Billionaires Blast off

[Harry Bosch]

That the 'little person' benefits to some degree doesn't alter the fact that excessive wealth concentration into the hands of a small percentage of the world's population is beneficial to society in the long term. The Billionaire Entrepeneur did not build an empire without the aid of workers on every level, designers, builders, fabricators, factory workers, etc, and it is those on lower end of the scale that are not getting their market share of the wealth they help to generate.

The the degree of wealth concentration that we have had in recent times is not sustainable.

Typo; I meant to say that a high degree wealth concentration is not beneficial for society.

Well, we've had a "high degree of wealth concentration" for the entire history of the human race. It's just that today, it's mostly easily measured and in the hands of the entrpreneurs who created it. Rather than hidden in the assets of the kings and tryants that had ruled their countries. And yet, today, the middle class is growing to it's highest level in history.

 

[DBT]

That the 'little person' benefits to some degree doesn't alter the fact that excessive wealth concentration into the hands of a small percentage of the world's population is beneficial to society in the long term. The Billionaire Entrepeneur did not build an empire without the aid of workers on every level, designers, builders, fabricators, factory workers, etc, and it is those on lower end of the scale that are not getting their market share of the wealth they help to generate.

The the degree of wealth concentration that we have had in recent times is not sustainable.

Typo; I meant to say that a high degree wealth concentration is not beneficial for society.

Well, we've had a "high degree of wealth concentration" for the entire history of the human race. It's just that today, it's mostly easily measured and in the hands of the entrpreneurs who created it. Rather than hidden in the assets of the kings and tryants that had ruled their countries. And yet, today, the middle class is growing to it's highest level in history.

Sure, that is our history...but when was it ever a good thing for the peasants who struggled to support the lords and landed gentry in their lives of luxury? Was it a fair and equitable deal for the lower class?

 

[Bomb#20]

I am a centrist who wants to please both sides. Tax a huge amount of wealth from Bezos, Gates and Buffett. But also leave them huge amounts for themselves!

Wait, are you being reasonable? Moderate? On TFT?

When I consulted for a patent-happy company we were given lectures on patent law. One facet of patent law (visible in the U.S. Constitution itself) should remind us that high earnings are a privilege, not a right:

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Yes, copyrights and patents are explicitly issued "to promote progress" for society, and not as a "reward." A similar principle may be applied more generally.

That doesn't follow. At common law if somebody has a great idea you're free to imitate him -- patents and copyrights don't exist. They're creations of legislatures. But income from work or normal business activity is governed by common law, i.e., property rights and contracts. If you sell an apple from your tree to your neighbor for a grain of silver, you don't get to have the silver to "promote" anything "for society", and you don't get to have it as a "reward" either. You get the silver because it was your neighbor's property; at common law that means he gets to decide how it will be deployed; and he decided to deploy it by making it your property. All this predates the Constitution, the Continental Congress, and British Parliament handing out rewards or deciding what to promote.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, we've had a "high degree of wealth concentration" for the entire history of the human race. It's just that today, it's mostly easily measured and in the hands of the entrpreneurs who created it. Rather than hidden in the assets of the kings and tryants that had ruled their countries. And yet, today, the middle class is growing to it's highest level in history.

Sure, that is our history...but when was it ever a good thing for the peasants who struggled to support the lords and landed gentry in their lives of luxury? Was it a fair and equitable deal for the lower class?

Of course it wasn't fair and equitable then. But it's much better today. Today, the process is transparent and replicable. Develop a service or a product that is in demand, live well and go into space! Today success is much more attainable through achievement. For the most part. Not as much based on birth. The real issue to me is that we should be looking for ways to elevate people up, not try to bring some people down.

 

[Bomb#20]

Article I, section 9: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

(Consequently, there was also no right for the federal government to tax income until the 16th Amendment was ratified.)

Could you explain why that precludes a wealth tax?

Basically, because a wealth tax will raise more money per capita from California than from Alabama, and it isn't one of the categories of tax like import tariffs that are specifically exempt from the law against that. If we want a federal wealth tax we need a constitutional amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.

 

[laughing dog]

Article I, section 9: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

(Consequently, there was also no right for the federal government to tax income until the 16th Amendment was ratified.)

Could you explain why that precludes a wealth tax?

Basically, because a wealth tax will raise more money per capita from California than from Alabama, and it isn't one of the categories of tax like import tariffs that are specifically exempt from the law against that. If we want a federal wealth tax we need a constitutional amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.

Not necessarily. For example, included increases in wealth as income would allow those that wealth to be taxed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He created that wealth. Why shouldn't he be allowed to have it?

He created some of that wealth. He used infrastructure, labour, and direct cash assistance from the state to do this. Why should he be allowed to keep all, or even most, of it?

What assistance?

What he did is figure out how to use resources to be more productive. The value he created is the value those resources produce under his control minus the value they would have produced without his actions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He created that wealth. Why shouldn't he be allowed to have it?

He created some of that wealth. He used infrastructure, labour, and direct cash assistance from the state to do this. Why should he be allowed to keep all, or even most, of it?

What gives you the right to want to take some of it, or most of it?

It's the standard approach of the left--chop down anyone above you.

 

[untermensche]

You mean try to dislodge the boot on your neck.

 

[Elixir]

It's the standard approach of the left--chop down anyone above you.

^ The standard criticism by the right.
To the right, there seems no level of inequality that merits any correction involving sacrifice by top "earners".
That was the fundamental disagreement of the Civil War, and remains the divide today.

I am more convinced by the day that there will be another bloodbath.

 

[Bomb#20]

To the right, there seems no level of inequality that merits any correction involving sacrifice by top "earners".
That was the fundamental disagreement of the Civil War

So according to your theory, if there had been a level of inequality that merited correction involving "sacrifice" by top "earners" -- let's say, a law prohibiting any master from owning more slaves at one time than the 140 that Thomas Jefferson had owned -- then the fundamental disagreement of the Civil War would have been resolved, and the slave and free states would have sung Kumbaya in perpetuity?

No, the fundamental disagreement of the Civil War was whether "I quit" or "I have a whip" was the superior argument.

 

[DBT]

To the right, there seems no level of inequality that merits any correction involving sacrifice by top "earners".
That was the fundamental disagreement of the Civil War

So according to your theory, if there had been a level of inequality that merited correction involving "sacrifice" by top "earners" -- let's say, a law prohibiting any master from owning more slaves at one time than the 140 that Thomas Jefferson had owned -- then the fundamental disagreement of the Civil War would have been resolved, and the slave and free states would have sung Kumbaya in perpetuity?

No, the fundamental disagreement of the Civil War was whether "I quit" or "I have a whip" was the superior argument.

How much interest do those at the top have in improving incomes for those who work full time on low pay rates?

Given the state of things, I'd say not enough to make a meaningful difference in terms of action.

 

[Derec]

You mean try to dislodge the boot on your neck.

Can you show on this doll where Jeff Bezos' boot touched you? LMAO!

 

[DBT]

Well, we've had a "high degree of wealth concentration" for the entire history of the human race. It's just that today, it's mostly easily measured and in the hands of the entrpreneurs who created it. Rather than hidden in the assets of the kings and tryants that had ruled their countries. And yet, today, the middle class is growing to it's highest level in history.

Sure, that is our history...but when was it ever a good thing for the peasants who struggled to support the lords and landed gentry in their lives of luxury? Was it a fair and equitable deal for the lower class?

Of course it wasn't fair and equitable then. But it's much better today. Today, the process is transparent and replicable. Develop a service or a product that is in demand, live well and go into space! Today success is much more attainable through achievement. For the most part. Not as much based on birth. The real issue to me is that we should be looking for ways to elevate people up, not try to bring some people down.

It was better decades ago, but the gulf between the super rich and the rest of us has been growning out of all proportion, economically, morally, ethically, and the trend shows no sign of improving.

What has been happening is indefensible.

 

[Bomb#20]

He created some of that wealth. He used infrastructure, labour, and direct cash assistance from the state to do this. Why should he be allowed to keep all, or even most, of it?

Which wealth are you calling "that wealth"? ... You are talking as though the fact that he used infrastructure, labor, and direct cash assistance from various states to help him create the trillions and trillions of dollars in wealth he helped create is a good reason not to let him keep all or most of his 16,000,001st dollar. Where is the logic in that? ...the state provided the infrastructure and direct cash assistance to create some of that wealth, sure; but it used Bezos and labor to do this. Why should the state be allowed to keep all, or even most, of it?

One could just easily ask what gives Mr. Bezos the right to keep all (or part of) what he creates?

One could ask that, but then one wouldn't be involved in the same discussion.

That helping create wealth gives one the right to keep part of it is a premise already implicitly assumed in bilby's original argument -- he's presupposing that the state providing cash and infrastructure, and employees providing labor, gives the state and the employees a rightful claim to part of the jointly created wealth. I'm just taking that premise as a shared basis for discussion with him.

So if you want to challenge Bezos' right to keep part of what he creates based on a different theory of what gives people a right to property, go for it, but then you might as well leave this argument between bilby and me out of it. Start a new subthread where you present your alternative theory of property rights; I'll comment if it looks interesting.

 

[Bomb#20]

It was better decades ago, but the gulf between the super rich and the rest of us has been growning out of all proportion, economically, morally, ethically, and the trend shows no sign of improving.

What has been happening is indefensible.

Inequality is decreasing.

(Source: https://www.nber.org/papers/w15433.pdf)

 

[Bomb#20]

He created that wealth. Why shouldn't he be allowed to have it?

He created some of that wealth. He used infrastructure, labour, and direct cash assistance from the state to do this. Why should he be allowed to keep all, or even most, of it?

What assistance?

What he did is figure out how to use resources to be more productive. The value he created is the value those resources produce under his control minus the value they would have produced without his actions.

That's not the right way to analyze the problem. If you calculate the amount of wealth Bezos created using that algorithm, and then you use the same algorithm to calculate how much wealth each other person involved in the production created, from the employees and shareholders and customers, to the road crews and cops and legislators, and then you add up all those wealth amounts, it will add up to a lot more than the total market value of Amazon. Creation is synergistic; for wealth to be created a lot of things have to go right and any one going wrong can tank the whole project; any jackass can kick down a barn but it takes a carpenter to build one; yada yada. The point is, when you assume everybody's creation is the difference between what's created with him and what's created without him, you end up counting the same wealth several times over.

 

[lpetrich]

Biologist turned historian Peter Turchin thinks that the US is in a bad way, and extreme wealth inequality is part of that. I think that it's a problem because the very wealthy can easily spend their money on bidding up the prices of important goods, driving down everybody else's standard of living in the process.

• The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax — ProPublica - Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Michael Bloomberg, Carl Icahn, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, Mark Zuckerberg
• History tells us where the wealth gap leads | Aeon Essays - "From the Roman Empire to our own Gilded Age, inequality moves in cycles. The future looks like a rough ride"
• Peter Turchin Ages of Discord - Peter Turchin
• Peter Turchin Age of Discord II - Peter Turchin
• Peter Turchin predicted recent US Unrest (thread)
• How One Man Predicted 2020’s Insanity | by Frederik Bussler | Medium - "An incredible case study on predictive analytics."
• Political instability may be a contributor in the coming decade | Nature - "The next decade is likely to be a period of growing instability in the United States and western Europe, which could undermine the sort of scientific progress you describe in the Opinion collection of '2020 visions'"
• SocArXiv Papers | The 2010 Structural-Demographic Forecast for the 2010–2020 Decade: A Retrospective Assessment - "This article revisits the prediction, made in 2010, that the 2010–2020 decade would likely be a period of growing instability in the United States and Western Europe (Turchin 2010). ... We find that such measures of socio-political instability as anti-government demonstrations and riots increased dramatically during the 2010–2020 decade in all of these countries."
• Concentrated wealth: bad for democracy? (thread)
• AOC’s Call For Abolishing Billionaires Is Deeply American
• Parallels between the collapse of the Roman Empire and America (thread)
• Ages of Discord -- American History's Big Cycle -- by Peter Turchin (thread)
• US political polarization is getting *very* bad (thread)
• US History Cycles - Liberal vs. Conservative (thread)
• Peter Turchin: US-History Cycles (thread)
• Peter Turchin's Cycles of History (thread)

 

[lpetrich]

Peter Turchin and Sergei Nefedov wrote a book, "Secular Cycles", about cycles of growth and decay in large-scale preindustrial societies. PT also wrote a popularization, "War and Peace and War: The Rise and Fall of Empires".

The cycle:

• Integrative - centralized, unified elites, strong state, order, stability -- wars of conquest against neighbors
  • Expansion (Growth) - population increases
  • Stagflation (Compression) - population levels off, elites increase
• Disintegrative - decentralized, divided elites, weak state, disorder, instability -- civil wars
  • Crisis (State Breakdown) - population declines, elites continue, lots of strife
  • Depression - population stays low, civil wars, elites get pruned
• Intercycle - if it takes time to form a strong state

PT found these cycles in ancient Rome, and medieval and early modern Britain, France, and Russia. I've added the Byzantine Empire and some other details. These dates should be treated as approximate. B means BCE rather than CE.

• Rome: Republic: 350B - 18B - 130B - 30B (no depression)
• Rome: Principiate: 30B - 96 - 165 - 197 - 285
• Rome: Dominate: 285 - 395 - 527 (I and D)
• Byzantium: Justinian: 527 - 602 - 867 (I and D)
• Byzantium: Macedonian: 867 - 1025 - 1081 (I and D)
• Byzantium: Komnenian: 1081 - 1185 - 1261 (I and D)
• Byzantium: Palaiologan: 1261 - 1341 - 1453 (I and D)
• England: Plantagenet: 1150 - 1260 - 1315 - 1400 - 1485
• England: Tudor-Stuart: 1485 - 1580 - 1640 - 1660 - 1730
• France/Germany: Merovingian: 509 - 654 - 752 (I and D)
• France/Germany: Carolingian: 752 - 820 - 900 (I and D)
• Germany: Ottonian-Salian: 920 - 1050 - 1150 (I and D)
• France: Capetian: 1150 - 1250 - 1315 - 1365 - 1450
• France: Valois: 1450 - 1520 - 1570 - 1600 - 1660
• France: Bourbon: 1660 - 1780 - 1870 (I and D)
• Russia: Muscovy: 1460 - 1530 - 1565 - 1615 (no depression)
• Russia: Romanov: 1620 - 1800 - 1905 - 1922 (no depression)

 

[laughing dog]

One could just easily ask what gives Mr. Bezos the right to keep all (or part of) what he creates?

One could ask that, but then one wouldn't be involved in the same discussion.

Nonsense.

That helping create wealth gives one the right to keep part of it is a premise already implicitly assumed in bilby's original argument -- he's presupposing that the state providing cash and infrastructure, and employees providing labor, gives the state and the employees a rightful claim to part of the jointly created wealth. I'm just taking that premise as a shared basis for discussion with him.

Um, your assumptions about implicit premises are your assumptions.

So if you want to challenge Bezos' right to keep part of what he creates based on a different theory of what gives people a right to property, go for it, but then you might as well leave this argument between bilby and me out of it. Start a new subthread where you present your alternative theory of property rights; I'll comment if it looks interesting.

I made no alternative theory of property rights - I pointed out that your theory is not the only one. If you wish to avoid thinking about your implicit assumptions, okay.