What's the problem with the income inequality? Isn't it normal that people who do different things and have different skills to win different amounts of money?
20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’
101–110 of 444 posts
Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’
#102[deleted]
Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’
#103Ahh, the good old trickle-down, aka "piss in my eyes and tell me it's raining" (which is the only way trickle-down actually works). It was pure mythology from the start; there's never been any basis for it to begin with. It's a pity we even have to debunk it like that. Go figure, give a million hungry people $20 each, and see $20M return to the economy the next day as they spend it on food. Give a billionaire $20M, s…
What's a financial instrument ? Usually a debt (a stock, a bond) which makes others live. Even to buy a house you need to give money to someone else who uses it for their own retirement or whatbot. If the millionaire receives gold and bury it in his garden, sure, but if he puts it in a bank or an instrument, chances are you're paid by it. And sure, giving money to non value added non productive endeavour like you pro…
Citation needed for "make others live". You're just saying "trickle down akShUaLLy works", you do realize that, right?
The effect of investing in financial instruments is effectively the same as burying gold (as the study shows). My citation is TFA.
Bonus: tell me again who gets to "live" from someone shorting Tesla stock on the dip.
Side note: your houses argument is cute. In this case, we should just buy that house and cut the middle (billionaire) man out.
The only thing the billionaire can do with the house is either rent (taking money out of the economy) or sell (and we're back where we started, minus whatever profit they made).
So clearly, a better move is to pay someone to give up their house (retirement money), and let someone else live there rent-free.
While we're at that, instead of having the rich person buy stock (and pay for seller's retirement), we should buy that stock ourselves, since it's the same effect.
Congratulations! We now have socialized housing and nationalized corporations. Welcome to the Socialist States of America!
TL;DR: if trickle-down works, The Man should own everything. Strangely, Reagan wasn't a fan. Huh.
Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’
#104I guess I’m not surprised that a bunch of folks who have made a career out of advising politicians on income inequality….discovered income inequality in their study. The two questions in my mind are: 1. Should we trust the government to spend the money more wisely than the folks who earned it? Or said another way, how do you combat the almost inevitable corruption you see with large government spending? 2. What will…
> Should we trust the government to spend the money more wisely than the folks who earned it?
When the aristocracy watched as the new-born communist Russia brutally executed its royal family, in their hearts they knew their narrative of birthright and nobility would no longer be accepted. They needed a new reasoning to justify their positions of power, to convince the peasantry that their lords were just and inevitable. Thus was the narrative of 'meritocracy' born in a world where there is obviously no possibility of such a thing.
Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any tax cuts are trickle down? So the Democrat's push to reinstate the SALT tax credit (cut) are trickle down also? Are tax cuts in any bracket trickle down? When the GOP raises taxes - do they implode?
> Any tax cuts are trickle down? Of course not, but when tax cuts for the top are billed to be wealth generating mechanisms for the middle and lower classes, that is literally the definition of "trickle-down economics".
I hope you understand that the SALT deduction that Dems want that he is referring to is a tax cut for the wealthy only. It exclusively applies to people wealthy enough to break the cap.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/02/us/politics/salt-cap-tax-...
Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’
#106I guess I’m not surprised that a bunch of folks who have made a career out of advising politicians on income inequality….discovered income inequality in their study. The two questions in my mind are: 1. Should we trust the government to spend the money more wisely than the folks who earned it? Or said another way, how do you combat the almost inevitable corruption you see with large government spending? 2. What will…
> What will incentivize people to work at insane rates if the vast majority of their income and wealth is taxed? Would I be willing to put in the long hours and sacrifices usually required to work up to a $1m+ salary if it’s taxed at a 90% rate? There are at least three kinds of people working insane rates. First, there are people working insane rates because they need the money for essentials. They are in low hourly…
It is not clear, why the second group is supposed to be "hungry"
In my experience all of the highly payed specialists are exactly those who have the passion for what they are doing.
IMO, it is often easier to monetize your passions as you often end up being able to do things that others can't.
Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I want to agree with you, you’re comment is just hyperbole/rhetoric and no substance.
> you’re comment is just hyperbole/rhetoric and no substance. So what is unsubstantiated in your view? The fact that super rich use offshore accounts? That super rich make more money with moving assets than they could make with labor? That poor people will likely spend given money quickly?
Should I quote the parts in question? They seem obvious to me, as it’s every sentence.
Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’
#108I think one point missing in these discussions is access to markets and wealth creation. As a “thousandaire” I’m not too concerned about what percentage of whatever anyone else has, as long as I have the ability to provide for my family and better my situation. My personal experience is that I have had incredible access: came from lower middle class, taught myself to code, make decent income, invest with low fees. I definitely had help and “privileges” along the way. But in general that experience makes me look for solutions to these issues that parallel my experience: education, business incubation, and investment.
Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if I worked as a doctor for 20 years, invested most of my income in that 20 years in to dividend paying stocks, then at age 45 or so retire to live off my dividends that my hard work paid of, I did not earn any of that?
I mean, no? In this specific example, the doctor is buying instruments which derive their interest from exploiting the labor and capital of those in the offering company, and after 20 years, the doctor is just living off others work because he 'earned it'. Plus, of course, in this perfect market scenario, no crashes or corrections can ever occur.
[deleted]
Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’
#110In college, I studied Ronald Coase's famous 1920s papers. The major application ATT was infrastructure stuff. Coase's argument was that "given 0 transaction costs," it doesn't matter who owns what property or right. The market will achieve efficient solutions as firms sell each other radio spectrum or whatnot. Policy should focus on minimizing transaction costs and let the market organize itself. Circa 2005, I heard…
Good comment. Regarding this whole “zero transaction costs” issue, I can’t recommend weyl and posner’s “radical markets” enough.
I’m right wing/classical liberal / leanbertarian or whatever you want to call a pro-market stance, but that book opened my eyes about the conflict between market mechanisms and the absolutist way our capitalist economy understands property. Once you see that absolute property rights are not pre-requisite to market dynamics, you can’t unsee it anymore.