming they are willing to do that, and don't want to spend their 8 hour on education and working towards a better job). Either way, it is intended to improve QoL for the bottom, not the top. Whether it works is a second issue. More probably than allowing this sorta thing to cut into their profits, companies will just raise the prices or outsource more tasks to countries where you can have your employees work 40+ hour weeks for a lower wage. It was a response to cutting the work week reducing wealth inequality. To cut wealth inequality either senior management and rich business owners have to earn less or lower income employees have to earn more. Cutting the work week does neither. i wouldnt be so sure of the latter. the wage/time of a single worker in respect to time is roughly U-shaped with the minimum at the standard working hours (i.e. 40 hours). for a small amount of time companies are willing to pay a higher rate and workers are only willing to accept at a higher rate, for a large amount of time workers will also only be willing to accept at a higher rate. what happens when the usual working hours are reduced is twofold: first it increases the demand of labour which should increase wages, second it should move the minimum of the "U-shaped" curve to the left which means more money. if companies apply avoidance strategies or the bargaining power of the workers is so bad that they dont get shit out of it is all possible, but it could work to raise wages, especially at the lower end.
It's a little late but I wanted to respond anyway.
I've been unclear sorry. Reducing the work week increases hourly wages (by about the same amount working hours got reduced). What the employee gets at the end of the month though stays the same. THat's what's important for wealth inequality. With a shorter workweek you're reducing income inequality but not wealth inequality. A shorter work week actually does not increase demand for labour. This has multiple reasons: 1. output isn't fixed it can go down, 2. Labour can be replaced by capital and where it does increase demand it'll be filled with overtime instead of new employees. The effect on employment is neutral at best and from a wealth inequality perspective that's not going to help.
On March 31 2016 00:44 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2016 23:10 RvB wrote:On March 30 2016 22:36 Acrofales wrote:On March 30 2016 22:27 RvB wrote:On March 30 2016 21:37 Wolfstan wrote:On March 30 2016 03:00 Ghanburighan wrote:
The idea that we ought to increase the 2 percent central bank target is interesting for discussion. I hope you don't mind if I pull it apart from the rest of the discussion.
First, a few things need to be set aside. This isn't a political decision, but is done by the central bank, which is an apolitical institution (in fact, if there's an inkling that the central bank is no longer independent, people start losing confidence in the management of the economy which leads to FDI running off, and suchlike). That doesn't mean that it might not be a good idea for central bank governors to consider.
The trade off is generally between those that own property and those that do not. It's not simple though. As I understand, generally speaking the biggest winners are people with few savings and price-adjusted income (take someone who takes out bank loans to rent out apartments to other people: their loan loses value quickly, while they can increase rent reasonably often). The greatest losers are those with little income that live off their savings (old people). I don't know how to calculate the impact though, for example, I don't know how much larger the trade off would be from changing it from 2% to 3%. Inflation has a positive effect if an individual has debt and hurts if an individual has savings. This typically helps a poor person as they are living paycheck to paycheck and are saddled with debt. It hurts the wealthy as their wealth has to find returns greater than inflation or they get poorer. There are many ripple effects to take into account. Let's start with some: bank loans will have higher interest rates. As bank loans will lose value quicker as the price of money depreciates, banks must ask for higher interest rates to make it worthwhile to give out loans. These can become prohibitive and slow down financial markets in that people cannot afford the interest rates. This is a problem for both private individuals and companies (and banks themselves). This happens in opposite order with opposite results historically. Central banks raise interest rates to combat inflation. It adds another viable asset class(debt) to invest in as opposed to capital flooding to hard assets causing inflation. One danger is that the people who are most likely to suffer ill effects are the most vulnerable. With high inflation, the cost of basic goods increases, so people who cannot scale back consumption suffer the most. Poor people spend more of their income on basic necessities such as rent, food, commutes, etc; costs you cannot live without easily. So their real income would decrease unless there's fast wage growth. This is generally unfortunate for competitiveness as companies would need to be able to quickly and frequently increase their revenue to keep up. If they hit a hitch, they'll lose competitiveness. Companies in countries with less inflation might be more inclined to innovate and spend on research and development because their loss of competitiveness isn't quite as quick. Yes the elderly are hurt as they have saving typically have their savings in fixed income(debt). On the plus side, they should have real estate that should increase in value but they may have to liquidate at an inopportune time. The poor are typically helped by inflation as they live paycheck to paycheck anyway. Companies are typically affected the opposite regarding R+D and inflation. If inflation is high the want to spend MORE on R+D and M+A as they need their cash to return more growth quickly as sitting on cash is bad and they want to spend it. This is why central banks raise interest rates to slow down inflation because if companies spend too recklessly trying to get rid of the devaluing cash, they end up making poor R+D and M+A choices. When these poor choices come to roost it hurts the general economy. This isn't to say that there aren't merits to this. For a country that is behind its neighbors in terms of wages and a general level of living standards might prefer such a shake-up. I don't quite see how this would apply to the US, though. Also, with higher inflation and resulting wage growth, exports become relatively more difficult to sell as your labour and manufacture costs as a whole increase, requiring you to either cut profits to remain competitive (see the point about R&D above) or to increase your prices. On the reverse, imports become more desirable as you can buy them relatively cheaply. This will probably skew your trade balance. As the US already exports a great deal less than it imports (Source), this might be a problem. I hope this serves as an introduction to the discussion. There's a great deal more to this topic but I ran out of time. I would also be glad if someone provided a way to quantify the effects. A goal of 2-3% inflation is fine and typically a worthy central bank goal. Their primary mandates are controlling inflation with catastrophic failures being hyperinflation(Weimar Germany/Zimbabwe) and deflation(Great Depression/recession) and stable growth. I personally find inflation to be one of the best solutions to wealth inequality with the other being cutting the work week from 40 to 32ish hours by legislating overtime at 32 hours. Raising taxes on the rich may help income inequality but will do little to affect wealth inequality. I don't see cutting the work week helping at all. Higher management already has a workweek way above the 40 hours. It's already factored in their wage. Senior management isn't going to work or make less because of a 32 hour work week and neither will wealthy business owners. What has higher management got to do with cutting the work week? You don't cut the work week for higher management, but for the bottom of the pyramid. Cut work week to 32 hours: you now have to hire 6 people to do the same work (measured in number of hours) as you used to have 5 people. Either that, or you pay the 5 people overtime (assuming they are willing to do that, and don't want to spend their 8 hour on education and working towards a better job). Either way, it is intended to improve QoL for the bottom, not the top. Whether it works is a second issue. More probably than allowing this sorta thing to cut into their profits, companies will just raise the prices or outsource more tasks to countries where you can have your employees work 40+ hour weeks for a lower wage. It was a response to cutting the work week reducing wealth inequality. To cut wealth inequality either senior management and rich business owners have to earn less or lower income employees have to earn more. Cutting the work week does neither. How do you propose we draw up legislation making the management and owners making less? Higher taxes? If your boss is taxed at point A, what sort of cause/effect chain allows you to close the wealth gap? Higher taxes would have a negligible effect on inequality, it mainly will help with balancing a federal budget. Here's the chart lefties like to show when talking about inequality: ![[image loading]](https://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-and-real-wages.jpg) Here's the mindset from a fiscal conservative. I believe labor will never see those productivity gains returned to the trend line in the form of larger paychecks. Some of that went into benefits and some of that went into efficiency and automation. Labor will have a better time receiving those productivity gains by redistributing production hours than lobbying for monetary redistribution. Excess capacity gained by mechanization, robotics, and IT have been used to enhance our lifestyle while having the consequence of hammering the traditional worker into increasing obsolescence. Minorities and women entering the workforce in greater numbers over the last half century haven't helped either. The fact of the matter is that there are only so much productive capacity that the population needs. It leaves many people underemployed and putting downward pressure on wages by workers fighting over the limited number of necessary hours. Legislating overtime for hourly wage earners is the easiest and most targeted way for elected officials to legislate more equitable opportunities. Those who earn their income through other methods (salary, contract work, business profits, investment income, shared economy) should be given time to try to find equilibrium and assess before further legislation is attempted.
I do not know the solution to wealth inequality trough legislation or otherwise. I think the main issue is that a lot of legislation like increased taxes etc. work against the upper middle class and the bottom of the rich people but not against the really rich people, the ones who should be the main target.
The problem is that most wealthy people have their assets in a limited liability company and don't hold it privately. Instead of paying income taxes they pay corporate tax(actually there are ways to avoid this as well but I don't want to go into that). Only if they take some money out of their companies do they pay income tax via for example capital gains but capital gains taxes are low. You could battle it via increasing corporate taxes I guess but then the people who are hardest hit are small business and not the wealthy. You could try a progressive corporate tax but then they'll just create multiple LTDs and subsidiaries and avoid it that way.
Assets in their ltd instead of holding it privately is actually the main reason the Piketty tax does not work. In The Netherlands we have this tax: 1.2% of your net wealth. Nobody actually pays it except for the poor and middle class.
A much proposed tax is to tax their houses. This is actually incredibly easy to avoid. What they'll do is take a mortgage with their own company with the same worth as their house. Then their net equity will be 0 and they won't have to pay taxes over it (this is how it goes in NL). It's actually even worse since the government in NL gives back part of the interest you pay on a mortgage and they'll receive this as well. So they're taking a mortgage from their own company, pay it back to themselves and then receive an interest subsidy from the government as well. It's actually pretty disgusting and shows how subsidies can screw things up big time.
Inflation might be an answer but when you're really rich you'll have your assets invested in multiple countries and multiple currencies so they won't be hit by it that much.
TLDR: I have no clue about how to combat wealth inequality.
|
|
|
I don't see why wealth inequality is a problem
|
|
|
On April 02 2016 03:59 Cam Connor wrote:
I don't see why wealth inequality is a problem
Its not. If you get to much it corrects itself. Those who don’t have the wealth rise up and take it by destroying the power structure. See the New York riots during the civil war and numerous uprising throughout history. At some point the people without look at the system and realize it will never benefit them in their lifetime and decide they have nothing to lose.
Unless you see that massive, violent period of instability as a thing can cripple nations for a generation. Then it’s a huge problem.
|
Bill Gates has 80 billion and people fawn over him. Then they complain about billionaires in the next sentence.
It's like complaining about wal-mart then doing a large portion of your shopping there.
|
On April 02 2016 04:11 SK.Testie wrote:
Bill Gates has 80 billion and fawn over him. Then they complain about billionaires in the next sentence. o_O)?
its almost like he gets extra attention for being some sort of exception
|
I think the Bill Gates hype is more patriotism and technophilia than genuine admiration for what Microsoft has done as a corporation because they've pulled some seriously shady stuff over the last few decades
|
On April 02 2016 04:14 Nyxisto wrote:
I think the Bill Gates hype is more patriotism and technophilia than genuine admiration for what Microsoft has done as a corporation because they've pulled some seriously shady stuff over the last few decades
its mostly the personal philanthropy (general population admiration)
and success story (ambitious nerd admiration)
|
And all that money he has given away and used to try to improve the lives of other people across the world. It is possible to be super wealthy and also not completely terrible.
|
United States44286 Posts
On April 02 2016 04:11 SK.Testie wrote:
Bill Gates has 80 billion and people fawn over him. Then they complain about billionaires in the next sentence. o_O)?
Bill Gates gets the positive rep he does because he's spending his money on things that create lasting good for humanity, not himself. He's helping hundreds of millions of people. The problem with wealth inequality is that not all rich people do that. You might as well say "if you think humans are smarter than pigs how do you explain Testie?".
|
Yes but people constantly hurt themselves and go against their own interests. Wal-mart is a classic example. When they were talking about building one in my hometown they talked about how it would shut down local businesses, kill the mall, and take money out of the community.
Then everyone fucking shopped there anyway when it inevitably got built. It shut down many small businesses, (though others did open around it) and it's just people constantly fucking over their own lives and looking at billionaires as the problem.
|
Bill Gates at least realizes he has to give inordinate amounts of it away. The easiest way to get rid of inherited wealth would be to get rid of inherited wealth. You could still have Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerburgs popping up, but it wouldn't mean their families would never have to work again for 100+ generations while also living like billionaires.
They would have to pick one. Live like a surgeon (without working) and pass on the wealth or live like a million/billionaire and work for it.
That anyone would defend the concept that Bill Gates great x5 grandkids should make more than 99.8% of people because many generations ago someone in their bloodline did something valuable is beyond me.
|
On April 02 2016 04:17 Plansix wrote:
And all that money he has given away and used to try to improve the lives of other people across the world. It is possible to be super wealthy and also not completely terrible.
because he has an infinite amount of money. I mean it's nice of him but he's not going to suffer for it. Also his philantrophy is decidedly paternalist, he's essentially taken over the role of a state. He's only willing to give it away as long as he (or by extension one of his institutions) is deciding what to do with it.
|
Pretty sure that isn’t all their fault. Walmart has a magically power called “massive amounts of money” to increase the tax base and the ability to influence local government. That is how most terrible construction projects get started, large amounts of money and promises of an increased tax base.
|
"The easiest way to get rid of inherited wealth".
Wait, what's wrong with inherited wealth? Your family should keep the gains they made. As a man, you work for those whom you are closest to you and those you love. To earn that wealth you've likely contributed in some great way to society, or simply had a better idea & worked harder than the rest.
|
United States44286 Posts
On April 02 2016 04:24 SK.Testie wrote:
"The easiest way to get rid of inherited wealth".
Wait, what's wrong with inherited wealth? Your family should keep the gains they made. As a man, you work for those whom you are closest to you and those you love. To earn that wealth you've likely contributed in some great way to society, or simply had a better idea & worked harder than the rest.
And the aristocracy just had better blood.
|
On April 02 2016 04:24 SK.Testie wrote:
"The easiest way to get rid of inherited wealth".
Wait, what's wrong with inherited wealth? Your family should keep the gains they made. As a man, you work for those whom you are closest to you and those you love. To earn that wealth you've likely contributed in some great way to society, or simply had a better idea & worked harder than the rest.
The logic underpinning this statement is breathtakingly inconsistent. It's as though you are unaware of the fact that the concept of "inherited wealth" directly relates to the fact that we have entire generations of people who are wealthy based on nothing more than having had the good fortune of having been born to a wealthy family lol. I don't have the studies on hand, but in the US, the single greatest factor that affects an individual's earning potential is, wait for it, whether or not they were born into money.
|
On April 02 2016 04:24 SK.Testie wrote:
"The easiest way to get rid of inherited wealth".
Wait, what's wrong with inherited wealth? Your family should keep the gains they made. As a man, you work for those whom you are closest to you and those you love. To earn that wealth you've likely contributed in some great way to society, or simply had a better idea & worked harder than the rest.
I'm always confused how hard work and inheritance are used in the same sentences. If your parents worked hard and you inherit their money you didn't work hard at all so you don't deserve that money right?
If you think hard work is the reason people should have money then inheritance is something you shouldn't believe in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
