Evidence of a finely tuned economic system

[ksen]

New IRS data show that just 400 households captured 6 percent of the entire nation's income growth in 2010

working as intended

eta: someone ping Bomb#20 so he can add this OP to his list

 

[untermensche]

What is happening is explained in detail here:

Capital in the Twenty-First Century

http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/067443000X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1416849977&sr=8-1&keywords=capital

A workers income rises through inflation. Invested capital rises faster.

Once capital has been amassed to a certain degree a person can live like a king, do no work, and die richer than they were born.

We are in an age of oligarchy.

You either serve it, or hope not to be crushed by it.

 

[SimpleDon]

Isn't bomb#20 the anarchist who told me that there is no reason for the economy to exist? That it has no purpose. In the same way that other social constructs like the family have no purpose, no reason to exist.

I read Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Piketty has written a monumental work. His contention is that as long as the rate of return on capital is greater than the rate of growth in the economy, income and wealth will flow to the wealthy who depend on profits, the return to capital, for their income. But he doesn't just state it as a supposition, like an Austrian/Libertarian would, he digs up about three centuries of data to support it.

There are profound implications to Piketty's hypothesis, which Piketty only hinted at. The most obvious one is that the wealthy profit from low levels of growth and high interest rates, which force up the returns to capital. That the wealthy have a reason to push for high interest rates that slow growth in the economy.

In spite of this and other revelations Piketty still struggles to break out of the bounds of his training in neo-classical economics. This is all the stranger because Piketty is a Marxist. But if he could break out of the thinking that his undergraduate economics tied him to, he might be better equipped to see the profound implications of his own work. Among them would be the discounting of the importance of capital, supply, in the modern, industrialized economy. And the relative increase in the importance of labor and of labor's wages, demand. Exactly the opposite of what the wealthy want to hear.

 

[ksen]

And on a related note:

The top 400 households got 16 percent of all capital gains in 2010

The top 400 households took home $59 billion out of the total amount of $364 billion in capital gains in 2010.

They also took home 14% of all capital gains with preferential rates ($65 billion out of $465 billion) in 2010.

Thank you for all your hard work guys!

 

[DBT]

Not sure how accurate this is:

Richest 85 People Own As Much Wealth As Poorest 3.5 Billion.
''The world’s 85 wealthiest people hold as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion, or half the world population, according to a new report from global anti-poverty group Oxfam.

The world’s 85 wealthiest people hold as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion, or half the world population, according to a new report from global anti-poverty group Oxfam.''

 

[TV and credit cards]

Isn't bomb#20 the anarchist who told me that there is no reason for the economy to exist? That it has no purpose. In the same way that other social constructs like the family have no purpose, no reason to exist.

I read Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Piketty has written a monumental work. His contention is that as long as the rate of return on capital is greater than the rate of growth in the economy, income and wealth will flow to the wealthy who depend on profits, the return to capital, for their income. But he doesn't just state it as a supposition, like an Austrian/Libertarian would, he digs up about three centuries of data to support it.

There are profound implications to Piketty's hypothesis, which Piketty only hinted at. The most obvious one is that the wealthy profit from low levels of growth and high interest rates, which force up the returns to capital. That the wealthy have a reason to push for high interest rates that slow growth in the economy.

In spite of this and other revelations Piketty still struggles to break out of the bounds of his training in neo-classical economics. This is all the stranger because Piketty is a Marxist. But if he could break out of the thinking that his undergraduate economics tied him to, he might be better equipped to see the profound implications of his own work.
-Among them would be the discounting of the importance of capital, supply, in the modern, industrialized economy.
-And the relative increase in the importance of labor and of labor's wages, demand.
Exactly the opposite of what the wealthy want to hear.

Would you mind providing a little more detail on what I've highlighted?

************

This is my fear:

Through these experiences, Oxfam has witnessed first-hand how the wealthiest individuals and groups capture political institutions for their aggrandizement at the expense of the rest of society. Today’s unprecedented levels of economic inequality tell us that left unchecked, representative institutions will decay further, and the power disparity between the haves and have-nots may become entrenched and immutable.

Exactly where are we at with regards to this statement? When does/did "may become" turn into has become?

That this is truly a bipartisan issue is evident in the relative even-handedness of how the campaign contributions are doled out. Relative inasmuch as the deeds will get done regardless of who's running the political show. But we are not bipartisan in combating it. Why? It's easy to blame the media but we have the internet, this conduit to band us together, for now anyways. The problem is ignorance, in the US at least and probably just as true in many other countries. People's inability to validate information coming at them. The propaganga that what we are telling you is the one true truth and all evidence to the contrary are lies designed to harm you and your livelihood. This livelihood brought to you by Humungous Corporation®.
How do we combat this? Well, given enough participants we could boycott consumerism, refuse to buy on credit. What would it take to convince government to change it's ways and represent people equitably, real flesh and blood people? Could one christmas shopping season do it? Probably not. It would probably have to be broadened beyond just retail consumerism to a genuine level of discomfort for all. To boycott retail, home and auto energy, refuse to pay our debts.
Ha! That's my pipedream. Wanna hit?

I just noticed my old friend AREVA is in the Oxfam report:

Tax avoidance and inequality
Global extractives corporations use their influence to secure generous subsidies and tax avoidance schemes from resource-rich countries. A recent investigation by Oxfam France showed that uranium extraction in Niger contributes only four to six percent to the public budget, despite being the most important export product. A large energy multinational,
AREVA, has been engaged in mining in Niger. Oxfam found that AREVA’s two subsidiaries, Somaïr and Cominak, benefit from exemptions from duties, VAT and even fuel taxes; and a ‘provision for the reconstruction of mines’ allows them to minimize their corporate taxes by setting aside 20 percent of their profits.

These were the fucksticks I was trying to think of in a thread about why corporations such as this advertise on TV. They used the Lipps Inc. tune.

 

[boneyard bill]

What is happening is explained in detail here:

Capital in the Twenty-First Century

http://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/067443000X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1416849977&sr=8-1&keywords=capital

A workers income rises through inflation. Invested capital rises faster.

Once capital has been amassed to a certain degree a person can live like a king, do no work, and die richer than they were born.

We are in an age of oligarchy.

You either serve it, or hope not to be crushed by it.

Sounds like inflation is not a very good idea.

 

[boneyard bill]

Isn't bomb#20 the anarchist who told me that there is no reason for the economy to exist? That it has no purpose. In the same way that other social constructs like the family have no purpose, no reason to exist.

I read Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Piketty has written a monumental work. His contention is that as long as the rate of return on capital is greater than the rate of growth in the economy, income and wealth will flow to the wealthy who depend on profits, the return to capital, for their income. But he doesn't just state it as a supposition, like an Austrian/Libertarian would, he digs up about three centuries of data to support it.

There are profound implications to Piketty's hypothesis, which Piketty only hinted at. The most obvious one is that the wealthy profit from low levels of growth and high interest rates, which force up the returns to capital. That the wealthy have a reason to push for high interest rates that slow growth in the economy.

In spite of this and other revelations Piketty still struggles to break out of the bounds of his training in neo-classical economics. This is all the stranger because Piketty is a Marxist. But if he could break out of the thinking that his undergraduate economics tied him to, he might be better equipped to see the profound implications of his own work. Among them would be the discounting of the importance of capital, supply, in the modern, industrialized economy. And the relative increase in the importance of labor and of labor's wages, demand. Exactly the opposite of what the wealthy want to hear.

It seems to me that the whole trend of our economic policy, at least in the 21st Century, has been to discount the importance of capital and supply and to force feed both wages and demand.

 

[boneyard bill]

And on a related note:

The top 400 households got 16 percent of all capital gains in 2010

The top 400 households took home $59 billion out of the total amount of $364 billion in capital gains in 2010.

They also took home 14% of all capital gains with preferential rates ($65 billion out of $465 billion) in 2010.

Thank you for all your hard work guys!

Hmmm. Could it be that they are the top 400 households precisely BECAUSE they realized the capital gains this year? Using a windfall gain to measure the economic status of a household doesn't sound to me like a very sound way to analyze this issue.

 

[lpetrich]

But if he could break out of the thinking that his undergraduate economics tied him to, he might be better equipped to see the profound implications of his own work. Among them would be the discounting of the importance of capital, supply, in the modern, industrialized economy. And the relative increase in the importance of labor and of labor's wages, demand. Exactly the opposite of what the wealthy want to hear.

It seems to me that the whole trend of our economic policy, at least in the 21st Century, has been to discount the importance of capital and supply and to force feed both wages and demand.

How is that supposed to be the case? If anything, it has been the opposite.

 

[Bomb#20]

Isn't bomb#20 the anarchist who told me that there is no reason for the economy to exist? That it has no purpose. In the same way that other social constructs like the family have no purpose, no reason to exist.

No. You are misrepresenting me, as you so often do. I have never told you there is no reason for the economy to exist. You think I did because you're reasoning "You said X. I believe X implies Y. Therefore you said Y.". That is a fallacy. More than that; it's a refusal to apply critical thought to your own opinions -- critical thinking includes keeping track of whose premise each premise you reason from is.

The notion that it's legitimate to casually flip between "reason" and "purpose" is your premise, not mine. We have been through this already. As I noted in our earlier discussion, it looks like you have a systematic problem telling the difference between teleological and non-teleological statements. Obviously there are reasons for the economy to exist, just as there are reasons for the crater Tycho to exist. That does not imply that either Tycho or the economy has a purpose.

A purpose is a thought in the mind of some guy whose purpose it is. So I'll ask the same questions you didn't answer last time. If you claim the economy has a purpose, then which mind is it a purpose in, if any? Conversely, if you claim it's a purpose not in any specific mind, why should a rationalist believe in disembodied purposes any more than disembodied souls?

(As for "anarchist", I guess that's less of a self-deception than most of the names I get called here, so please yourself.)

 

[boneyard bill]

It seems to me that the whole trend of our economic policy, at least in the 21st Century, has been to discount the importance of capital and supply and to force feed both wages and demand.

How is that supposed to be the case? If anything, it has been the opposite.

I wouldn't call zero interest rates a good way to encourage more capital investment. Investment requires savings. Who's going to save when interest rates are below the rate of inflation? The whole incentive here is to spend. Bush pushed through tax rebates to stimulate demand. Obama had his infrastructure plan to do the same thing. Neither worked.

 

[boneyard bill]

Isn't bomb#20 the anarchist who told me that there is no reason for the economy to exist? That it has no purpose. In the same way that other social constructs like the family have no purpose, no reason to exist.

No. You are misrepresenting me, as you so often do. I have never told you there is no reason for the economy to exist. You think I did because you're reasoning "You said X. I believe X implies Y. Therefore you said Y.". That is a fallacy. More than that; it's a refusal to apply critical thought to your own opinions -- critical thinking includes keeping track of whose premise each premise you reason from is.

The notion that it's legitimate to casually flip between "reason" and "purpose" is your premise, not mine. We have been through this already. As I noted in our earlier discussion, it looks like you have a systematic problem telling the difference between teleological and non-teleological statements. Obviously there are reasons for the economy to exist, just as there are reasons for the crater Tycho to exist. That does not imply that either Tycho or the economy has a purpose.

A purpose is a thought in the mind of some guy whose purpose it is. So I'll ask the same questions you didn't answer last time. If you claim the economy has a purpose, then which mind is it a purpose in, if any? Conversely, if you claim it's a purpose not in any specific mind, why should a rationalist believe in disembodied purposes any more than disembodied souls?

(As for "anarchist", I guess that's less of a self-deception than most of the names I get called here, so please yourself.)

Of course, there can be a collective purpose. The purpose exists in the minds of many people. Rousseau called it the "general will." In other words, that economy can have a purpose in service to the state.

 

[laughing dog]

The notion that it's legitimate to casually flip between "reason" and "purpose" is your premise, not mine. We have been through this already. As I noted in our earlier discussion, it looks like you have a systematic problem telling the difference between teleological and non-teleological statements. Obviously there are reasons for the economy to exist, just as there are reasons for the crater Tycho to exist. That does not imply that either Tycho or the economy has a purpose.

Well, the crater Tycho was not explicitly created by human action and purpose, while an economy is created via human action and purpose. So, your example is unconvincing.

A purpose is a thought in the mind of some guy whose purpose it is.

Really? I use a hammer. Is its purpose solely dependent on my mind or my intended use? If so, when I am not using my hammer, does it have no purpose?

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, the crater Tycho was not explicitly created by human action and purpose, while an economy is created via human action and purpose. So, your example is unconvincing.

Don't see why that matters -- the economy wasn't explicitly created by any particular human action and purpose. But have it your way. Obviously there are reasons for the economy to exist, just as there are reasons for the Great Pacific garbage patch to exist. That does not imply that either the Great Pacific garbage patch or the economy has a purpose. Reasons are not purposes.

A purpose is a thought in the mind of some guy whose purpose it is.

Really? I use a hammer. Is its purpose solely dependent on my mind or my intended use? If so, when I am not using my hammer, does it have no purpose?

I'm pretty sure the part of your brain that knows why you bought the hammer still contains that information even when you aren't using it. I'm pretty sure you had pounding nails in mind when you bought it. I'm pretty sure all the people who deliberately helped make the hammer meant to be making it possible for customers to pound nails. I'm pretty sure the people who successively modified older hammer designs into the design of the hammer you use were trying to optimize their designs for effective nail pounding. So your example is unconvincing.

 

[laughing dog]

Don't see why that matters -- the economy wasn't explicitly created by any particular human action and purpose. But have it your way. Obviously there are reasons for the economy to exist, just as there are reasons for the Great Pacific garbage patch to exist. That does not imply that either the Great Pacific garbage patch or the economy has a purpose. Reasons are not purposes.

No, they aren't. I am surprised anyone would think that distinction matters.

I'm pretty sure the part of your brain that knows why you bought the hammer still contains that information even when you aren't using it. I'm pretty sure you had pounding nails in mind when you bought it. I'm pretty sure all the people who deliberately helped make the hammer meant to be making it possible for customers to pound nails. I'm pretty sure the people who successively modified older hammer designs into the design of the hammer you use were trying to optimize their designs for effective nail pounding. So your example is unconvincing.

Thank you for admitting an economy can have a purpose because I'm pretty sure that all the people who deliberately participated in the economy from its beginning to current time had specific purposes in mind for their actions.

 

[Bomb#20]

No, they aren't. I am surprised anyone would think that distinction matters.

Tell it to the guy who thought the distinction mattered enough to put words in my mouth over it.

Thank you for admitting an economy can have a purpose

But then, you really don't have a problem with the practice of putting words in other people's mouths, do you?

because I'm pretty sure that all the people who deliberately participated in the economy from its beginning to current time had specific purposes in mind for their actions.

Fallacy of composition

 

[laughing dog]

But then, you really don't have a problem with the practice of putting words in other people's mouths, do you?

The fact is you did admit it.

because I'm pretty sure that all the people who deliberately participated in the economy from its beginning to current time had specific purposes in mind for their actions.

Fallacy of composition

Nope.

 

[Bomb#20]

The fact is you did admit it.

Quote me.

Nope.

Good argument.

 

[laughing dog]

Quote me.

I did previously.

Good argument.

I was shorter than your "koan" but it did the trick.