The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[imanihonjin]

Breaking up assets when the parts are more valuable than the whole. Liquidation.

Investment in the achievement of other efficiencies.

Shifting labor to cheaper markets.

Investment in government securities. Investment in currencies and in commodities.

Those are just a few. However, my comments involved labor and capital.

If the parts of something are more valuable than the whole, then it is inefficient and the economy as a whole is worse off for having the whole stay a whole. Once the parts are distributed to a higher efficient use, the net effect should be a positive one.

Investment int he achievement of other efficiencies? What does that mean....I think you just described profits in general, but whatever. This isn't a bad thing and I would hope that everyone does this every day of their life. This is the greatest thing that can happen to not only the US economy but the global economy.

Shifting labor to cheaper markets? So I take it that you are only worried about the US economy rather than the global economy? Shifting labor to cheaper markets is also a net win, economically speaking. Ever hear the term comparative advantage?

Investment in government securities? Haha, knock it off, nobody gets rich doing this and to the extent they do invest in government securities what are these government securities for? Infrastructure? Seems like that is good for everyone.

[Topper]

If the parts of something are more valuable than the whole, then it is inefficient and the economy as a whole is worse off for having the whole stay a whole. Once the parts are distributed to a higher efficient use, the net effect should be a positive one.

Investment int he achievement of other efficiencies? What does that mean....I think you just described profits in general, but whatever. This isn't a bad thing and I would hope that everyone does this every day of their life. This is the greatest thing that can happen to not only the US economy but the global economy.

Shifting labor to cheaper markets? So I take it that you are only worried about the US economy rather than the global economy? Shifting labor to cheaper markets is also a net win, economically speaking. Ever hear the term comparative advantage?

Investment in government securities? Haha, knock it off, nobody gets rich doing this and to the extent they do invest in government securities what are these government securities for? Infrastructure? Seems like that is good for everyone.

You are still not responding the chief problem, the lack of improvement in wages for the vast majority of persons within the economy.

I opine that it is tied to the lack of capital available for small business and because the capital is captive within the upper echelons of the economic sectors. I am not a forensic economist sot I don't know how to prove this speculation. Rather than merely regurgitate the responses generated in the past, what market responses do you suggest to address the stagnation of wages do you suggest?

Classical economic theory would suggest the responses you provide, but there is more going on and the wages are stagnating. That is the bottom line.

Some answers are that the workforce are not acquiring the skills and education necessary to keep up with the job market, but that seems very incomplete. Because I don't perform research as an economist, I am at a loss to explain the failure currently within the economy. Wages should be increasing but don't appear to be.

I'll provide some rank speculation. One problem with big industry participants is that they can trend toward monopolies squeezing out smaller competitors. The larger competitors have better access to capital investment and can use that to squeeze out the smaller competitors which ultimately results in monopolistic control that damages the consumers. Those profits can create a circle of inefficiency.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I said that far to many people want to make policy determinations based on jealousy. When I hear people wanting to make tax policy based only on the notion that somebody has far more than other people without further analysis, I fear that people stop there.

The problem with a progressive tax system is that it is completely arbitrary. How much is enough, what is someone's "fair share"? It is always easy to think someone else should pay more as long as I don't have to, but it is immoral to take from someone to redistribute to others simply because you think they have too much and another too little. Stealing is stealing, even if a society does it via the government.

But is it stealing? Most thieves don't provide their victims with roads, a strong military, education, national parks, etc. (I'll leave out hundreds of other services, many of which I'll concede are worthless or poorly run). It's not theft; it's the price of living in a republic.

And sure, envy may play a role in policy determination, but self-interest, not altruism, is the driving force here. I don't think the wealthiest are any more, or less, noble than the underclass. One hopes that through the clash of disparate interests, policy will emerge that results in a rising tide that lifts all boats, whether they be yachts or dinghies. I don't think we've seen that in recent years, suggesting the clash has become a bit one-sided.

P.S. I'm enjoying what appears to be my leftward drift, but I'll vote my pocketbook come 2016.

[Topper]

But is it stealing? Most thieves don't provide their victims with roads, a strong military, education, national parks, etc. (I'll leave out hundreds of other services, many of which I'll concede are worthless or poorly run). It's not theft; it's the price of living in a republic.

And sure, envy may play a role in policy determination, but self-interest, not altruism, is the driving force here. I don't think the wealthiest are any more, or less, noble than the underclass. One hopes that through the clash of disparate interests, policy will emerge that results in a rising tide that lifts all boats, whether they be yachts or dinghies. I don't think we've seen that in recent years, suggesting the clash has become a bit one-sided.

P.S. I'm enjoying what appears to be my leftward drift, but I'll vote my pocketbook come 2016.

Isn't this the basis for why most voters cast their votes? Although I will vote my pocketbook, I believe that the economic policies I support actually benefit the majority of the populace.

[ERCougar]

Why is a progressive tax system is fair? The wealthier you are, the more you benefit from the infrastructure that costs money to support--not only from the economic structures that disproportionately support your income, but also from the enforced property rights that protect you from the hordes of strong but poor who would otherwise kill you and take the spoils.

But beyond that, it's the decent thing to do. If we really believe the Golden rule to be a guiding ethical principle, it naturally follows that equality, at least of opportunity, should be a very high aim of society, and certainly higher than a simple blind maximization of GDP. Does a progressive tax system put the brakes on our national production? Probably (although this isn't absolutely true). But I hope our national ideal can't be summed up in a number.

[imanihonjin]

But is it stealing? Most thieves don't provide their victims with roads, a strong military, education, national parks, etc. (I'll leave out hundreds of other services, many of which I'll concede are worthless or poorly run). It's not theft; it's the price of living in a republic.

And sure, envy may play a role in policy determination, but self-interest, not altruism, is the driving force here. I don't think the wealthiest are any more, or less, noble than the underclass. One hopes that through the clash of disparate interests, policy will emerge that results in a rising tide that lifts all boats, whether they be yachts or dinghies. I don't think we've seen that in recent years, suggesting the clash has become a bit one-sided.

P.S. I'm enjoying what appears to be my leftward drift, but I'll vote my pocketbook come 2016.

No, you are right, that at least isn't stealing to the point where the government is forcing you to pay for the resources you use, but we both know that for many, we pay far more in that we ever get out. That is stealing.

I also agree with you that it is self interest of all parties that is the driving force. I think that everyone should have skin in the game. Even if it is a small fraction for those who are on the bottom of the scale. I think it would be good to also have an amendment to the constitution setting forth those rates and that any time Congress wanted to adjust the tax rates it had to do so on a proportionate basis across all tax brackets. A 10% incremental increase across the board would still be larger for those on top but at least it would keep everyone else in check too if they were impacted by the change.

[imanihonjin]

Why is a progressive tax system is fair? The wealthier you are, the more you benefit from the infrastructure that costs money to support--not only from the economic structures that disproportionately support your income, but also from the enforced property rights that protect you from the hordes of strong but poor who would otherwise kill you and take the spoils.

But beyond that, it's the decent thing to do. If we really believe the Golden rule to be a guiding ethical principle, it naturally follows that equality, at least of opportunity, should be a very high aim of society, and certainly higher than a simple blind maximization of GDP. Does a progressive tax system put the brakes on our national production? Probably (although this isn't absolutely true). But I hope our national ideal can't be summed up in a number.

Even if your second paragraph were the national ideal, why would we want the government to be the sole arbiter of this ideal? It is horrible at nearly everything it touches.

[Eddie]

Why not? Someone has to build them and someone has produce the materials to build them and someone has to provide sustenance to those who produce these things and on and on it goes. The best thing for the economy that wealthy people can do with their money is spend it.

While it is true that the best thing the wealthy can do is spend their money - there is no guarantee that their spending that money will result in an improved economic situation for the working class poor.

The wealthy can go eat at a restaurant every night - stimulating the economy for the food producers and the servers, and everyone in between. But if the guy picking the broccoli that ultimately ends up on his plate isn't paid enough to do more than minimally sustain life - is it really stimulating the economy?

In a capitalistic economy, there will always be winners and losers. There will always be those who are very smart, hard working, creative, etc., who are able to rise up and live the american dream. But there will also always be those with a limited capacity to produce - whether we are talking physically, intellectually, etc. So what is the minimum threshold for them? I'm not saying everyone can or should be wealthy - but in terms of what PAC is describing, shouldn't their quality of life be improving proportionally to the top 10%?

Why do you assume it is motivated by jealousy? The majority of people, both wealthy and poor, support the concept of a progressive tax system.

Nobody earns money in a vacuum or in a completely independent fashion. Our entire economy is undergirded by roads, military protection, police, enforcement of banking laws, copyright laws, etc. Every dollar you earn is brought to you with via this infrastructure and system. It is perfectly reasonable to try to find a taxation balance that fosters wealth and economic growth while balancing the public needs, including assisting the less fortunate.

I think, for me, these services being provided are one area that is often overlooked. Sure, people who decide to be elementary school teachers or go into law enforcement have made a decision from the beginning that they are not going to be wealthy. But they also shouldn't continue to see that gap widen as they provide public service.

[old_gregg]

the last few pages of this thread make me miss ipu's posts about the second amendment.

[ERCougar]

Even if your second paragraph were the national ideal, why would we want the government to be the sole arbiter of this ideal? It is horrible at nearly everything it touches.

Well, I never said sole arbiter, and since this is a presidential election thread, I assumed we were going to focus on the government.

[ERCougar]

No, you are right, that at least isn't stealing to the point where the government is forcing you to pay for the resources you use, but we both know that for many, we pay far more in that we ever get out.

This is only true in a very basic narrow nominal sense, and even in that, true for far fewer people than most think it is.

[imanihonjin]

This is only true in a very basic narrow nominal sense, and even in that, true for far fewer people than most think it is.

If you are right, then you prove the point that the wealthy are taxed more than their "fair share".

[imanihonjin]

While it is true that the best thing the wealthy can do is spend their money - there is no guarantee that their spending that money will result in an improved economic situation for the working class poor.

The wealthy can go eat at a restaurant every night - stimulating the economy for the food producers and the servers, and everyone in between. But if the guy picking the broccoli that ultimately ends up on his plate isn't paid enough to do more than minimally sustain life - is it really stimulating the economy?

In a capitalistic economy, there will always be winners and losers. There will always be those who are very smart, hard working, creative, etc., who are able to rise up and live the american dream. But there will also always be those with a limited capacity to produce - whether we are talking physically, intellectually, etc. So what is the minimum threshold for them? I'm not saying everyone can or should be wealthy - but in terms of what PAC is describing, shouldn't their quality of life be improving proportionally to the top 10%?



I think, for me, these services being provided are one area that is often overlooked. Sure, people who decide to be elementary school teachers or go into law enforcement have made a decision from the beginning that they are not going to be wealthy. But they also shouldn't continue to see that gap widen as they provide public service.

Topper made some weird claim that the wealthy were harming the economy because they sit on their money and that their money doesn't circulate in the economy. My point was addressing his faulty point about the circulation of funds. The wealthy do not literally sit on their piles of cash, the put the cash to work for themselves.

You don't think the quality of life for everyone is better than it was 100, 50, or even 10 years ago? Even poor people have fat bellies, smart phones, and cable T.V.

[ERCougar]

If you are right, then you prove the point that the wealthy are taxed more than their "fair share".

I don't think I made that point.

I'll go with what I think you meant. But I need you to give me a definition of fair share. I and others have already pointed out why a progressive tax system is fair. I'll wait for you to respond to those reasons.

And there's still the social justice reason, to which your response to this point has been, "the government sucks at everything".

[imanihonjin]

I don't think I made that point.

I'll go with what I think you meant. But I need you to give me a definition of fair share. I and others have already pointed out why a progressive tax system is fair. I'll wait for you to respond to those reasons.

And there's still the social justice reason, to which your response to this point has been, "the government sucks at everything".

You claimed that the progressive tax system was fair because if you earn more money you are likely to consume more government/societal resources to keep/protect/produce/etc....those resources. I don't disagree with you about the consumption (however, I am not sure what that has to do with progressive tax rates as a flat tax would still require the wealthy to pay more in absolute dollars, but that is not the point I am arguing). You then go on to state that far fewer than most people think actually pay more to the government than they receive back. The only logical conclusion could result from your two statements is that the group constituting far fewer than most would think would have to make up the shortfall for all others outside of that group.

The government does suck at everything. I also don't think social justice is best served by means of taxation.