561–570 of 694 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you can hit probably 98% of wealth by just taxing the calculated value of owned land and buildings (which is already being appraised for property taxes in most states) Henry George proposed this in the 1800's [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
And David Ricardo prior to him (George credits Ricardo lavishly, though I seldom see this mentioned).
I think one of the most important issues raised by this article is toward the end: > Ms. Ramos, the Apple janitor, lives down the road in San Jose. She pays $2,300 monthly for a two-bedroom apartment where she and her four children live. Before overtime and taxes, her $16.60 an hour works out to $34,520 a year. Her rent alone is $27,600 a year, leaving less than $600 a month once the rent is paid. $2300 a month for a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you change it short of overthrowing capitalism? Capitalism, almost by definition, "allows the rich to increase their wealth without actually working" (although of course less wealthy people can do the same). Parent poster proposed a way to help workers by changing the incentives in the system to reinvest more into productivity/research, without throwing out the system that has made our society propsperous.
Taxing capital itself, rent-generating assets, and inheritance. Providing for a living working wage. Providing for labour unionisation or equivalent functions. Curtailing the capability of the wealthy to seek self-serving concessions from legislatures. Supporting a vibrant programme of public schools and works. Pretty much Adam Smith's prescription in 1776.
Also by classical economics, you cant afford to give less than living wage because then you would kill the people that work for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not surprising that those who have bought into Rand and her ego stroking 'superman' ideology are sociopaths. These highly individualist supermen don't need society or anyone else for their success. They stand alone. Celebrating themselves while seeing others suffer and blaming them for their suffering is simply the natural order of things. Empathy is completely absent in this impoverished binary world view of su…
Also, the Randian superman does not exist and is a juvenile fantasy.
I am not a follower or a fan of Ayn Rand but I really don't see any other category within which to place:
Steve Jobs, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Elon Musk ... perhaps even Donald Trump ? George Lucas ?
They seem to fit the archetype ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think everybody finds growth and meaning in their job? Many people find it in their family, in sport, in clubs, and work is just a wage.
And yet, the Janitor in this piece can't afford to take a holiday, so is it a stretch to assume she doesn't have much free time either?!?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Life isn't all about getting promoted. Loads of people get far more satisfaction from knowing they're carrying out an important duty than they do from knowing they got promoted from Javascript Ninja to Javascript Assassin.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying getting promoted. I'm saying getting better at being a janitor , or rotating between different properties, or learning to do a little light maintenance, or operate a lift or clean windows, or anything to break up the 100% identical routine. If you're a contracted employee, there's zero investment in you as an employee. You come in, do the task, and leave.
In the Bay Area schools my kids attend, they are working hard to emphasize this growth mindset. I think it's huge component in job mobility, whether it be upward or sideways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, but I have an idea of what they're getting at. Another word for savings is "deferred consumption". If I earned 1000 dollars this month, and spent 700, I have 300 in savings, or, put another way, I deferred consuming 300 of those dollars. Now, 300 in a checking account doesn't do anyone any good but me, but if I took half of that money and invested it w/the bank at a 7%/year interest rate, I'd be investing $15…
That said, the banks + federal oversight encourage money to be created out of thin air, which makes it easy to spend money, and makes it impossible to incentivize deferred consumption. So, everyone spends money, no limits on it, and we all get to ride the waves between economic booms and economic crashes. Honest question -- how does the Austrian school reconcile the slow growth of the US economy during and immediatel…
I'm not an Austrian economist but I don't know why it's so far fetched that Apple is simply saving the money for the inevitable fire sale ...
Why buy Disney today when you can buy Disney and Ford tomorrow ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like it could be great, terrible, or somewhere in between in the future you describe. I'm a socialist by upbringing, hopefully we would be smart enough to organize our society such that we take care of those most vulnerable among us. Currently we make a modicum of effort towards this, and vilify the working poor as lazy, no good scum, despite how they often work much more than those who earn more than them.
Honestly, I look beyond socialism/capitalism/consumerism to something more like the Venus Project or Resource based economy as something we should attain to, though it's a bit utopian to think we'll ever get their in the current political climate...maybe someday... I voted for Bernie personally -- not a full out socialist... but I do think single payer + ubi + free college makes sense -- take the stress out of living…
I'm currently very impressed by the work of Prof. Richard Wolff, an economist that heavily criticizes Capitalism and tries to make actual practical changes in the lives of people starting from their workplaces.
Here is a talk he made in front of Google employees (the irony): https://youtu.be/ynbgMKclWWc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parking money in index/hedge funds is not "investing it back in the economy". Bank lending is driven by demand, not deposits.
> Parking money in index/hedge funds is not "investing it back in the economy". Of course it is. What do you think those funds invest in? Piles of cash? > Bank lending is driven by demand, not deposits. If that were true, banks wouldn't need deposits and certainly wouldn't offer free checking. They're not charities.
> If that were true, banks wouldn't need deposits
That doesn't follow from what I said. Banks are required by law to back their loans up with reserves. So when they don't have enough reserves, they borrow on the interbank lending market or from the central bank.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...