Yeah, when you kill the disabled you free up all the effort that was being directed to their care.
Or are you talking about the economy booming as in falling into the crater a boom leaves behind?
-
2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:
I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $778. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.
Trickle Down Economics is Misunderstood and Straw-Manned
- Thread starter Generation55
- Start date
Yeah, when you kill the disabled you free up all the effort that was being directed to their care.
Or are you talking about the economy booming as in falling into the crater a boom leaves behind?
SigmatheZeta
Member
What a lovely way to start out a post. Don't do it again.
Read the University of Würzburg study. Here is the abstract, citation, and link:
^https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/114736/1/833477102.pdf
Read and understand at least the abstract, and do not speak to me again until you have done so.
I have handled horses for a living at one time in my life. Do you know how far you can drag a horse by pure force? The answer is "not very far at all." That experience broke me of the habit of attempting to force people to change their opinions. You are not going to change your opinion just because I shouted facts at you. I get that.
However, I am justified in refusing to engage with you until you have demonstrated evidence that you are going to take the discussion seriously instead of spraying canned rhetoric at me. The University of Würzburg study was performed recently enough to be relevant.
The University of Würzburg study demonstrates why there is such conflicting evidence regarding supply-side economics, and furthermore, the study also demonstrates that supply-side economics actually do work but only in advanced economies.
Please, do not argue further until you have read the study. I refuse to go around in circles trading lies with you. I will speak to you about this again not a moment sooner than I have evidence that you are actually interested in a good faith discussion.
Trausti
Contributor
Singapore - small with no natural resources - would be the exemplar. But then you'd have to account for human capital, which is icky.
It's literally impossible to be taxed into a lower income bracket. Only the income in the new bracket is taxed as that rate. If the bracket divided at 10 and you make 15, you make "whatever the guy who made made net, plus (5 more/x)"
Generation55
Member
We are not seeing inflation, just supply chain shocks? Did you hear Dollar General raised their prices to $1.25 now? This hurts poor people the most. Rich don't care. Are you saying once the supply chain shock stops, Dollar General and every other store will lower prices again just because they are so nice? I won't hold my breath for this.
I will repeat: Rich people don't care about price increases. The poor and middle class care.
Biden concedes his COVID stimulus checks fueled spike in inflation
President Biden insisted inflation is at a three-decade high because “people have more money now” as a result of his $1.9 trillion COVID-19 stimulus legislation.
nypost.com
This is exactly what Republicans predicted would happen. There was an article in the post from a year ago that warned the Middle class that if Biden is elected, inflation will rise. Democrats laughed. Now, they aren't laughing about it. Why does the Post constantly get dismissed as fake news? It's usually spot on.
People need to realize thatback in the 50's we had less money in the economy, so the money was worth more. This is why people were able to afford things easier. But, once the tax and spend policies started coming, government kept printing more money, which pumps more money into the economy, thus making the money more and more worthless. The more money you have circulating, the less it is worth. The less money you have circulating, the more it is worth. This is basic economics 101 but I don't know why the Democrats don't seem to learn this and always yell at the Republicans telling them they hare actually the ones who have no idea what they are doing. If the government gave everyone in America 1 million dollars, the cost of living would skyrocket. Democrats would act like giving everyone a million dollars would be great for the economy, though. It would not. It would tank, and the Democrats would look at me like I had 20 heads if I tried explaining this to them.
Why do they keep pushing for government spending when it doesn't work?
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
SigmatheZeta said:
I don't see that it does. Such actual data as they adduce show positive correlation of redistribution with economic growth in developing economies. The claim that "redistribution hampers investment" in advanced economies cites Barro, i.e. "Ricardian equivalence" - almost trickledown theory itself - which is contradicted by a ton of evidence in advanced economies.
And the claim that "When net inequality is held constant, public redistribution negatively affects economic growth" should ring alarm bells for anyone who speaks English. Inequality held constant means no redistribution, unless they're implying that "public redistribution" is self-defeating - i.e. trickledown theory again.
SigmatheZeta
Member
*alights on a vantage point and gestures grandly with her wing* And furthermore, I propose that we fuck the property-owners!
*cackles wickedly* Good old Adam Smith was so right. The property tax is still king after all these years.
Unsurprisingly, the so-called "3rd Rail" in California's politics has been the idea of raising the property tax. They have one of the lowest property taxes in the entire country, yet they suffer from rampant homelessness. How very poetic.
*cackles wickedly* Good old Adam Smith was so right. The property tax is still king after all these years.
Unsurprisingly, the so-called "3rd Rail" in California's politics has been the idea of raising the property tax. They have one of the lowest property taxes in the entire country, yet they suffer from rampant homelessness. How very poetic.
funinspace
Veteran Member
Whatever inflation that is now present was probably already 90% baked into the economy prior to Biden becoming President. Biden is no more at fault for the current inflation than Trump 'created a great stock market'. The Post is peddling its partisan BS...little else. The multiple stimulus payment packages under Trump, Trump's tariffs, and the rebounding economy are far more responsible for the current inflation than much of anything else. I should hope you prefer a rebounding economy?
And Biden's $1.9 trillion stimulus legislation isn't causing jack, cuz it isn't anything yet...you are blowing partisan smoldering dung incense.
SigmatheZeta
Member
*covers her face with one wing and rubs her temple with the claw* At least you read it. It's a pretty cool article, though, isn't it?
I understood the research a little bit differently, so if you are not reading it the same way, then please try to help me, here.
However, here is a paragraph from the conclusion that gives me the impression that they are saying that the level of a country's development impacts the consequences of redistribution.
Am I just misinterpreting what that means?
However, one of the most important conclusions, from that paper, was that it affirmed the role of education in mitigating the negative economic effects of inequality:
I am a champion of the idea of making improvements to the education system, especially for people from disadvantaged communities. It damaged me deeply that I did not get treated fairly by the education system where I lived. It was worse if a kid was neurodivergent. My husband used to work for Disability Rights, and he said that the education system where I grew up had gotten famous for the high number of lawsuits they had gotten into over their abuses against neurodivergent kids. He said, "They're HORRIBLE!" and I said, "You mean you are telling ME that?"
I was dealing with that on top of being transgender and queer in an area that was infested with homophobic violence...in the 1990's.
But this is also why I am insistent that there is a dire need for us to make solid investments in the education systems of areas that are suffering economically, especially if there is evidence that this could be due to dysfunctions in their education systems, and this needs to include rural areas. If the kids in an area are distressed throughout their development, then we are fucking insane if we expect them to be able to get their shit together as adults. It's not fair, and it's wrong.
I think that I am being reasonable, from both a personal and scientific standpoint, if I choose to be focused primarily on advocating for improving the education standards of the country's most benighted areas.
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
No, you're just repeating it. But I don't see where the "rather harmful in rich economies" bit is supported except by reference to Barro (a supply-side theorist contradicted by a ton of evidence).
Why exactly do you think space should not be monetized?
Going to space costs a lot of money. That's the reason manned space exploration has pretty much stalled since the 70s. After the Sputnik/Gagarin scare, the US government showed USSR who's the boss by landing on the Moon a few times and then largely lost interest.
To open up space to more than major governments, you need the profit motive.
NASA is first and foremost a government agency. Yes, they have and are doing much good, but that does not mean that space should be a government monopoly, no matter how much you hate billionaires who start space companies. And by the way, SpaceX is providing NASA with a lower cost option to actually launch stuff into space.
Both public and private sectors have their place in space.
Last edited:
laughing dog
Contributor
No you don't need a profit motive. It is helpful but it is neither necessary nor sufficient.
Nigh impossible, I would say. Just like with federal income tax, you would not be able to have a federal property taxes without a constitutional amendment. Shy of that, given that property taxes are a local issue, coordinating among all those locales would be practically impossible.
Fraught with problems, including constitutional ones. Most developed countries who tried to go that route in the past have abandoned it.
Note that before the 2017 tax cuts, US had highest corporate tax rate in OECD. And today they are middle of the road.
Do you think Internet would be what it is today if not for the profit motive? From semiconductor manufacturers to content providers, there is a lot of profit being sought. And sure, something like the HTTP protocol and a lot of software can be open, but nobody is going to invest in say a chip factory or lay down megamiles of fiberoptic cable without looking to make money in the deal.
Cash is more liquid than gold, and both are more liquid than stocks. If he tried to sell all his Tesla stock, he would not be able to get anything like face value for it because the price would drop.
Liquidity, at least for cash. You have cash in your account and you can directly pay the boat builder and any other contractors (like interior customizers). You'd have to sell the stock first.
Also, you could certainly build a boat out of gold (steel does not float either). You probably could build a helium balloon out of gold foil as well, if you really wanted to.
So you got the reason why. What were the charades about soggy banknotes in aid of then?
It is very common in non-English speaking countries. It's one of the thing one has to be careful with when translating.... But by the way, does anybody still use "long" billions and trillions? (Merriam-Webster shows the long billion as "British"; Cambridge dictionary shows it as "UK Old-fashioned." But Larousse.fr shows ONLY the long billion!)
Last edited:
Travelling to space is not like writing an internet protocol and a markup language. Or writing open source software.
It requires billions in investment. It's either private business with a profit motive or else government spending. Government spending on space travel has stalled, so private investment is certainly a welcome development.
You still have to pay it back, with interest. US spends $300G per year just on interest.
No he is not for the most part, you are right. The pandemic has been a major shock to the system that disrupted the whole economy. He should have ended the expanded unemployment and eviction moratorium sooner, and that last stimulus check was probably unnecessary though.
What Biden does from now on is on him though. And he wanted to spend $3.5T in new entitlements. It has been whittled down somewhat, but mostly through accounting gimmicks of having the bill funded over the full 10 years but pricing most of the spending over a shorter timeframes.
But why pour fuel on the fire of an already inflationary economy though?
I'd make it an alternate tax, to be applied ONLY if it exceeded, and in lieu of, personal income tax. And fair value of non-stock wealth would be included. The idea still has severe drawbacks but at least it's progressive (some other possible taxes I mentioned were regressive).
The QOP frequently whines that producers will leaved the USA if "over-taxed." That's why I thought an international agreement on corporate income tax was a good idea. A few hold-out countries don't matter: they can be tariffed or otherwise sanctioned into submission!
We have other threads discussing how super-shareholder wealth can persist, be spent by, and perhaps even passed on to grandchildren without ever being taxed as income.
I was thinking of "invention" as individual creative genius, but big development projects have also been funded without private profit motive:
In the 1960's the U.S. Government placed a man on the Moon, and brought him safely back to Earth. In the 2020's a super-billionaire placed a man into sub-orbit. Compare the dates and difficulties of those achievements. And you use this as an example of how profit motive is needed for big projects? Pull the other one!
Apollo Project is not an isolated example. The Panama Canal, Hoover Dam, Golden Gate Bridge are just a few examples of big successful projects with no direct corporate profit motive. The Manhattan Project, the Interstate Highway System; do I have to go on?
Yes, a brief past episode of price hikes is of less concern. On-going future inflation would be a problem. QOPAnon seizes on price hikes, anything on Biden's watch, to say "Teh communist DemonRats is teh bad" but of course QOP commentary is worthless except for use as a contrarian indicator.
SigmatheZeta
Member
*wing-shrugs* Ah, I understand, now. So there is a reference to Barro that you disagree with. You might have mentioned that in your last post to me, and I might have failed to understand. When you have time, I would like to see the primary studies to which you are referring. I can do some research of my own over the long weekend.
Thank you.
SigmatheZeta
Member
@Canard DuJour
Okay, I decided to do some digging of my own.
I found this:
However, there have also been cases where a Ricardian equivalence actually was discovered in real world scenarios, and here is one example:
Now, my question to you is this: is there really a scientific consensus regarding RET? I see what seems to be legitimate research that both supports and refutes RET. Is it possible that Ricardian equivalence actually does occur in some cases but does not occur in others?
This is one of the reasons why I have come to believe that I do not really know enough about economics to really make vast sweeping opinions about the subject. It sometimes seems like I have found a well-supported theory, but then I run across evidence that it might not be so very well-supported.
As far as I can decipher from all of the research, though, it seems like redistribution of wealth actually works best in undeveloped cultures where the wealth is not currently controlled by people that are able to make the most efficient use out of it.
The place where I grew up, for example, was controlled by a large number of inbred degenerates leftover from decayed Southern gentry. They are clinging to land that they do not need for reasons more related to pride than to any intention of ever making use of it. They intentionally undermine the advancement of the area because they see any kind of progress at all as a threat to their way of life, which is based primarily upon idleness, animal-murder, and alcoholism. I have seen this phenomenon first-hand. In a situation like that, I think that the forcible redistribution of wealth really could awaken an economy that has utterly failed to develop.
From the University of Würzburg study, they explain it thusly:
I am glad to find that what I observed with my own eyes is validated by somebody. In fact, it says pretty much the same thing I said.
At minimum, @Canard DuJour, I believe that I am justified in saying that the redistribution of wealth is disproportionately beneficial to economies that have failed to develop, due to the, due to the little capital in those economies being controlled by economically and culturally sedentary families.
Therefore, even if the evidence in support of RET is all complete bunk, which I am not sure about but open to depending on what kind of evidence you were to bring forward, the paper still has value. The paper demonstrates very apt arguments for how undeveloped economies really should consider redistribution of wealth in order to get capital into the hands of people that are intent on exerting effort to develop their economies.
*blows smoke-rings* tell me I'm adorable, and feed me more science.
Okay, I decided to do some digging of my own.
I found this:
However, there have also been cases where a Ricardian equivalence actually was discovered in real world scenarios, and here is one example:
Now, my question to you is this: is there really a scientific consensus regarding RET? I see what seems to be legitimate research that both supports and refutes RET. Is it possible that Ricardian equivalence actually does occur in some cases but does not occur in others?
This is one of the reasons why I have come to believe that I do not really know enough about economics to really make vast sweeping opinions about the subject. It sometimes seems like I have found a well-supported theory, but then I run across evidence that it might not be so very well-supported.
As far as I can decipher from all of the research, though, it seems like redistribution of wealth actually works best in undeveloped cultures where the wealth is not currently controlled by people that are able to make the most efficient use out of it.
The place where I grew up, for example, was controlled by a large number of inbred degenerates leftover from decayed Southern gentry. They are clinging to land that they do not need for reasons more related to pride than to any intention of ever making use of it. They intentionally undermine the advancement of the area because they see any kind of progress at all as a threat to their way of life, which is based primarily upon idleness, animal-murder, and alcoholism. I have seen this phenomenon first-hand. In a situation like that, I think that the forcible redistribution of wealth really could awaken an economy that has utterly failed to develop.
From the University of Würzburg study, they explain it thusly:
I am glad to find that what I observed with my own eyes is validated by somebody. In fact, it says pretty much the same thing I said.
At minimum, @Canard DuJour, I believe that I am justified in saying that the redistribution of wealth is disproportionately beneficial to economies that have failed to develop, due to the, due to the little capital in those economies being controlled by economically and culturally sedentary families.
Therefore, even if the evidence in support of RET is all complete bunk, which I am not sure about but open to depending on what kind of evidence you were to bring forward, the paper still has value. The paper demonstrates very apt arguments for how undeveloped economies really should consider redistribution of wealth in order to get capital into the hands of people that are intent on exerting effort to develop their economies.
*blows smoke-rings* tell me I'm adorable, and feed me more science.
My main goal was to encourage Mr. Generation to improve his English usage. "... is not wealth" and "... is not easily liquidated in its entirety" have different meanings in my dialect. Perhaps I'm too much the nitpicker but gibberish — even when a possibly intended meaning can be guessed — grates on my nerves like nails on a chalkboard.
It is very common in non-English speaking countries. It's one of the thing one has to be careful with when translating.
I learned something, from you and Larousse.fr. I'd thought that the "long" numbers were obsolete.
Thai language has a lackadaisical approach to numbers. ล้าน ล้าน ('million million') is the word for a (French) billion, but colloquially usually means '(several) millions.' (Unlike English with its -s suffix, Thai has no simple plural marker.)
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
The key premise of 'RET' (that so-called "govt debt" must be paid back with taxes) is wrong as a matter of fact, so I'm not sure what a "scientific consensus" about it could mean.
Re the Würzburg thing, I think the consensus is, if anything, the opposite - i.e. that income inequality is beneficial to economic growth in poor countries, but that it is detrimental to economic growth in advanced economies. I'd be skeptical of anything based on economists' models (mostly ideology posing as science) but it's now pretty clear that inequality is detrimental in advanced economies.
funinspace
Veteran Member
First, I should correct myself, there was one stimulus check group in March of 2021, that is under Biden...and was $1.9 trillion. So my last comment to Generation55 was partly incorrect, as I thought he was referring to what just passed the House. But the idea that Pres. Biden's/Democrats $1.9 trillion spending somehow causes inflation, is comical in that it has to ignore the roughly $3.6 trillion of spending on relief passed under Trump? And just how much jawboning did Clownstick do towards the FR to kick up quantitative easing and lowering rates? If Clownstick had gotten his way, inflation would be far worse.
As to your comments Derec, I am sort of neutral as to what should have been done. Tons of people were and are still struggling. The aid for housing was a mess at the state level, so the eviction moratorium was sort of a continuation of poor triage...
Yeah, I'm not really for even more spending w/o a real plan to get increased deficit spending under control. It would be nice if the Democrats got back to being the one fiscally responsible party. The Repugs are so irresponsible, that it is an insult to drunken sailors to make that comparison anymore...
SigmatheZeta
Member
The University of Würzburg study actually uses the Galor and Zeira study as part of their synthesis. *purrs* It would seems that Oded Galor has cast a long shadow with his Unified Growth Theory. It constitutes some of the most exciting economics research that I have read about in a while, and its heavily empirical roots are heartening to me. It might take me a while to dig through the references used by the University of Würzburg Study, but this will be one of the most charming that I have had the pleasure of reading about.
*puts on some Light in Babylon and begins tapping one hindpaw and swishing her tail in time to it*
I tend to be sympathetic toward chimeras and hybrids, though. It's a dragon thing. It constitutes one of the reasons why I am such a raving fan of Knut Wicksell. There was just something sexy and salacious about that three-way that he conceived, between Lauseanne school, Austrian school, and Ricardian economic theory. It excited me on such a visceral level.
This fetish also extends to why I simply adore New Keynsianism, just as a matter of principle. It occurred due to the most delightful synthesis between Keynesian and neoclassical economics. While a complete and comprehensive understanding of it is truly beyond the understanding of a parrot-size dragon with a head only about the size of a small tangerine at the most, it nonetheless tickles my intellectual miscegenation fetish.
Anyhow, I don't think that you are really bringing anything new into the discussion by citing the Galor and Zeira study simply because of its assumed validity in the University of Würzburg study. The University of Würzburg study was actually a synthesis study that included Galor and Zeira. Thank you for drawing my attention to Galor and Zeira, though. I have spent a little while brushing my eyes over Galor's ideas, in particular, and I find him to quite enchanting.
*nods her head appreciatively* Thank you, my tovarish. I am not quite certain, yet, that the University of Würzburg was wrong to include Barro's conclusions in their synthesis.
It was quite late at night when I went off on that wild goose chase regarding RET, but it is apparently not relevant to the the University of Würzburg study at all. It was nonetheless interesting to read about, and I shall investigate it with greater depth later. However, Barro has apparently not spent his career focused on promoting RET to the exclusion of all other ideas. He does other stuff. Here is what the study really has to say about Barro's ideas.
We use a standard approach in specifying our empirical model, considering the growth rate
of real per capita GDP to be a function
d
dt
where yt−1 denotes the log of initial production per capita, ht is human capital endow-
ment per person, and Xt comprises an array of control and environment variables. When
holding constant these country specific potentials for economic growth, we study to what
extent inequality Ψt and redistribution Rt contribute to income increases.
It is crucial to specify the basic system accurately, as the disregard of covariates could lead
to inconsistency in the estimated coefficients, particularly as redistribution and inequality
may depend on the political and institutional environment of the countries. For this reason,
we apply the basic system specification of Barro (2000, 2003, 2013), which has been proven
to explain empirical growth patterns quite accurately in a number of studies.
In spite of the fact that Barro's fame is based on the fact that right-wing politicos have been exploiting his old views on RET to fuel their polemic, it would be a tragic oversimplification to assume that all he really does for a living is to provide fuel for right-wing polemic. I disagree with that sort of pigeonholing unless there is actually justification for it. I am not really sure that he is at fault for how some of his findings have been abused.
Here are the actual studies they were referring to, there:
Therefore, here is what they have to say about the Barro, R. J. (2003):
So many Frith-forsaken acronyms. Damn math. Lord Frith, in his infinite wisdom, chose to bless me with greater aptitude in other areas. However, I understand basically what shape a logarithmic function represents. It's like a half a pancake, right? Sharp on one side and flat on top? Durrrrrr.
*materializes a beanie hat and a marijuana cigarette* I don't know, man, I just don't know!
/beanie
/marijuana cigarette
Anyhow, the synthesis study does not seem to me to be focused on Barro's views on RET. I was incorrect to let myself get distracted by that.
You should really consider moving past your prejudices and embracing the fact that the University of Würzburg study actually validates your views regarding the Unified Growth Theory. They are merely saying that the effectiveness of redistribution alone might turn out to be logarithmic, simply due to the harder-to-alter effects of individual skill level and personal preference.
All that the study really means is that it is really more imperative to address inequality in those countries where the causes of inequality could not possibly be related to personal preference or individual skill level alone. There are both just and unjust reasons why one person might be more poor than another. In the most economically desolate countries, though, this research suggests that the cause of inequality cannot really be explained adequately by differences in individual skill level or personal preference. Unless you want to get a little bit more detailed about attacking their underlying assumptions, I think they might be correct to find a logarithmic relationship:
Nonetheless, I still believe that the United States could be broken down into subsets. Instead of imposing redistribution primarily at the national level, we could consider breaking up dysfunctional power structures in immature local economies that hinder development. This could include either economically desolate rural areas or blighted areas in the inner cities. By targeting our reforms at a local level, we could restore the incentive structures that tend to help produce the world's more advanced economies.
However, I am quite frankly a little skeptical of 13,000 break-point, to be fair. The University of Würzburg study seems to dismiss "individual skill level" and "preference" as immutable absolutes, and I believe that one of the flaws in the University of Würzburg study is that they fail to address factors other than education alone.
*gestures to herself with one wing* For example, @Jarhyn and I are both examples of people that are neurodivergent. Just raw investment in the education system, alone, cannot remedy the internal injustices of the education system that affect us that are neurodivergent. We are often hindered grievously from reaching our full potential due to the fact that we are not provided with adequate accommodations. While I would not be so overweening as to self-describe as "gifted," I nevertheless believe that the paucity of accommodation for me, throughout my education, has had a distinctly negative impact on my ability to make a sound contribution to my society. This is only one of perhaps an endless number of examples of how economic injustice is really more complex than what the University of Würzburg study implies.
I know that it makes a difference how we are treated because after I relocated to an urban area where I survived for a while as semi-homeless, I found out that many workplaces in urban areas are actually substantially friendlier toward people that are neurodivergent. I was actually shocked at the difference. I had never been able to get myself hired in the place where I had come from. I had been been laughed out of interviews with essentially a "don't call us, we'll call you." I'm quite the opposite of a lazy person, though. I work my ass off once I get started. I am highly focused. I do not waste time with gossip. I move at a frantic pace when fulfilling duties that have clear objectives. I am a valuable and highly dependable employee, so it did not make any sense that I was not being given a shot in the place where I came from. Turning away a potentially valuable employee because of an absolutely futile prejudice ended up being costly to everybody, not just to me. Those bigots did not gain a damn thing from ruining my life, and the cost to them was dear.
The primary shortcoming I find in the University of Würzburg study, then, is a simple lack of imagination. If we were to examine more diverse methods that could be used for promoting economic justice, I believe that the 13,000 USD mark could be moved upward. We could engineer means of making redistribution efficient in economies that have higher average incomes. I think that the routes for redistribution ought to metamorphose as we approach economies that have higher average incomes, for I think that in advanced economies, people that otherwise would have barely had a chance to survive could be groomed as unusual talents. Without negating the general validity of the study, I do not believe it can stand on its own. I think that more research is needed.
Regardless of my reservations about the University of Würzburg study, though, I believe that it is adequate to justify us in taking a needs-based approach to addressing economic injustice. Rather than concentrating on economic injustice between the "1%" and the middle-class, we should actually be profoundly alarmed about local economies that have failed to realize their indigenous potential. I honestly do not care a rodent's rectum either way if Jeff Bezos wants to build a moon factory. Good for him. Let him have his billions. It's not important how much wealthier he is than I am. What I actually should be worried about is the wasted potential of rural and inner city areas that have failed to reach even the most basic level of economic development, much less self-sufficiency. Those constitute things we could fix.
Trausti
Contributor
By changing the demographics?
SigmatheZeta
Member
You will find at least part of your answer in that study that @Canard DuJour and I have been talking about. Consider reading that first, and once you have, I look forward to entertaining your insights.
Why should I read it? From what you're quoting it utterly does not address my point. Showing that inequality is a problem says nothing about the cause of inequality.
They were at a $1 for a long time. Inflation made that harder and harder. The slow creeping up, not what's happening now.
And while they're at it they need to realize 2 + 2 = 3.
The amount of money in the economy is irrelevant. What counts is the change in the amount of money--and that only matters when it's out of sync with economic growth. "People" could afford more in the 50s because we weren't counting all people. It's just the shit went to people we didn't care about.
Ask the Republicans. They talk about cutting the budget but spend worse than the Democrats.
SigmatheZeta
Member
Because I only debate with people that I am prepared to acknowledge as my equals.
Prove yourself to me, and I will entertain you.
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
SigmatheZeta said:
I don't see anything suggesting that "a needs-based approach" shouldn't start by "concentrating on economic injustice between the 1% and the middle-class," since it is that which is slowing growth.
Then I'd suggest that you should care, given what you've said. If it's profitable to build a factory there, then there is something there that humanity needs or will need. Something that he didn't put there in the first place, which we should not allow him or his descendents to charge rent via ownership upon everyone elses' descendants.
I think you folks are confused. Dollar General was never a "dollar" store. They're more of an expanded convenience store.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Why? If he finds a need (helium 3 for example) that solves a problem that people want to pay for (cheap clean power), what's the harm? It will be one of the happiest days of my life when I can pay a company that allows me to power my home without fossil fuels. And I'd gladly pay a profit for it.
SigmatheZeta
Member
Depends on the wages he's offering, to be honest. If he's not paying extremely well, then I'm certainly not moving to that dumb rock.
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
What I said.
Does he, or his descendants, then own the natural resource and have the right to charge all of humanity rent upon it for all eternity or until it's exhausted? Simply because he got there first?
States could get there sooner on behalf of humanity, and already went further 50 years ago.
SigmatheZeta
Member
I'm on the side of that, myself, but if you want that to happen, you'll have to get at least some of the country's billionaires on-board as allies. I strenuously disagree with the idea of treating "the rich" as if they inherently must be hated enemies. I like powerful friends, especially when I am dealing with powerful enemies.
Your most effective argument, to the wealthiest Americans, is that if we don't get the government involved as an arbitrating authority, then what's going to happen is that Jeff Bezos is just going to build himself a militarized empire there and declare himself to be its emperor-god.
I respect the man's ambition, but I think it's a little crazy to let him get away with it.
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
But it's more likely to be about he's charging for whatever comes off that dumb rock. Otherwise he wouldn't be determined to get there first and own it.
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
SigmatheZeta
Member
Okay, let's just neglect to win them over as allies, so Bezos can fulfill his lifelong dream of becoming emperor-god of Luna.
I neglected to ask you something. Just so that we are clear on our identities, what school of economic thought do you view the most favorably?
I have a favorable view toward New Keynesianism, currently, but I am not inflexibly attached to it. I do not have adequate knowledge of economics to have hard and fast attachment to any given philosophy, and my loyalty is impermanent and temperamental.
Your turn.
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
What I said.
Oh, anything left of trickledown. "New Keynesianism" is trickledown, which means it isn't really Keynesian - "Bastard Keynesianism" as Joan Robinson called it.
SigmatheZeta
Member
*wing-shrugs*
I don't really think of myself in terms of whether I am left or right. My current notions are either accurate or inaccurate, and my priority is upholding the dignity of human life by the most efficient possible means. I am indifferent to inequality, per se, except insofar as it might be politically harmful in certain situations or beyond a certain threshold.
I am open to the possibility that the current extremes of inequality, in the present-day United States, might be damaging our democratic institutions and eroding our political stability, but that is not because I disagree with inequality, in principle: it is because I suspect that, beyond a certain threshold, inequality might contribute to fueling sociopolitical problems that could otherwise be avoided. If it could be demonstrated, to my satisfaction, that inequality were not causing such problems, then I would not be bothered by it, but that has not been demonstrated, to my satisfaction.
If there is any research that clearly proves that inequality could cause attrition in democracies, then I am not aware of it, but it just occurred to me in this moment that I might explore that for a while. I will get back to you on it, but in the meantime, feel free to fill me in on what you currently have at your disposal.
I am predisposed to being skeptical of the idea that an infinite expansion of inequality is either desirable or sustainable. There is a long history of supposed "god-king" dynasties being burned to ashes. If there is a possibility of such a threshold where this course of development would become inevitable, then it would behoove us to take that threshold into account.
We can produce evidence for that hypothesis, or we can fail to produce evidence for that hypothesis.
SigmatheZeta
Member
As far as your denial that we could possibly need a political alliance with billionaires, @Canard DuJour, the truth is that we currently are barely able to maintain a Democratic majority for even short lengths of time. They have made it abundantly clear that if we treat them as hated enemies, rather than as potential allies in the cause of preserving human dignity and advancing the human race, then they can fuck us from three different directions if they want to do so.
It is not impossible for a person to have an abundance of wealth and also agree with my views regarding the dignity of the human race, and if they can also be convinced of the possibility that excessive inequality could lead to serious political instability, assuming that we can furnish convincing evidence for that hypothesis, then I think it is fully possible to win them over to the concept of holding inequality to within safe limits.
I have a pet hypothesis, which I have not built to my satisfaction but which I have a certain affection for, that inequality might work like an excitatory neurotransmitter. If that analogy holds true along certain parameters, then it is also true that excessive excitation can lead to excitotoxicity, which can cause serious damage to the brain.
I have risk factors for bipolar disorder, for instance: if I can hold the mania on the short leash, then I can succeed at maintaining long-term unipolar hypomania without any serious trouble, but if I loosen that lead too much, then that hypomania can escalate into a full-fledged mania, which leads to symptoms similar to an MDMA trip and the comedown that follows. The comedown can cause me such serious disorientation that I can take months to recover, and I suspect that it might cause damage to delicate microstructures in my central nervous system. I have to hold the hypomania on a short leash, and I have to be firm with myself about moderation.
Therefore, I suspect that the competitive energy that results from inequality could be overclocking us in a similar manner, and if the analogy holds in actual practice, we could be destined for a similar crash.
It is an attractive hypothesis, but I do not have adequate information to advance it as a finished product.
It is not impossible for a person to have an abundance of wealth and also agree with my views regarding the dignity of the human race, and if they can also be convinced of the possibility that excessive inequality could lead to serious political instability, assuming that we can furnish convincing evidence for that hypothesis, then I think it is fully possible to win them over to the concept of holding inequality to within safe limits.
I have a pet hypothesis, which I have not built to my satisfaction but which I have a certain affection for, that inequality might work like an excitatory neurotransmitter. If that analogy holds true along certain parameters, then it is also true that excessive excitation can lead to excitotoxicity, which can cause serious damage to the brain.
I have risk factors for bipolar disorder, for instance: if I can hold the mania on the short leash, then I can succeed at maintaining long-term unipolar hypomania without any serious trouble, but if I loosen that lead too much, then that hypomania can escalate into a full-fledged mania, which leads to symptoms similar to an MDMA trip and the comedown that follows. The comedown can cause me such serious disorientation that I can take months to recover, and I suspect that it might cause damage to delicate microstructures in my central nervous system. I have to hold the hypomania on a short leash, and I have to be firm with myself about moderation.
Therefore, I suspect that the competitive energy that results from inequality could be overclocking us in a similar manner, and if the analogy holds in actual practice, we could be destined for a similar crash.
It is an attractive hypothesis, but I do not have adequate information to advance it as a finished product.
Last edited:
It's talking about redistribution--which says nothing about corruption and I'm saying corruption is the big problem.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
Nuclear power has been widely available in the US for most, if not all, of your life, unless you are in excess of one hundred years old.
SigmatheZeta
Member
Dude, is this part of some lame ideology that you've used to replace religion or something?
Look, if I want a new religion, I'll take up ancient Orphism or something.
Shoo.
SigmatheZeta
Member
@Loren Pechtel
I really strongly prefer to approach economics from a robustly scientific standpoint, and I get easily irritated when I am dealing with people that think of their political views in terms of which ideology they identify with.
As far as my ideology if you really want to know it, I have sympathies with the basic intentions behind the views of Pyotr Kropotkin, but I honestly think he had a long way to go before he had a functional economic system. I admire his intentions and the spirit in which he thought. I like the fact that he had a moral conscience that was guided by a sense of kindness and a sense of respect for human dignity. What he wanted to do appeals to me at a visceral level. While I really do not think that we could really make the world run on his way of thinking, what I do believe that is that he was one of the most pure human beings that ever lived.
However, I am also conscious of the fact that there is a difference between an empirically supportable theory and an ideal that tugs at my heartstrings. They are two different subjects. If I could construct a perfect fantasy world where everything was wonderful, then it would be not terribly unlike Pyotr Kropotkin's vision of paradise, but I cannot force the world to really work that way. It's a beautiful pipe dream, but it's still a pipe dream.
I prefer to keep my fantasy life separate from my perception of reality. Having a fantasy life helps me deal with reality. I know that working with an accurate perception of reality is how I keep myself fed and safe, so I can protect that beautiful fantasy world that I carry around in my head.
If you want to talk about economics, then cite something substantial, please.
I really strongly prefer to approach economics from a robustly scientific standpoint, and I get easily irritated when I am dealing with people that think of their political views in terms of which ideology they identify with.
As far as my ideology if you really want to know it, I have sympathies with the basic intentions behind the views of Pyotr Kropotkin, but I honestly think he had a long way to go before he had a functional economic system. I admire his intentions and the spirit in which he thought. I like the fact that he had a moral conscience that was guided by a sense of kindness and a sense of respect for human dignity. What he wanted to do appeals to me at a visceral level. While I really do not think that we could really make the world run on his way of thinking, what I do believe that is that he was one of the most pure human beings that ever lived.
However, I am also conscious of the fact that there is a difference between an empirically supportable theory and an ideal that tugs at my heartstrings. They are two different subjects. If I could construct a perfect fantasy world where everything was wonderful, then it would be not terribly unlike Pyotr Kropotkin's vision of paradise, but I cannot force the world to really work that way. It's a beautiful pipe dream, but it's still a pipe dream.
I prefer to keep my fantasy life separate from my perception of reality. Having a fantasy life helps me deal with reality. I know that working with an accurate perception of reality is how I keep myself fed and safe, so I can protect that beautiful fantasy world that I carry around in my head.
If you want to talk about economics, then cite something substantial, please.
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
SigmatheZeta said:
Just as a matter of arithmetic, slower growth with more inequality means most people worse off than they'd otherwise have been. Then there's the precarity, wage stagnation, unaffordable housing and all the other socially corrosive shit that has come with neoliberalism. If it was just some folks getting rich, few would care.
Like how? Galt's Gulch or something? Their power rests on a thin veneer of beliefs - e.g. trickledown economics - which we could just stop believing. That's why they spend fortunes pushing them.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Well I'll be the first to say that you know far more about nuclear power than I. I was using harvesting Helium 3 as an example of the kind of profitable production that could be had as an incentive to get into space. And in my view, I just don't see us permanently going into space and solving problems until there is a strong incentive to go there.
SigmatheZeta
Member
New Keynesianism is not "trickle-down," but it is a synthesis of Keynesianism and neo-classical economic theory. The trouble with it is that the mathematics are actually accurate, and they actually predict what they are supposed to predict.
What they are not taking into account are sociological consequences that can ultimately threaten the stability of the surrounding civilization. I was at the Black Lives Matter protest, and while it was, on one hand, the most fun that I had had since playing paintball when I was a kid, I cannot help but think that it is not really a sustainable way to run a country or to hold a civilization together.
Now, with disinformation about masks helping COVID-19 spread, I think that we might have a bit of a problem.
My opinion--and this is only my opinion--is that we are incorrect to look upon economics, mathematics, and political science as three different subjects. They are really different aspects of the same subject.
When you talk about an economic theory that can energize the economy, that sounds good right up until you start noticing an upwelling of political extremism. It sounds good right up until people have started misguided moral crusades that are going to lead to a dangerous Puritanical state. It sounds good right up until the riots start, and at some point, you start questioning your decision-making process.
New Keynesian economic theory actually does work, but the problem is that it works too well. It overheats the system, and if we don't want to get cooked alive, we have got to figure out a way to regulate the heat.
Oh, I have an idea! Let's just cap inequality permanently at right where it was BEFORE we started breaking out in riots, and when inequality starts to rise above that ceiling, we increase taxes and start paying down the debt with the revenue.
That sounds good, but you would have to get a team of sociologists, political scientists, and economists together, so they can actually confirm whether or not that would actually work. There is a possibility that I could be wrong. It feels right, but I would want to see how the empirical evidence for it matches up with the math.
I suspect that the riots and the insurrection are not a coincidence, but they are happening for the same reasons why we were having labor riots and revolutions in the early 20th Century. Oh, and we had these two little wars I heard about. The early 20th Century was kind of nuts.
By comparison, people were actually protesting AGAINST war in the 1960's and 1970's, and we abolished the draft a little while later.
I think it is probably true that inequality DOES make people competitive, but competitiveness also makes people want to go to war.
That is what I think that New Keynesian theory is probably missing, and that kind of phenomenon simply cannot be taken into account by economic theory alone.
The historical economist that admire the most is Knut Wicksell. The reason why I admire him is that he merged multiple different theories that nobody, at the time, saw as being even fully the same subject. Some believe he created the underpinnings of Keynesian economics.
In the same spirit, we need to break the myth that economists are not responsible for what happens in our society or our politics. They are only looking at one side of the same system, which is like looking at someone's ass and assuming it gives you an idea of what their face looks like or making believe they are not both part of the same organism. I think we ought to put them under pressure to start having serious and open discussions with sociologists and political scientists, so they can work out a system that harmonizes these different facets of collective eudaimonia.
Just trying to tie a blindfold around our eyes and pretending the neoliberal theories don't exist would, I think, be misguided. They actually do get the effect that their proponents claim they do. They are just assuming incorrectly that an overheated system can only be a good thing, and they are not looking at the fact that one way that people demonstrate their social energy is by rioting and murdering each other.
Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
That doesn't make it not trickledown. It strips out the demand-side logic of Keynes and retains all the "micro-founded" bits of neoclassical with supply-side logic baked in.
Like what?
New Keynesianism has not "energised" the economy. Growth rates have fallen. Housing bubbles and the stock market are not the economy.
They actually don't.that sounds good right up until you start noticing an upwelling of political extremism. It sounds good right up until people have started misguided moral crusades that are going to lead to a dangerous Puritanical state. It sounds good right up until the riots start, and at some point, you start questioning your decision-making process.
New Keynesian economic theory actually does work, but the problem is that it works too well. It overheats the system, and if we don't want to get cooked alive, we have got to figure out a way to regulate the heat.
Oh, I have an idea! Let's just cap inequality permanently at right where it was BEFORE we started breaking out in riots, and when inequality starts to rise above that ceiling, we increase taxes and start paying down the debt with the revenue.
That sounds good, but you would have to get a team of sociologists, political scientists, and economists together, so they can actually confirm whether or not that would actually work. There is a possibility that I could be wrong. It feels right, but I would want to see how the empirical evidence for it matches up with the math.
I suspect that the riots and the insurrection are not a coincidence, but they are happening for the same reasons why we were having labor riots and revolutions in the early 20th Century. Oh, and we had these two little wars I heard about. The early 20th Century was kind of nuts.
By comparison, people were actually protesting AGAINST war in the 1960's and 1970's, and we abolished the draft a little while later.
I think it is probably true that inequality DOES make people competitive, but competitiveness also makes people want to go to war.
That is what I think that New Keynesian theory is probably missing, and that kind of phenomenon simply cannot be taken into account by economic theory alone.
The historical economist that admire the most is Knut Wicksell. The reason why I admire him is that he merged multiple different theories that nobody, at the time, saw as being even fully the same subject. Some believe he created the underpinnings of Keynesian economics.
In the same spirit, we need to break the myth that economists are not responsible for what happens in our society or our politics. They are only looking at one side of the same system, which is like looking at someone's ass and assuming it gives you an idea of what their face looks like or making believe they are not both part of the same organism. I think we ought to put them under pressure to start having serious and open discussions with sociologists and political scientists, so they can work out a system that harmonizes these different facets of collective eudaimonia.
Just trying to tie a blindfold around our eyes and pretending the neoliberal theories don't exist would, I think, be misguided. They actually do get the effect that their proponents claim they do.