SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
If you bring up UBI, or other reforms, you'll inevitably get someone who brings up: "voting yourself someone else's money".
You could convince me, except that things have gotten to an absurd state.
I look at some graphs of wealth inequality and it is unimaginably shocking. I never dreamed it could be this bad. More than 50% of the US wealth is owned by 5% of the people. [1] 35% is owned by only 1% of the population.
This image from this article also tells the story.
I'm not going to argue how accurate those numbers are. Rather, I will extrapolate the trend.
Let's continue the current trend to its logical absurd conclusion. The entire planet is owned by one single person. You (and everyone else) are one of the wage slaves in the bottom 99.99999999 % of the population (at least 8 decimal places). [7.5 billion people, minus that one person who owns everything, then divided by 7.5 billion people.]
Naturally, we should respect property ownership. Somehow this one person deserves and "earned" the wealth of the entire planet through his hard and diligent efforts and deserves to own everything and everyone. It is absurd on its face.
At this logical endpoint, it clearly seems that the rest of the planet should seize the wealth of the one person.
Wealth transfer has already happened. And is still happening. Republicans are just fine with this as long as it is all trickling upward.
Yes, "voting yourself someone else's money" involves taking away some of the absurd amounts of wealth hoarded up by a few. Amounts of individual wealth that one person couldn't spend in a lifetime; then leaves to others, who themselves can't spend it in their lifetime.
Not as a proposal, but just to make a point, hypothetically, if all of these people who exceed this threshold had their net worth capped at $100 Million, they would still be just fine. Yes, really! They would still live in fabulous homes, drive fabulous cars, and eat whatever they wanted, travel wherever and whenever they wanted -- for the rest of their natural lives.
In case my "one man owns the world" didn't get the idea across, I'll be more blunt. Any time too few people have owned way, way too much, and too many had nothing, there is always an uprising. I'm not proposing an uprising. I'm merely warning it is inevitable. Hopefully not in my lifetime. Maybe it would be better to solve this peacefully where the wealthiest, while heavily taxed, still end up, after taxes, fabulously wealthy beyond the dreams of most everyone else. I'm not proposing reducing all the rich people's wealth to some cap. Just that they should pay their fair share. Why are they the ones who get the tax cuts?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 27 2020, @10:26PM (71 children)
Wealth inequality is a frivolous and error-prone way to look at the problem. For people not in the top 10% or so, most of their wealth is in income not assets, homes or otherwise. None of that gets counted. Second, the wealth at the top is grossly overvalued. We don't even know there has been a change in wealth inequality to be honest, because we have no idea what assets are really worth. A classic example is the current valuations of high tech companies. Is Tesla really worth twice as much as Toyota, for a glaring example? Is Apple really a two trillion dollar company? Is the US high tech industry really worth more than the stock markets of all of Europe?
Income is paid on the spot while valuations of rich people assets is often delayed for years until recession hits. Notice too that this level of supposed inequality is supposedly comparable [inequality.org] to the run up to the 1929 stock market crash, another era of extremely bogus asset valuations.
To be fair to the fantasy scenario, this person is probably a skynet-style AI with the military power to kick the asses of the 7.5 billion people. Yes, they fucking earned that and you will get burned, if you try stealing their assets.
Here's my take. You want to reduce wealth inequality? Save money. Get your friends and family to save money too. You can start by spending less than you get.
I get that not everyone has the circumstances to do so - expensive medical conditions or whatever. But most people don't fall into that tiny category. There's no point to talking about wealth inequality in the US, when more than half [cnbc.com] of the US can't be bothered to save enough for a minor auto repair. It's quite clear just what priority they gave wealth. If it's not important enough to the average US citizen to have shares in Apple or whatever, then it's not important enough to me.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday October 27 2020, @11:02PM (43 children)
I have to agree with Carlin on something here: the "euphemism treadmill." It is time for the center (i.e., what passes for "the left" in the US) to stop using the phrase "income inequality" when 1) it doesn't actually match the problem (everyone does not need to have precisely equal income to be happy) and 2) it *papers over* the problem--that, last I read, one in seven Americans are on food assistance and one in five children misses meals semi-regularly or worse.
It's time we who actually want to change this start using plain, unvarnished language. "Income inequality" is technically correct, which as Any Fule Noe is the best kind, but not useful. "One in seven Americans can't afford food" drives the message home a lot harder. Why the "left" (center) insists on playing this cutesie-poo game of footsie with words I will never understand; it smacks of Republican dishonesty.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 27 2020, @11:52PM (36 children)
But you can feed people.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 28 2020, @12:01AM (9 children)
Hey, dipshit, the rich *remove money from circulation.*
Our money is both fiat and floating; it's the dream of an illusion of value. It's the virtual-particle theory of money, only having value based on its own velocity. Squirreling fiat money away effectively removes it from the economy. For all your supposed economic expertise, you ought to fuckin' well understand that. That you do not, or will not as I'm *sure* I've pointed this out to you before, is a strong piece of evidence that you do not argue in good faith on economic issues.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @12:12AM (7 children)
Because if they are investing money, fiat or otherwise, they're not removing it from circulation.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 28 2020, @01:41AM (6 children)
Offshore accounts, and phony 501(c)(3)s to evade taxes. Yes, I said "evade". That is what they are doing. And they make lots of money via loan sharking. They are cheats. It is impossible to accumulate that much without cheating.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @01:57AM (5 children)
Whatever. Once again, you flaunt your ignorance of things economic. I suppose one could read histories of people who actually got rich to see how they did it, cheating or not. But I doubt that'd make it through your reality filters.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:06AM (2 children)
Yes, sir, Mr. Banker boi!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:28AM (1 child)
Reduced to name calling in only two posts. Must be a rough day for you. Hope you get better.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:58AM
Why not? You're just repeating yourself
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @03:27AM (1 child)
What is there left to do with trolls who try and sell lies?
Here is yet another example of your intellectual dishonesty and avoidance of simple facts.
Your problem here is that you honest-to-god seem to believe that the Titans of Industry made their fortunes through simple hard work and know how. Same as it ever was, the pyramid scheme at work. The select few able to claim credit by "owning" everything and everyone that works to make visions a reality.
There is value in entrepreneurship and it should be encouraged, but there are limits that must be set by government regulation.
Greedy assholes keep trying to ruin it for everyone.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @04:47AM
Why is that allegedly so? I remain unimpressed with unsubstantiated claims. What intellectual dishonesty was shown? What simple facts were avoided?
Ok. So sounds like you think there's something to that even though you insinuate otherwise in the earlier paragraph. Fustakrakich claimed every rich person "cheats" not just some. I'm very tired of those dumbass claims he repeatedly makes.
And there are limits set by government regulation already. I'm not proposing we go wild west and drop it all.
So what? I think we've figured out how to deal with them, though I grant moreso in the private world than in the regulatory world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @01:51AM
> Hey, dipshit, the rich *remove money from circulation.*
Not unless they keep it under their mattress.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:25PM (25 children)
I applaud someone who builds up a business and can enjoy a higher standard of living because of their diligent work. I applaud others who make a fortune and then create more businesses in an effort to fix everyone's problems (Elon Musk, Tesla, Solar City, Starlink SpaceX) Especially if they do this to the point of literally risking it all, putting all of it on the line, possibly to lose it all.
Maybe if poor people weren't quite so poor, they wouldn't max out credit cards.
When Lucifer was cast out of heaven down to Earth, theologians debate whether he landed in Florida or Texas.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:52PM (22 children)
There's only so much you can do to fix behavioral problems. Taking from others doesn't even start to fix those problems.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 28 2020, @03:36PM (21 children)
There are some poor people who cannot be helped.
But there are others who can be helped. People who want to work. Would make good use of genuine opportunities.
Don't let the poorly behaved people stop you from trying to help other poor people. Don't use them as an excuse not to support policies that could help a lot of people, and wouldn't really hurt the obscenely wealthy people. There will always be people who try to game the system.
What we're really dancing around here is taxes on the wealthiest, who wouldn't even miss those tax costs (other than that they would be upset about the numbers on paper because of their greed).
Should we have taxes at all? If so, why shouldn't the wealthiest pay more than the poorest? Why should they pay less taxes than a minimum wage slave makes in a month?
When Lucifer was cast out of heaven down to Earth, theologians debate whether he landed in Florida or Texas.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @04:11PM (20 children)
And already can and do in the present environment. You're arguing that the new scheme would be better than the old. But you'll have to abandon phantom metrics like wealth inequality. That doesn't measure anything worthwhile here.
Those tax costs also take away from employing people and investments. Economies aren't zero sum, but taxes are.
They already do.
What do we really need to fix here? Most of your expressed concerns are already addressed.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 28 2020, @04:35PM (17 children)
Nothing is addressed. Just a lot of dancing around. Justifications. Rationalizations.
We have obscenely wealthy people who could never spend their wealth in one lifetime, nor could their heirs.
We have poor people who wish they had more opportunity spending all their energy to barely survive, or even unable to make it.
(and yes there are always some freeloaders)
When Lucifer was cast out of heaven down to Earth, theologians debate whether he landed in Florida or Texas.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @06:03PM (16 children)
Why is spending obscene wealth in a human lifetime supposed to be a worthy goal?
So what? They generally have enough opportunity already.
That's like saying there's always some ants or bacteria. There's a vast number of freeloaders out there. And if they can, they'll take down anyone who gets ahead. For a common example, a large portion of lottery winners end in bankruptcy because they didn't say no [soylentnews.org] often enough to their friends and family.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:22PM (15 children)
The question misses my point. If you can't spend it all, then it is quite a vast excess. That excess may be "rented out" to the poor people, in return for a gain for the wealthy.
If that were the case, then what I said "spending all their energy to barely survive" would not be the case. Opportunity would enable them to do more than just barely survive.
When Lucifer was cast out of heaven down to Earth, theologians debate whether he landed in Florida or Texas.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:02PM (14 children)
My take is that they're wealthy in large part because they don't share your viewpoint, seeing wealth only as something to be spent.
Indeed. I think that is the case for most of the people you are referring to.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday October 29 2020, @05:30PM (13 children)
I see wealth is the fact that some people have everything and much more than they need, and much more that they cannot use. While others struggle. That is the point. Everything else is to distract from that.
I don't know what you are trying to say about people who are poor. Have trouble paying their rent. Maybe work more than one job. Yet somehow have opportunity to better themselves.
When Lucifer was cast out of heaven down to Earth, theologians debate whether he landed in Florida or Texas.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 29 2020, @11:00PM (11 children)
Duh, he's saying "fuck them." Stop being polite and civil with Hallow; he's shown over and over again that he worships Mammon and is perfectly find with vast human sacrifice to his gold-plated idol. People like that are never going to change, at least not until they suffer the logical consequences of their own sociopathic beliefs.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 30 2020, @01:09PM (10 children)
I'm already suffering the logical consequences of my beliefs, and well, turns out it just wasn't bad. Better luck next time, right?
This thread exists in the first place because both DannyB and you are ignoring the self-inflicted behaviors that make people permanently poor. So we take away some rich person's wealth, sell it back to rich people for a fraction of what we originally valued it at, and then take the reminder to poor people who instantly spend it and stay poor. Meanwhile because those rich people now have less wealth (if only because a portion of that wealth is going on this Rube Goldberg ride rather than doing any good for anyone), there are less people employed and a bit more problems as a result. It's a pointless exercise.
And you're continued ranting about "never going to change" indicates to me that you don't have answers to fixing these people either. Else you would have tried fixing me.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday October 30 2020, @02:15PM (1 child)
Some people are poor because of bad and stupid choices. Others through no fault of their own. It is truly sad that you cannot see this. Clearly all poor people must be bad people.
When Lucifer was cast out of heaven down to Earth, theologians debate whether he landed in Florida or Texas.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 30 2020, @10:17PM
I grant that distinction. I even grant that the presence of bad and stupid choices doesn't imply that someone will always make those bad and stupid choices.
I don't grant that taking money from the rich to poor, just because, somehow fixes that. First, when the tools are in place for wealth transfer, the state is much better at reverse robin hood - taking from the poor and giving to the rich. It's easier since the poor don't have elaborate defenses against taxation and the kickbacks are better.
Second, the wealth taken was being used to generate more wealth and to employ lots of people: investment, wages, etc. For example, the present richest person in the world [wikipedia.org](excluding state actors like King Saud) is Jeff Bezos who has a networth valued in the recent past at $113 billion. Most of that wealth comes from Amazon which presently employs a million employees. So Bezos not only has wealth that is three orders of magnitude above the mentioned $100 million cap, but employs a million people in the process.
That's the huge fallacy with only looking at wealth as something to spend. Here, it also employs vast numbers of people and creates a huge amount of infrastructure that hundreds of millions of people use every day. Given that wealth to someone who doesn't employ people and create infrastructure, means you are likely to get less of both.
The third point is that a majority of the poor are behaviorally poor which is the problem we're discussing here. Give them money even on a permanent, continuing basis, they will burn through it, and remain just as poor as before, possibly with more serious problems than before (such as higher recreational drug consumption or higher debt).
Now, if you can combine that wealth transfer with some way to effectively improve the recipients so that they permanently stay out of the poverty trap, that would something worth considering. But I have yet to hear anything like that in this thread.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday October 30 2020, @09:30PM (7 children)
No, you are not, because your policies (thank Goddess!) have *not* been implemented at the national level. A bunch of them might be fairly soon though; you gibbertarian assholes might just be about to get exactly what you *think* you want, and part of the reason I want to get across the Canadian border is to have a stable vantage point from which to point and laugh at you.
Don't you sell hotdogs at Yellowstone or something? You can kiss that job goodbye if the current trends in removing parks protections continue. And aren't you not all that far off from retirement, maybe 10-12 years? You're proper fucked without Social Security, Medicare, and all that other socialist commie pinko gubbamint over-reach.
Personally, I hope you *do* get everything you think you want. Good and hard. With a spike on the end and covered in minced habanero peppers. Spending your twilight years under a bridge begging for food may just be the hands-on lesson you need to get wise about the way the economy works.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 30 2020, @10:37PM (6 children)
The only policies I have advocated here are for individuals to save money and to not transfer wealth from people who employ people and create valuable infrastructure to people who merely spend money.
Why would my job go away? Libertarians don't do tourism? I'm properly fucked with Social Security, Medicare, and other socialist commie pink gubbamint over-reach. For example, I'm already expecting to work deeply into my would-be retirement and not expecting much to come of those programs precisely because I think the wheels will come off of them by then, with or without my help, due to the terrible design and economic fundamentals of these programs. And that self-destruction will cause follow-on damage to basic government services like emergency services, defense, roads, etc.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday October 30 2020, @11:48PM (5 children)
All the more reason, Mr. Hallow, to support policies common to the Nordic nations.
If those were your real concerns, you would be all on board with strong, sustainable social safety nets. The fact that you're not, even when you know and acknowledge that it's your ass in the fire as well as everyone else's, tells me your motivation isn't actually fiscal responsibility any more than the average "pro-lifer's" motivation is actually stopping abortion, simpliciter.
You want people you deem unworthy to suffer, and are willing to put up with myriad and sundry stupidities, waste, and needless harm, even to yourself, to make sure that this is what happens. You're so full of shit I could use you to blow up Beirut AGAIN just by dropping you off a plane with a small C4 charge up your ass.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 31 2020, @01:16AM (4 children)
And if those were your real concerns, you'd have said something about our governments' spending more than they receive. "Sustainable" is an important word here.
You behave like you have a solution that results in less suffering. My take is that you've already gotten a large part of what you thought you wanted. And it has resulted in more rather than less suffering.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday October 31 2020, @02:27PM (3 children)
Good grief, what? I haven't gotten anything CLOSE to what I wanted over my entire lifetime aside from the marriage equality ruling. Damn near everything else--remember, I was born in 1988!--has been an accelerating plunge into a right-wing political hellscape. What the fuck was that? Was that some kind of failed attempt at a "no U!"
And don't fucking pretend to be concerned about deficit now of all times. Trump has run up a gigantic deficit, mostly with his corrupt tax breaks for the already ultra-wealthy. You don't give a shit about the deficit unless it's people you disagree with in charge, just like every other Republican asshole out there. And yes, I count Obama and Clinton (both of them!) as Republicans, I don't give a damn if they have a (D) after their names, their policies are Republican through and through,
If you want to do something about the deficit, let's do what the last Republican with a shred of honor or competence, that being Dwight Eisenhower, did with the tax brackets :) THAT is how you Make America Great Again (TM).
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 31 2020, @04:02PM (2 children)
Unintended consequences are a bitch, amirite?
As you said earlier, "Good and hard."
Since I'm concerned about the deficit now (not pretending, you fucking idiot), I guess that means Trump is someone in charge I don't agree with, huh? News flash Buttercup, I never did.
I can't help but note that there's been only one year since when the US came close to no budget deficit in the 1999-2000 fiscal year. We know how this will play out, if we allow the government to take more. They'll just spend more.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday October 31 2020, @06:00PM (1 child)
You know how some people are calling you a dogmatic, unthinking asshole? Stuff like this is why.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Saturday October 31 2020, @07:41PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 30 2020, @12:54PM
Sure, that's what you've been saying all along. Like wealth is just some sort of ballast that we should move from person to person.
Indeed. But it goes beyond that. A bunch of the poor had this opportunity to better themselves for years, sometimes many decades. And choose not to. At this point, giving them money is throwing good money after bad. Rich people on the other hand have already figured out how to turn wealth into more wealth for other people. They employ vast numbers of people and manage businesses that deliver a vast amount of value to society at large. That's where that wealth that the rich people "don't need" goes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @07:55PM (1 child)
If you compare unemployment against corporate tax rates [procon.org], it's clear that your statement is either completely uninformed or a bald-faced lie.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @09:53PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @06:08PM
> I applaud others who make a fortune and then create more businesses in an effort to fix everyone's problems (Elon Musk, ...
Mixed message in this one, Yes, PayPal made Musk a fortune. The new businesses he has started are all heavily funded by taxpayers in a number of different creative ways. The Tesla solar cell/solar roof plant near me was built by NY State, including buying much of the machinery (not one of the state's best economic development moves...)
I've tried thinking of other moguls who might be a better fit for your message, but I'm coming up blank in our current era.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 29 2020, @11:44AM
You have cause and effect backwards there.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 27 2020, @11:57PM (3 children)
I'm pretty center and I tend to stick with old fashioned terms like poverty and unemployment (for all it's flaws).
"Income inequality" sounds like some newfangled Progressive term to me!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:15AM (1 child)
> "Income inequality" sounds like some newfangled Progressive term to me!
The term betrays the intent. There's a big difference between supporting kleptocractic executives and thinking an engineer working 50 hour weeks should earn more than a janitor working 35. Like the other phrase "wealth inequality" ignores that (on average) low to middle income people inherit more of their wealth than the rich.
I and many other others already know the outcome for UBI and / or the $15 minimum wage because we pay attention. [youtube.com] Are you ready? [twitter.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @11:59AM
Initially I thought you were a right wing troll, and I nearly modded you as such, but after watching that youtube link I realize that your post just reads badly. Maybe you should consider your words a little more when posting. Anyway, have an interesting.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 30 2020, @02:55AM
It's greed with a funny hat on. There's no other source of argument to say inequality is a bad thing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @01:35AM
Why the "left" (center) insists on playing this cutesie-poo game of footsie with words I will never understand; it smacks of Republican dishonesty.
Democrats... They're not really liberal, and they are not in opposition. They just want people to believe they are, to fill the collection plate, but they aren't Simple as that...
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:27PM
I like super old fashioned terms like rich and poor.
Of extravagantly obscenely rich and cold starving homeless poor.
When Lucifer was cast out of heaven down to Earth, theologians debate whether he landed in Florida or Texas.
(Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Tuesday October 27 2020, @11:35PM (10 children)
All attempts for saving money by poor has been countered with combined inflation, taxes and wars for centuries.
Reality check for just you: How many generations would take you and your family to save a billion? Thousands of years?
The edge of 太玄 cannot be defined, for it is beyond every aspect of design
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2020, @11:46PM
Saving != Investment
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 27 2020, @11:53PM
Or by the poor becoming not poor.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 27 2020, @11:58PM (3 children)
It'd probably take a few hundred years. So maybe 8-16 generations, if we consistently saved and invested, but didn't obsess over it. But then, I'm not trying to create large new businesses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @12:02PM (2 children)
Really? Assuming you reinvested it all at 10% you would need to save a million a year to get a billion that fast.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2020, @02:17PM (1 child)
If I invested $1, that is a single dollar, now at 10% per year (post-tax), I'd have a billion dollars in 217 years! Compound interest is a powerful thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 02 2020, @10:23PM
If you invested a single dollar at 10% fees would immediately take your balance negative and in 217 years you would owe enough to pay off the national debt.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 28 2020, @05:23AM (3 children)
AC's response below is fitting - no one in the working class is going to get wealthy simply by saving.
I will add to that, the fact that working class people are actively discouraged from saving. Balanced budgets don't seem to be taught in school anymore. Those credit card offers keep coming, with all the special offers and rewards. People are expected to stretch their credit just as far as it can go. Open an account here, there, everywhere, and run everything up to the limit. Few people live with a budget, almost everyone is over extended. And, that is just where that "ruling class" wants them.
Bad enough that people once over extended to buy a nice home, today young adults are roped into the credit scheme to get a degree, so they can't even afford to get roped into the mortgage scheme. Today's adults are already trapped, and they will never even have a paid-off home to show for all their struggles.
The student's parents were fools to encourage the kids to get roped in. The students were fools to be suckered in. And, the credit companies were fools as well. Those student loans are never going to be paid off, someone is going to have to eat a lot of those notes. And, that "someone" will most likely be taxpayers. All of those Wall Street establishments holding the notes will be deemed "too big to fail" again, and the bailout will benefit everyone - except the former students.
How many people's mortgages were paid off with that last big bailout? None that I know of. Wall Street ate all that money up, and passed along none of the benefits to the people with mortgages.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2020, @12:11PM
When my parents bought their first house in the sixties, it cost about three years of my dads wage. He was an assistant at an engineering place on well below the 'average wage'. Twenty years later, they moved and their new house cost about three years of his 'tech officer' wage (about the national average). Fast forward to now, and a house costs more than ten years of the average wage, and with interest requires a thirty year mortgage. Trapped indeed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 30 2020, @01:12PM (1 child)
Why it should be? Having a mortgage wasn't the problem with the economy back then. Personally I don't think there was much that needed bailing in the first place.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 30 2020, @07:30PM
Why should the little guy's mortgage NOT be paid off? Gubbermint could have made grants to some millions of struggling homeowners to pay off their mortgages, the individual debts would have been paid satisfied, and the banks would have received the money, albeit days later.
Why should the rich bastards be bailed out, and the little bastards be left hanging?
Oh, I forgot. Some of you big business lovers believe in socialism for corporate risk but not for the people.
IMO, any time that government gets involved in a bailout, a subsidy, or any kind of socialist bullshit, the primary aim should be to help as many individuals as possible. Bailing 2 million small people out of debt will benefit Republican's beloved Megacorps.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @12:29AM (4 children)
Or, you could just knock some richie over the head, and take theirs! Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
Why does khallow always sound like a Puritan Calvinist Neo-classical Social Darwinist on matters like these? Does he not realize that property, and wealth, are social constructions designed to serve the public good? And if they cease to serve that function, they can be changed, amended, or abolished. Read your American Colonies Declaration of Independence.
(Note: khallow thinks that poor people, especially those of certain races or religions, have way too much sex! They should be saving that up!)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @01:04AM (2 children)
I chalk that up to bad perception. For starters, my objection is not religious, it's practical and common sense. There's a lot of bad stuff you can strongly mitigate by merely saving a half a year or more of your wages, fuck you money [soylentnews.org] (as the Puritan Calvinist etc etc would call it). You job gets cut? You have six months. Covid hits or house burns down? You have six months. The boss sucks? Six months.
It's a common sense solution to uncertainty about the future and an effective rebuttal to wage slavery. And if you save more, you can do more down the road when bad times hit.
So why does the above sound like some sort of weird freak show to you? Is your life so devoid of good advice that you can't recognize it when you run into it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @01:54AM (1 child)
Social Darwinism claims that the poor are poor due to bad genes, which causes them to be less intelligent, more prone to maxing out their credit cards (as khallow puts it) than investing wisely be delaying gratification, and saving their semen until they have "made it". This is why we should not have poor houses or a welfare system, or UBI, because it will only encourage these behaviors, and promulgate the bad genes that are supposed to be weeded out by Natural Selection and the Survival of the Be Bestest (or, a Final Solution, if the Market does not work). See, khallow? You are quite actually a Calvinist, and a Nazi!!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:00AM
So in other words, definitely not Social Darwinism then. Glad we sorted that out.
The "literally nazi" acknowledgement of defeat. I'll employ the obvious rebuttal. You are quite actually an idiot, BUT you don't have to stay an idiot. Your move.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:58PM
That is exactly what I am afraid will happen. At scale.
When Lucifer was cast out of heaven down to Earth, theologians debate whether he landed in Florida or Texas.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2020, @02:38AM (1 child)
Ugh!
Where's that '-48 Disingenuous Prick' mod when your need it?
(Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @03:40AM
Is there something wrong or incorrect with what I wrote? Or is this some sort of doublespeak "War is Peace" kind of thing?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday October 28 2020, @04:24AM (8 children)
Through a microscope, that is true. Through a macroscope, that is false.
"For people not in the top 10% or so, most of their wealth is in income not assets, homes or otherwise."
Income is not wealth. At best, futures on income could be convertible to wealth, in some fantasy scenario where that wouldn't wind up necessarily conflicting with the prohibition on slavery. Or where slavery were permissible, obviously.
"Second, the wealth at the top is grossly overvalued."
Probably true.
"We don't even know there has been a change in wealth inequality to be honest, because we have no idea what assets are really worth. A classic example is the current valuations of high tech companies. Is Tesla really worth twice as much as Toyota, for a glaring example? Is Apple really a two trillion dollar company? Is the US high tech industry really worth more than the stock markets of all of Europe?"
And that's the thing. The straight answer is, yes they are. Yes, we know that. What we don't know is what they will be worth *tomorrow.*
But if there's a better way to measure the current value of something than to put it up for sale to the highest bidder, we haven't yet invented it.
Obviously lots of times this malfunctions horribly. See the entire text of 'Madness of Crowds' in support.
Yet, it's still clearly superior to its predecessor.
As I keep trying to tell you, while our material technology has improved dramatically in just the past few decades, our social technology has remained virtually unimproved for tens of thousands of years.
This is our challenge as a species. If we wish to survive. We simply must find a better way of organizing ourselves, and keeping the peace between us.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2020, @01:46PM (7 children)
Convertible to wealth (easily too)? Makes income wealth right there. The classic way to convert income to immediate wealth is to borrow money. Keep in mind under the current terrible metrics of wealth, someone who owes more money than they have assets, even when they can readily pay it back, is poorer than some starving homeless person in Africa who has a shirt to their name. But when you count income, the African is appropriately poorer than the person who borrowed money.
Nope. Because you aren't putting it up for sale to the highest bidder! The highest bidder on the market is just going to buy a small sliver of the company - not the whole company!
Actually, our social technology has vastly improved over the past few centuries. Economic technology is a good example of this, but so is communication technology. The combination of the two allows for coordination of huge numbers of people. Law has grown somewhat more humane, though it has plenty of room for improvement. Constitutional democracies are a vast improvement over what came before.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday October 28 2020, @11:02PM (6 children)
That can't exist, it's like a black white or an round square. Either they have the assets, or they cannot readily pay it back. End of story.
"The classic way to convert income to immediate wealth is to borrow money."
Never a borrower or a lender be.
And this goes back to the prohibition on slavery, which I notice you tried to avoid confronting. If you're a free man, you'll have a hard time getting a loan based on your future earnings. Because there would be no way for the loan provider to collect if you decide later not to pay. When you see these sorts of loans going on, that's a clue to look deeper. If the loan provider is confident of their ability to collect, you might just be living in a slave society.
"is poorer than some starving homeless person in Africa who has a shirt to their name. "
Yes, that's exactly how it works. A starving, homeless freeman is still not as poor as a slave in a gilded cage.
"Nope. Because you aren't putting it up for sale to the highest bidder! The highest bidder on the market is just going to buy a small sliver of the company - not the whole company!"
Nope? Nah, that's a yes. That's, again, just how it works. That's a game rule.
"Actually, our social technology has vastly improved over the past few centuries."
Really?
There have been some advances, but from my point of view they are quite small. I wonder what you're talking about...
"Economic technology is a good example of this,"
New and better ways to enslave and steal from people don't impress me.
"but so is communication technology."
And that's not /social/ technology. It affects the social sphere, yes. It makes communication faster, cheaper, easier - but it's still fundamentally the same communication, just more of it, faster and cheaper.
"The combination of the two allows for coordination of huge numbers of people."
Yes, it lets us coordinate millions instead of thousands. But that's the main difference. Other than the expansion of scale, little has changed since the neolithic.
"Law has grown somewhat more humane, though it has plenty of room for improvement."
Has it really?
Sure, it's easy to think of an earlier millieu that was worse... but not all earlier times were clearly worse. It doesn't look like a steady climb to me, it looks like a lot of ups and downs and relatively little solid progress. Certainly the law as applied in the US today is vastly worse than the law as applied a few decades ago when I was learning it.
"Constitutional democracies are a vast improvement over what came before."
But will they survive?
Signs are not encouraging on that front.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:24AM
The same can be said of computation and information storage technology in the first place. Little has changed except for massive, many-orders-of-magnitude changes in our ability to compute and store information. Expansion of scale changes everything.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:43AM (4 children)
I missed this humdinger.
High income US person habitually spends to the nub on ephemeral things like ski trips and parties. On their last trip to Vegas, they bet too much and had to borrow from the House. Now, they're moderately in debt to some casino (plus their credit card bills) which they'll gradually pay back over the subsequent year, just in time for their next Vegas foray. No serious assets (future income is not an asset, remember?) and they owe some money. By the metric of wealth inequality they are poorer than the above African.
That's how it can happen. Sure they could easily slide into the "cannot readily pay it back" scenario by borrowing more and more, but it's quite easy to owe more than you own, and yet small enough that you could pay it back quickly.
Moving on
Will any government survive? No, they all die just like people. I'll note that the US's ~233-244 year stretch is really good by such standards. The US has had a good run.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday October 31 2020, @03:19PM (3 children)
You're missing your own point. They *might* be able to pay it back, but as you admit, they do not have the assets to do it immediately. They're relying on an expectation of future income - an expectation that may not come true, for any number of reasons. The credit-vampires want you to think that's just fine - because that's how they wind up with all the money.
"I'll note that the US's ~233-244 year stretch is really good by such standards."
Not really. The Republic of Venice lasted 1100 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice
San Marino has been around even longer, and still exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 31 2020, @03:43PM (2 children)
All wealth has risk associated with it. Maybe Apple has been stuffing the channel for years and there's ten billion iPhones gathering dust in a warehouse in Texas. Maybe your house burns down. Maybe the country you bought those highly reliable bonds from, decides to default. Maybe credit default swaps aren't as sure thing as advertised. It's not a particularly big risk in comparison that one might lose their job and fail to get another comparable job in a timely manner.
All wealth has expectations. And while it is uncommon, it's not rare that those expectations aren't met.
I think out of the few dozen countries in Europe, there are maybe two or three present countries that have an older constitution than the US: definitely Switzerland and Iceland. The EU, a government over comparable population, is probably on the verge of needing a new constitution already.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday October 31 2020, @05:44PM (1 child)
But you're just evading by changing the scope. The question is, can they pay it now? Not in some imaginary future time that may or may not come to be; now.
A lot of bad economics is built on the same sort of evasion.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 31 2020, @07:36PM
Of course they can. The required payments for that debt are all in the future.
Sorry that's no different than any other sort of wealth. It's all dependent on expectations not just of the present, but of the future.
So is a lot of good economics. Much of this depends on scale and the value of the activity in question. Borrowing money just to gamble on Vegas is not good economics. I never claimed it was. But you can as a result appear to be poorer than dead broke by the metrics of wealth inequality, even though it'd be a reasonable expectation that you could pay that debt off in a short while. That informs me that wealth inequality as currently measured is also bad economics.