• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

"It’s Time for Major Wealth Redistribution — Yes, I Mean It."

:confused: :confused: I expressed no opinion on how much "money" that would produce. My post was intended solely to point out the gross misconceptions in YOUR post.

The point is when you convert it to what is sustainable it no longer is a big windfall.

As for "burning $6T on the bonfire of inflation", this nonsense doesn't even deserve a punch-line.

It's what happens when you dump a bunch of extra money into the economy. Prices rise to soak it up. See the stagflation of the 70s.
You either didn't read, or didn't understand my response to your confusion. Do you know what dividends are? Were there other words in my post that caused confusion?

And if you're going to continue in this "debate" you might want to decide whether the dividends on $6T are so TINY that they are only "a few percent of annual tax receipts" or so HUGE that they will cause a "bonfire of inflation"! (Do you see the contradiction in your own account?) LOL.

The bonfire of inflation was in regard to giving the stock to the masses, not in taking the dividends.
 
It would be 100% eaten up by inflation.

No, not 100%. We are not on a gold standard, you know. It depends exactly WHERE all that money went. Giving billionaires money barely impacts inflation at all since they just hoard it or invest it (which would drive down the value of others' investments if they were to suddenly cash out). On the other end of the spectrum, giving it to homeless people would have an inflationary effect EVENTUALLY but not until it "trickled up" to the pockets of those paying payrolls...

No, the inflation is immediate because you suddenly spiked the demand for goods without a corresponding increase in supply.
 
Wrong. No need to dump all that stock on the market; the public could just live off the dividends. Instead of spending the dividends on caviar and super-yachts, they could be spent on child nutrition, improved insulated housing, education, etc. It might be convenient to sell some of the stock and re-invest the proceeds in bonds or stocks with higher yields, but the wonderful free market should be able to handle that with little trouble.

You have an unrealistic impression of how much money this would produce. It's a few percent of annual income tax receipts.

As for "burning $6T on the bonfire of inflation", this nonsense doesn't even deserve a punch-line.

It's what happens when you dump a bunch of extra money into the economy. Prices rise to soak it up. See the stagflation of the 70s.

Stagflation was brought about by the "Nixon Shock".

The Nixon Shock was three actions that Nixon took.

He instituted a 90-day freeze on all wages and prices. He set up a Pay Board and Price Commission to approve any increases after the 90 days. Conveniently, it would control prices until after the 1972 presidential campaign. That's how he planned to control inflation.12

Nixon imposed a 10% tariff on imports. His goal was to lower the trade deficit and protect domestic industries. Instead, the tariffs raised import prices.13

He removed the United States from the gold standard. That had kept the dollar's value tied to a fixed amount of gold since the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement.11

Under Bretton Woods, most countries agreed to peg the value of their currencies to either the price of gold or the U.S. dollar. That had turned the dollar into a global currency.

The crisis occurred when the United Kingdom tried to redeem $3 billion for gold.14 The United States didn't have that much gold in its reserves at Fort Knox. So Nixon stopped redeeming dollars for gold. That sent the price of the precious metal skyrocketing and the value of the dollar plummeting.15 That sent import prices up even more.

These last two policies raised import prices, which slowed growth. Then growth slowed even more because U.S. companies couldn't raise prices to remain profitable. Since they couldn't lower wages either, the only way to reduce costs was to lay off workers. That increased unemployment. Unemployment reduces consumer demand and slows economic growth. In other words, Nixon's three attempts to boost growth and control inflation had the opposite effect.

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-stagflation-3305964
 
Stocks are wealth. Produce growth in value and income in dividends. Readily bought or sold. Your argument has little merit.

There is a little merit in that suddenly introducing trillions of liquid dollars into circulation would cause some inflation. But IMHO that wouldn't be such a bad thing - it's the price you pay when priorities are shifted, and god knows they need to be.

It would be 100% eaten up by inflation. That's what happens when you dump money into the economy suddenly.

See what happened to Spain after all the gold came in from the New World. Disaster.
Because the world economy hasn't changed since **checks notes** ....the 1500s? Got it.
 
Amazon’s Anti-Union Activities Should All Be Illegal

Once the petition was filed, Amazon called in the union-avoidance storm troopers, hiring a law firm well versed in keeping unions out. Their first task was to create legal issues to delay the actual vote, hoping to use the additional time to convince workers to vote against the union. The RWDSU had filed a petition with the Labor Board to represent a unit of 1,500 workers, mostly pickers and packers, at the Bessemer facility. Amazon’s lawyers, using a well-worn employer tactic, countered that the lawful unit had to include all workers at the facility, including seasonal employees — approximately 5,800 workers in total — about four times the number the union had petitioned for.

Under NLRB rules, a disagreement about who must be in the unit — an “appropriate unit” in NLRB-speak — requires a hearing. Hearings take time. Each job category is evaluated as to whether it is more or less like another job category — is the job in the unit or out? The employer has all the records, which the union has to file subpoenas to get, leading to more fights and costing more time. To make matters worse, hearing days don’t necessarily run consecutively. As a lawyer for the Communications Workers of America, I once did such a hearing that lasted for almost a year.

Employers usually seek a bigger unit to buy time or scare off the union. But sometimes they try to dilute the pro-union vote by arguing that a job classification with a lot of union support should be out of the unit, or a job with little union support should be added. If the board agrees with the company on the larger or different unit, the union might not have enough cards to support the petition, or will walk away because they can’t win.

The Consultants Move In
Even if the board ultimately sides with the union while the parties are fighting all of this out, another wing of the union-avoidance machine moves in: the consultants, often called persuaders. Their job is to convince workers of any combination of the following: you don’t need a union; you don’t want a union; unions can’t help; unions are costly; unions are scary; unions are corrupt; unions don’t care about you; you will end up on strike; you could get fired. And, Vote No!

The more time the lawyers get, the more time the consultants have to hammer home their message. In this case, RWDSU stopped Amazon’s attempt to drag things out by agreeing to the 5,800-worker unit. This ended the big stall, but it also makes victory for the workers and the union much more difficult.

Nonetheless, the persuaders moved quickly. At Bessemer, they’ve plastered “Vote No” signs everywhere, even in bathroom stalls. (“You go to the bathroom for privacy,” one worker told labor reporter Steven Greenhouse. “But then you have a flyer right in your face. That feels like a type of harassment.”) Workers have been required to attend weekly anti-union meetings — called captive audience meetings — where they are told how terrible unions are.

Amazon created a special website for Bessemer workers — doitwithoutdues.com. Animated characters and workers holding their thumbs up assure the Bessemer workers that the company already has them covered with good pay and benefits, and that if they pay dues (alleged to be $500 without any indication of a time period), “it won’t be easy to be as helpful and social with one another.” It then tells workers that they can ask for their cards back and that they should “reclaim” their voices. Much of the information is wrong, misleading, or silly — but providing facts is not the goal. Getting workers to vote “no” is the point.
 
It would be 100% eaten up by inflation. That's what happens when you dump money into the economy suddenly.

See what happened to Spain after all the gold came in from the New World. Disaster.
Because the world economy hasn't changed since **checks notes** ....the 1500s? Got it.

The way the economy works hasn't changed, although it would be awfully hard to have a recurrence of 16th century Spain because there simply isn't enough wealth floating around to make that big a shock.
 
No, the inflation is immediate because you suddenly spiked the demand for goods without a corresponding increase in supply.

What are we talking about? $20,000 for every man, woman and child? Say $50,000 per typical household? Isn't that a big one-time reward? Wouldn't,say, $5K per year for a decade (or payoffs timed by cohort) be more appropriate?

And in the scenario, the government grabs most of Bezos' stock? The Treasury converts the stock to cash by selling it on the NYSE? Who exactly buys that stock anyway? And where did that buyer get his money from?

I thoughbt that the big $6T jpeg was a "thought experiment" -- just quantifying the size of a wealth gap. Why are you assuming that a stupidly-designed transfer program was to be applied?
 
It would be 100% eaten up by inflation. That's what happens when you dump money into the economy suddenly.

See what happened to Spain after all the gold came in from the New World. Disaster.
Because the world economy hasn't changed since **checks notes** ....the 1500s? Got it.

The way the economy works hasn't changed
Markets were not as widespread or as developed. The Catholic Church in Europe played a major role in inculcating non-market ideology into the population, Payment methods were very different. The structure of economic activity was different. The 1500s are pre-industrial for the most part.

"the economy" in the 1500s barely resembled the "the economy" of the late 1800s, let alone the 21st century. Your analysis is based on an insane assumption.
 
It would be 100% eaten up by inflation. That's what happens when you dump money into the economy suddenly.

See what happened to Spain after all the gold came in from the New World. Disaster.
Because the world economy hasn't changed since **checks notes** ....the 1500s? Got it.

The way the economy works hasn't changed, although it would be awfully hard to have a recurrence of 16th century Spain because there simply isn't enough wealth floating around to make that big a shock.

You do know that money isn't gold anymore, right?

And that there's so much wealth floating around today that a handful of wealthy people have more wealth than the entire Spanish economy in the C16th?
 
People with money in their pockets being far better for the overall economy than a small percentage of mega rich living lavishly within their own bubble.

Trickle down is an abysmal failure.
 
It would be 100% eaten up by inflation.

No, not 100%. We are not on a gold standard, you know. It depends exactly WHERE all that money went. Giving billionaires money barely impacts inflation at all since they just hoard it or invest it (which would drive down the value of others' investments if they were to suddenly cash out). On the other end of the spectrum, giving it to homeless people would have an inflationary effect EVENTUALLY but not until it "trickled up" to the pockets of those paying payrolls...

No, the inflation is immediate because you suddenly spiked the demand for goods without a corresponding increase in supply.

So wouldn't there be a spike in employment growth to meet that new demand? Yes, there would be a short period of inflation until the added production meets the demand.
 
Not to mention a planned transition period to a new economic model in order to avoid excessive inflation. But can anyone see that happening? More likely pitchforks at midnight when the gulf between wealth and working class becomes untenable.
 
Not to mention a planned transition period to a new economic model in order to avoid excessive inflation. But can anyone see that happening? More likely pitchforks at midnight when the gulf between wealth and working class becomes untenable.

Printing money willy nilly is what causes huge inflation. The stimulus is very expensive but that could be offset by just repealing the trump tax cut for the rich. It didn't do much as far as the entire nation goes anyway.
 
Not to mention a planned transition period to a new economic model in order to avoid excessive inflation. But can anyone see that happening? More likely pitchforks at midnight when the gulf between wealth and working class becomes untenable.

Printing money willy nilly is what causes huge inflation.
It's really not.

A collapse in production (eg Zimbabwe), or a diversion of the fruits of production out of the economy (eg Weimar Germany), and a loss of confidence in the currency (everywhere that's ever had hyperinflation) is the cause. Printing money willy nilly is the only response possible, until and unless you are ready to abandon the currency altogether in favour of a new one.
The stimulus is very expensive but that could be offset by just repealing the trump tax cut for the rich. It didn't do much as far as the entire nation goes anyway.

The stimulus isn't particularly expensive, and inflation is rather too low right now, so worrying about adding a little is pointless.
 
I'm sure you guys all laugh at me behind my back and call me "The Great Nitpicker." But nitpicking is something I'm good at!

And that there's so much wealth floating around today that a handful of wealthy people have more wealth than the entire Spanish economy in the C16th?

Nitpick: To compare apples with apples, it may be best to adjust for population and productivity, i.e. use GDP in the denominator when making such comparisons. Wealth and income inequality are about the same today as in many ancient or medieval countries. Inequality is worse if measured not just within Spain, but by also considering Native Americans in the Spanish Empire, many of whom were reduced almost to slavery.

With such adjustments, John D. Rockefeller a century ago should be considered wealthier than Mark Zuckerberg today. And the 14th-century  Mansa Musa, Emperor of Mali, was even wealthier still.

A collapse in production (eg Zimbabwe), or a diversion of the fruits of production out of the economy (eg Weimar Germany), and a loss of confidence in the currency (everywhere that's ever had hyperinflation) is the cause. Printing money willy nilly is the only response possible, until and unless you are ready to abandon the currency altogether in favour of a new one.

... inflation is rather too low right now, so worrying about adding a little is pointless.
The Fed has been pumping up the money supply for more than a decade and much of the world is in a "debt bubble", but it doesn't seem to matter. There's little inflation, and the consensus seems to be that this novel economic environment can continue for decades more. Speaking of Mark Zuckerberg, much of today's production in America consists not of goods, but of services much of which have questionable value. Facebook alone has a market cap over 700 gigabucks. This is a sort of "bubble" that nobody is talking about: rent-collectors pimping services whose value to society may be negative.

"Modern Monetary Theory" will continue working ... until it suddenly stops working. (Similarly Betelgeuse will probably continue as a red giant star for thousands or millions of years — but it might blow up tomorrow.) If/When inflation does raise its ugly head, will the Fed really respond as it did during the Carter-Reagan era by jacking up interest rates? The soaring value of Bitcoin is caused in part by big investors hedging against the dollar.
 
I'm sure you guys all laugh at me behind my back and call me "The Great Nitpicker." But nitpicking is something I'm good at!

And that there's so much wealth floating around today that a handful of wealthy people have more wealth than the entire Spanish economy in the C16th?

Nitpick: To compare apples with apples, it may be best to adjust for population and productivity, i.e. use GDP in the denominator when making such comparisons. Wealth and income inequality are about the same today as in many ancient or medieval countries. Inequality is worse if measured not just within Spain, but by also considering Native Americans in the Spanish Empire, many of whom were reduced almost to slavery.

With such adjustments, John D. Rockefeller a century ago should be considered wealthier than Mark Zuckerberg today. And the 14th-century  Mansa Musa, Emperor of Mali, was even wealthier still.
Sure, but Rockefeller couldn't buy a private jet, and Mansa Musa couldn't even buy a house with a flushing toilet.

Zuck would think living like Rockerfeller a step down, and most people in today's developed world would baulk at living without indoor plumbing and soft toilet paper, for more than a few days.
 
No, the inflation is immediate because you suddenly spiked the demand for goods without a corresponding increase in supply.

What are we talking about? $20,000 for every man, woman and child? Say $50,000 per typical household? Isn't that a big one-time reward? Wouldn't,say, $5K per year for a decade (or payoffs timed by cohort) be more appropriate?

And in the scenario, the government grabs most of Bezos' stock? The Treasury converts the stock to cash by selling it on the NYSE? Who exactly buys that stock anyway? And where did that buyer get his money from?

I thoughbt that the big $6T jpeg was a "thought experiment" -- just quantifying the size of a wealth gap. Why are you assuming that a stupidly-designed transfer program was to be applied?

Of course it's a thought experiment--I'm showing where the experiment leads.
 
No, the inflation is immediate because you suddenly spiked the demand for goods without a corresponding increase in supply.

So wouldn't there be a spike in employment growth to meet that new demand? Yes, there would be a short period of inflation until the added production meets the demand.

We tried it--deliberate inflation to stimulate the economy. It was an abysmal failure.

Inflation only stimulates the economy when it's unexpected--companies misinterpreting the signals.
 
No, the inflation is immediate because you suddenly spiked the demand for goods without a corresponding increase in supply.

So wouldn't there be a spike in employment growth to meet that new demand? Yes, there would be a short period of inflation until the added production meets the demand.

We tried it--deliberate inflation to stimulate the economy. It was an abysmal failure.

Inflation only stimulates the economy when it's unexpected--companies misinterpreting the signals.

When Inflation Is Good

When the economy is not running at capacity, meaning there is unused labor or resources, inflation theoretically helps increase production. More dollars translates to more spending, which equates to more aggregated demand. More demand, in turn, triggers more production to meet that demand.

British economist John Maynard Keynes believed that some inflation was necessary to prevent the Paradox of Thrift. Which says, if consumer prices are allowed to fall consistently because the country is becoming too productive, consumers learn to hold off their purchases to wait for a better deal. The net effect of this paradox is to reduce aggregate demand, leading to less production, layoffs, and a faltering economy.2

Inflation also makes it easier on debtors, who repay their loans with money that is less valuable than the money they borrowed. This encourages borrowing and lending, which again increases spending on all levels. Perhaps most important to the Federal Reserve is that the U.S. government is the largest debtor in the world, and inflation helps soften the blow of its massive debt.3

Economists once believed an inverse relationship existed between inflation and unemployment, and that rising unemployment could be fought with increased inflation. This relationship was defined in the famous Phillips curve. The Phillips curve was largely discredited in the 1970s when the U.S. experienced stagflation. (For related reading, see "What Causes Inflation and Who Profits From it?")

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111414/how-can-inflation-be-good-economy.asp
 
Oh for the love of god! If they break "Steal Underpants" up into "Sneak into bedroom. Find underpants. Pick up underpants. Sneak out of bedroom.", the gnomes will have described more than three steps; but they still won't have explained how to get to "Profit".
Dude, leveraging asymmetry is "profit", if you really want to get down to brass tacks.
Dude, you appear to have become confused about which phases are from the DBT argument you're trying to defend versus which phases are from South Park. Nobody asked how to get from leveraging asymmetry to profit. The gnomes decline to explain how stealing underpants leads to profit; DBT declines to explain how leveraging asymmetry causes workers to be paid less than their market value. Pay attention.

(Not that you care about market value any more than you care about distinguishing reality from a cartoon.)

The Underpants Gnomes' business plan:

rdtdrbl7lhg11.jpg


Gnome: Phase 1 is power imbalance. Phase 3 is workers are paid less than their market value.

Kyle: Sooo, what's phase 2?

Gnome: Phase 1 is power imbalance.

So you didn't understand what was said. Or even willing to. I'm not surprised. That, right from the beginning, a job applicant needs to impress the manager in order to get the job, their success being in the hands of the manager, whom they must please because the manager holds the cards and makes the decision, which the applicant/supplicant cannot alter, does not need explaining.
Nobody said it does. Why do you keep repeatedly explaining the phase of your argument nobody asked you for an explanation of? Good grief, you're talking like a creationist, who just over and over says "If men evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" and never explains how the evolution of men from monkeys is supposed to exterminate the rest of the monkeys. You keep pushing the same non sequitur over and over, apparently never noticing that you never get to your claimed conclusion. Please, reread the paragraph you just wrote, and point out where in your paragraph the phrase "market value" appears, because that's where the conclusion would have to be.

Let's try this differently. If a worker is paid less than his market value, that's the same as his market value being more than he's paid. So tell us how an applicant's need to impress the manager implies that his market value is higher than what the manager offers to pay him. Who is the market, and how do you know he/she/it values the applicant more than the manager values him?
 
Back
Top Bottom