US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9216

On November 11 2017 19:25 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'm not pretending it came out of thin air. I'm just pointing out that my income would have nothing to do with how hard/efficiently I worked and my family would never have to work again (with some very rudimentary planning). So we could be generations deep where generations of people haven't ever had to work but they all have a larger income than most Americans that actually labor.

It's just an example of how one's complete lack of "work" can be wholly irrelevant to their high income. Trying to adjust the world to make it so it's reasonable to say that my family wealth is the result of my families more efficient and harder work than everyone here is going to make your head explode.

On November 12 2017 01:27 Falling wrote:

That would be the exception rather than the rule. If the next generation didn't learn to work or manage their money to make more of it, typically the wealth is wiped out within a couple generations. Seventy percent of wealth disappears after the second generation. Only ten percent actually pass on their business to their grandchildren. Money disappears fast if the next generations choose to consume rather than build upon the wealth (and most, it would seem, do). As I said before, financial stupidity is the great equalizer.

I mean partially, this is true because if you have more than one child, the wealth is broken up in the next generation and more so in the next, unless it is built upon. We have some billionaires now, that it would be awfully hard for the next generation to burn through that money, but most will try anyways. People are very good at raising their consumption level to their income, even if they have to live like Caligula or Nero to do so. If a wealthy family breaks from that tendency and builds wealth upon wealth intergenerationally, that's actually a good thing and kudos to them. Most can't do it.

On November 11 2017 19:23 Artisreal wrote:

You're masterfully disguising your void of content posts as something worth reading, I'm genuinely impressed by that.
+ Show Spoiler [IRS stuff if interested, though kwark…] +
I couldn't find whether they actually know who the high ranking treasury official is that has to start an investigation.
To say that for religious activities a tax exemption is needed is only acceptable if you can stretch like Helen Parr.

None of the above honestly tries to discuss what I find despicable in special exemptions for churches so I'll take that as a issue below your political caring capacity. To label what I said partisan only exemplifies your lack of good faith (lol) when it comes to this issue.

e: to harp a bit on this partisan business. If you simply dismiss the attempt at reviewing the tax exemption status which is applied with a very, very broad brush to "churches" like Scientology and more so disregard my reasoning for church tax exemptions being anachronistic, not up with the times (especially the for profit ones).
Where will we find our middle ground to start a honest discussion about what to do with the issue? (granted you don't regard it as one?)

On November 12 2017 01:32 KwarK wrote:

Inherited wealth is tangental from what I was arguing but just so we're clear, you're arguing that an aristocracy is good because it's hard to be an aristocrat?

On November 12 2017 01:40 Falling wrote:

I'm saying what people are worrying about isn't so great a concern. People are looking at it from a hypothetical stand point without looking at human behaviour and patterns. The idea that inherited wealth needs to be broken up by the government lest it permanently accumulates into the hands of a few wastrel inheritors, is not actually the human experience by and large. I'm saying it is unnecessary for the government to break up inherited wealth because it naturally does so. It just speeds up the process of what will already happen, but then also catches up the few actually figured something good out: how to build upon what you've been given. And I don't think that's a good thing because that's what we need figure out what they are doing right, rather than just trying to break it up.

On November 12 2017 02:17 Falling wrote:
Well it rather depends what the wealth is tied up in. Regardless, simply burning it is bad because it didn't go anywhere. Even simply consuming it into oblivion, isn't so bad for society because they are purchasing those goods from someone somewhere, so the money is flowing back into the system. But if they are actually building upon the wealth, then that means the money is getting put to work in some way- building new businesses or expanding on them, or investing in other businesses, thus providing capital for other businesses, etc.

As I'm thinking about, I wonder if there is a basic assumption. To some extent, there doesn't need to be a wider societal benefit to family members inheriting wealth from their family- to some extent it's none of their business. We almost seem to be arguing for a hyper-individualistic view of humans to argue for a collectivization of that wealth to everyone. Whereas, I'm not arguing from the perspective of hyper-individualism, or collectivization: I am very family and clan orientated. I think it's right and good for families to leverage one generations gains (however small or big) for the next generation. "But they didn't earn it", doesn't really matter from this perspective, because the family earned it and it's the family's to distribute (after a little bit of taxes, such as our Property Transfer Tax, let's say. Inheritance is meritorious for it's own sake because it's the family, and family is not a dispassionate, economic unit where everyone must stand as their own isolated island.

But on another level, I'm arguing there is great value to the wider society on not breaking up inheritance. Here's where it matters: the first generation. There are these crazy people that will work like ninnies if they think they can better their family line. We lose that work ethic if inheritance is wiped out. Strangely, that crazy work drive doesn't seem to get passed down to the next generations very often. But we get are these empire builders because they can count on passing something along. Then the next two generations break up the empire and some other family of first generations of empire builders will rise to the fore. That's what we get- the labour and energy of the first generation, and then most of it we get back anyways because the second and third can't hang on to it. So it seems a pretty good deal to me both in the build up and dispersal.

G: Did Russia’s attempts to meddle in US elections come up in the conversations?

A: He said he didn’t meddle, he said he didn’t meddle. I asked him again. You can only ask so many times.

Q: Today?

A: “I just asked him again. He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election, he did not do what they are saying he did.”

Q: Do you believe him?

A: Well, look, I can’t stand there and argue with him, I would rather have him get out of Syria, to be honest with you. I would rather have, I would rather him— get to work with him on the Ukraine rather than standing and arguing about whether or not— because that whole thing was set up by the Democrats. I mean, they ought to Look at Podesta, they ought to look at all the things that they have done with the phony dossier. Those are the big events. Those are the big events. But Putin said he did not do what they said he did. And there are those that say, if he did do it, he wouldn’t have gotten caught, alright, which is a very interesting statement. But we have a good feeling toward getting things done. If we had a relationship with Russia, that would be a good thing. In fact, it would be a great thing, not a bad thing, because he could really help us on North Korea. We have a big problem with North Korea and China is helping us. And because of the lack of the relationship that we have with Russia, because of this artificial thing that’s happening with this Democratic-inspired thing. We could really be helped a lot, tremendously, with Russia having to do with North Korea. You know you are talking about millions and millions of lives. This isn’t baby stuff, this is the real deal. And if Russia helped us in addition to China, that problem would go away a lot faster.

Q: On election meddling, did you ask him the question?

A: Every time he sees me he says I didn’t do that and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it. But he says I didn’t do that. I think he is very insulted by it, if you want to know the truth. Don’t forget. All he said was he never did that, he didn’t do that. I think he is very insulted by it, which is not a good thing for our country. Because again, again, if we had a relationship with Russia, North Korea, which is our single biggest problem right now—North Korea, it would be helped a lot. I think I’m doing very well with respect to China. They have cut off financing, they have cut off bank lines, they’ve cut off lots of oil and lots of other things, lots of trade and it’s having a big impact. But Russia, on the other hand, may be making up the difference. And if they are, that’s not a good thing. So having a relationship with Russia would be a great thing—not a good thing, it would be a great thing—especially as it relates to North Korea. And I’ll say this: Hillary had her stupid reset button that she spelled the word wrong, but she does not have what it takes to have that kind of relationship where you could call or you could do something and they would pull back from North Korea, or they would pull back from Syria, or maybe pull back from Ukraine. I mean, if we could solve the Ukraine problem. But this is really an artificial barrier that’s put in front of us for solving problems with Russia. He says that very strongly, he really seems to be insulted by it and he says he didn’t do it.

Q: Even if he didn’t bring it up one-one-one, do you believe him?

I think that he is very, very strong in the fact that he didn’t do it. And then you look and you look at what’s going on with Podesta, and you look at what’s going on with the server from the DNC and why didn’t the FBI take it? Why did they leave it? Why did a third party look at the server and not the FBI? You look at all of this stuff, and you says, what’s going on here? And the you hear it’s 17 agencies. Well, it’s three. And one is Brennan. And one is, whatever. I mean, give me a break. They’re political hacks. So you look at it, and then you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey. Comey’s proven now to be a liar and he’s proven to be a leaker. So you look at that. And you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently says he had nothing to do with that. Now, you are not going to get into an argument, you are going to start talking about Syria and the Ukraine.

On November 12 2017 02:39 Nevuk wrote:
Trump says he believes Putin over US intel agencies

On November 12 2017 02:39 Nevuk wrote:
Trump says he believes Putin over US intel agencies

On October 26 2017 08:05 IgnE wrote:
Asking what Trump means with any given statement is like asking what a baby's cooing means or a dog's barking. Yeah, they mean something but it's just emotive noise lacking any complex semantic content.

On November 12 2017 02:39 Nevuk wrote:
Trump says he believes Putin over US intel agencies

But Putin said he did not do what they said he did. And there are those that say, if he did do it, he wouldn’t have gotten caught, alright, which is a very interesting statement.

And the you hear it’s 17 agencies. Well, it’s three. And one is Brennan. And one is, whatever. I mean, give me a break. They’re political hacks. So you look at it, and then you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey. Comey’s proven now to be a liar and he’s proven to be a leaker. So you look at that. And you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently says he had nothing to do with that

On November 12 2017 02:56 Falling wrote:
I think I've lost the plot because I don't really know what you are arguing now. I suppose we could lose a great many people, rich or poor and society would be unaffected or maybe better off. Less mouths to feed? But wouldn't orders of magnitude matter? One guy disappears, life goes on. But any proposal isn't going after one guy, is it? Knock out the inheritance of the investor class, and wouldn't that impact investments?

But the benefit for society isn't on the second generation, which is what the above focused on. The benefit for society was the work and energy the first generation put in, knowing that his inheritors (if taught correctly) would just need to diversify and draw 30M/ year and be good for perpetuity. But then most don't anyways, so we get work and energy and then New Money has a tendency to become No Money, and so what little or large impact the inheritor has on society is largely irrelevant- we already got the benefit from the first.

On November 12 2017 02:38 KwarK wrote:

I don't wish to condescend you but your response seems to indicate that you don't know what money is. Money and value are different things. Burning money doesn't destroy anything, no more than printing money creates anything. The total money supply represents the totality of goods and labour available within the economy. The proportion of money you hold represents the proportion of that goods and labour you could expect to obtain through the auction of the free market. If you were to liquidate Bill Gates' fortune into $100 bills, stack them up, and then burn them all, there would be no loss of goods or labour. When you burn money the value that money represents endures, it does go somewhere, it goes to all the rest of the money still within the economic system. The total money supply always adds up to 100%.

The "good" inheritor who inherits a billion dollars and invests it in a diversified portfolio and never has to work a day in his life may be a successful role model for us as capitalists, but ask yourself what he is actually contributing to the economy. His modest annual budgeted spending of $30m (an amount he can take without ever touching the principal) represents a vast amount of goods and services that he extracts from the economy as a whole, a zero sum game where each purchase he makes denies it to another by outbidding their available money. If, hypothetically, he drove off a cliff on the way to the bank to cash his $1b inheritance bearer bond, how would society be worse off? All the people who sold him their goods and labour when he purchased his diversified portfolio would be available to sell them to someone else. The total supply of money in existence would still have the same value, equal to the supply of goods and services available within the economy. The same investments could still be made, the same economic activity would continue, the only difference would be one fewer person consuming labour while providing none of their own.

Edit: Imagine a reclusive rural landowner. He's generous so he allows his tenants to make payment of goods in kind, a fixed 5% of their harvest, delivered to his warehouse where a broker collects it and gives goods not produced in the village in return. What value is there to his labour? And what value is there to the labour he consumes? One day the villagers murder him and burn his deeds of landownership. Has anything of value been lost? They still deliver the 5% to the warehouse, but they divide the goods received among the village. What is the economic rationale for the existence of the landowner?

On November 11 2017 18:15 cLutZ wrote:


I actually think Danglars has conceded a point here that is not true. Gifting and inheritance are not outside of the economic system, but are, largely, the incentives that cause moderately wealthy people to push to become extremely wealthy, or even moderately more wealthy. That is, the ability to give and leave money to heirs (or other people) is a but-for cause of a significant amount of the wealth that we are talking about.

This shouldn't be a very controversial idea to progressives, the marginal value of money is the moral argument for things like the progressive income tax. And maybe it doesn't apply to someone as wealthy as Bill Gates (although IMO his foundation, despite doing some good work, is not a very good use of his time and money, so maybe it does), but it certainly applies to the average businessman. There is a point in any economic system where kids are independent, you have put them through school, etc (although there are some that say that even these familial contributions are unearned and unfair, but I'll ignore them) and then the question really is, "why keep working?" If you have enough to retire on the reason really boils down to leaving a little more to the kids/grandkids. There are exceptions of people who dream of extravagant retirements, but really most people don't actually change. Sure if they traveled a lot before they will travel, but people who never traveled but say they want to actually aren't that likely to change their habits after retirement.

So we have this money that exists as a result of Person A's labor, and the best evidence we have is that Person A intended for that to be for Person B, and there is no reason for us to know whether the labor preceded the intent to gift or the intent preceded the labor. And if it is that the intent caused the labor, the existence of Person B and their relationship with Person A is actually equivalent in value (to society) to the gift given.