101–110 of 258 posts
What percentage of people will lose money is also very important but does not seem to be written. What percentage?
Almost every person who plays the game will see their money decay towards zero as time goes to infinity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost every person who plays the game will see their money decay towards zero as time goes to infinity.
but, since it is somewhat like a random walk, isn't it guaranteed that if you go on for infinitely many tosses, at some point you will be very rich? [1] https://math.stackexchange.com/a/493446
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The obvious conclusion: increasing wealth concentration is an unavoidable consequence of capitalism that probably has very little to do with merit. The only solution: eat the rich. This is exactly why we need progressive asset taxes. Income tax should be almost abolished, it can be something like 10% on all types of income and then nobody needs to bother with tax evasions on that. 5-15% VAT or sales tax to generate…
Vat is irredeemably regressive. I suspect you know that. Income tax fails in its progressive goals not because it is inherently bad (like VAT) but because the tax laws are written by the richest players. (Ask a poor person how much influence they’ve had on tax law, and then ask a top 5 accountancy firm. This isn’t a controversial statement.)
I would support a low flat income tax for two reasons. It is simple, if all income is taxed at 10% you just pay that and there are no opportunities (or frankly the need) for some fancy loopholes to avoid it. The second reason is that I do like the idea that everyone pays tax, it is part of being a citizen with all the rights and responsibilites that comes with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vat is irredeemably regressive. I suspect you know that. Income tax fails in its progressive goals not because it is inherently bad (like VAT) but because the tax laws are written by the richest players. (Ask a poor person how much influence they’ve had on tax law, and then ask a top 5 accountancy firm. This isn’t a controversial statement.)
I know VAT is regressive but if it is low enough it doesn't really matter. We do need revenue streams for municipalities and local governments and VAT can be a nice part of that. I would support a low flat income tax for two reasons. It is simple, if all income is taxed at 10% you just pay that and there are no opportunities (or frankly the need) for some fancy loopholes to avoid it. The second reason is that I do li…
If “all things were equal” and there were no assumptions and we were all starting at an equal position there “may” be some merit in this position. But that’s just… nothing, absolutely nothing, like where we are. And if it seems like it’s fairly similar to where we are: your education has been very blinkered. I say that with compassion, btw. The scale of current inequality is so astronomical it’s beyond comprehension.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if — on top of that - we let the undeserving rich invest their wealth in things such as: - owning media - lobbying the government - owning the means of production It could take that dire situation and make it drastically worse. I mean, in theory.
> owning media Who should own media? Private people, or the state? > lobbying the government If lobbying the government is effective, it's either because the lobbying was correcting a wrong, or the government is allowing itself to be corrupted. > owning the means of production The "means of production" was barely relevant when Marx found out what a factory was from his factory-owning mate. A plumber owns "the means o…
I mean of course — who should own media.. we have precisely two choices, and no possibility to imagine anything else! What you’ve put forward is known as a false dichotomy. That is a situation where you present two options as if they are the only options.
Oh wow — in your response Re government you have literally stated a dichotomy. Alright. I feel bad now. I have to let you know that there are more than two options (your preferred and a horrible alternative) in just about every situation in life. Please my friend - go out into the world and seek out the alternatives - they are infinite. This false dichotomy business is harmful to everyone around you.
I agree that we should move beyond Marxist thought .. but I think we should be post Marxist not pre.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if — on top of that - we let the undeserving rich invest their wealth in things such as: - owning media - lobbying the government - owning the means of production It could take that dire situation and make it drastically worse. I mean, in theory.
> owning media Who should own media? Private people, or the state? > lobbying the government If lobbying the government is effective, it's either because the lobbying was correcting a wrong, or the government is allowing itself to be corrupted. > owning the means of production The "means of production" was barely relevant when Marx found out what a factory was from his factory-owning mate. A plumber owns "the means o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> owning media Who should own media? Private people, or the state? > lobbying the government If lobbying the government is effective, it's either because the lobbying was correcting a wrong, or the government is allowing itself to be corrupted. > owning the means of production The "means of production" was barely relevant when Marx found out what a factory was from his factory-owning mate. A plumber owns "the means o…
Marx was specifically talking about industrial production and made that pretty clear in his work. “It’s far too low resolution a phrase” when purposefully taken out of context. If “the means of production” applies to the factory owner and the plumber equally, I’d counter its not at all a useful phrase for “teaching people to hate another group of people” because those aren’t at all the same type of people.
Both plumbers and factory owners do indeed have opportunities to exploit people. But my plumber friend can only exploit one customer at a time, where as a factory owner multiplies that ability. Multiplication is a powerful operator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Marx was specifically talking about industrial production and made that pretty clear in his work. “It’s far too low resolution a phrase” when purposefully taken out of context. If “the means of production” applies to the factory owner and the plumber equally, I’d counter its not at all a useful phrase for “teaching people to hate another group of people” because those aren’t at all the same type of people.
Agreed. I have friends that are plumbers and friends that own factories. Both plumbers and factory owners do indeed have opportunities to exploit people. But my plumber friend can only exploit one customer at a time, where as a factory owner multiplies that ability. Multiplication is a powerful operator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People do say that. Usually the critique of (perfect) capitalism is that it (structurally and mathematically) skews towards increasing wealth for winners at the expense of the rest of the population and that this is inevitable. Then the response of advocates against this situation is to either commit to more structures to prevent that outcome towards diluted (non-perfect) capitalism or other social forms (socialism,…
I'd rather take my chances with the coin flips than with the politburo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> owning media Who should own media? Private people, or the state? > lobbying the government If lobbying the government is effective, it's either because the lobbying was correcting a wrong, or the government is allowing itself to be corrupted. > owning the means of production The "means of production" was barely relevant when Marx found out what a factory was from his factory-owning mate. A plumber owns "the means o…
> Who should own media? Private people, or the state? I mean of course — who should own media.. we have precisely two choices, and no possibility to imagine anything else! What you’ve put forward is known as a false dichotomy. That is a situation where you present two options as if they are the only options. Oh wow — in your response Re government you have literally stated a dichotomy. Alright. I feel bad now. I have…