41–50 of 121 posts
Given that the tax structure massively prefers capital gains to other forms of income, it is unreliable to look at the reported tax percentages as a measure of where the money is actually coming from. For example, many of the uber-rich structure payments for their labor such that they are taxed as capital gains.
The huge amount that comes from capital gains got me thinking... why is the return on capital, versus say the return on labor, so high? Our society is awash with capital. We apparently have more of it than we know what to do with (see, e.g., the real estate bubble, the tech bubble). If the capital markets were efficient, shouldn't supply and demand equilibrate things to drive down the price of capital? I think the st…
"to drive down the price of capital?" But that's exactly what we do see. Interest rates are absurdly low. Interest rates are the price of capital. The fact that you can select a sample of outliers who won big on risky investments doesn't change the overall statistical situation. Most capital is still getting low returns.
You: "Interest rates are absurdly low."
Interest rates are low because of government policy.
The huge amount that comes from capital gains got me thinking... why is the return on capital, versus say the return on labor, so high? Our society is awash with capital. We apparently have more of it than we know what to do with (see, e.g., the real estate bubble, the tech bubble). If the capital markets were efficient, shouldn't supply and demand equilibrate things to drive down the price of capital? I think the st…
Yes, that was called the Global Financial Crisis. Then the capital-owners (dare I call them the capitalist class?) bought control over major governments and propped themselves up using public bail-out money, shifting their red ink into the public ledger.
And now we have a "public debt crisis". Who knows where that came from?
The Rockefeller quote is interesting "If your only goal is to become rich, you'll never achieve it." But I've always felt Citizen Kane's was more accurate: "It's easy to make a lot of money, if that's all you want to do is make a lot of money."
A lot of money can be $1 million in a lot of countries, $10 million in most countries, $100 million in all countries, $1 billion in silicon valley.
Your first million is the hardest they sometimes say but if you have that, you SHOULD not ever have to work ever again if you are smart. That smart part messes most of those cases up.
If you have $10 million you are done unless you are a complete idiot. Again, this idiot part messes most of those cases up.
So currently most blahblah about getting rich is focused on $100 million or above. I read with much amusement how people in Monaco who have 'only $10 million' feel poor and unhappy. What a sad moron you are. Even in Monaco you can easily live a super nice life, the rest of your life, with $10 million, but apparently people IN Monaco are so insane they consider this poor.
Anyway; I believe Citizen Kane was right if he means 'a lot of money' in the sense of being rich/never having to work again in your life. If he means $100 million or over, he is wrong IMHO. Nor did I ever met anyone who had as only goal to make money while I know a lot of rich people (who are rich in the sense they never have to work); even 2 with the magical 'over $100 million and they didn't even ever think about money much, they did what they did best and it shot to the top. That's the best way IMHO, but then again, I don't live in SV.
The huge amount that comes from capital gains got me thinking... why is the return on capital, versus say the return on labor, so high? Our society is awash with capital. We apparently have more of it than we know what to do with (see, e.g., the real estate bubble, the tech bubble). If the capital markets were efficient, shouldn't supply and demand equilibrate things to drive down the price of capital? I think the st…
I've come to the conclusion that there are two essential commodities in any society. One is Property-- land, financial capital, social connections, reputation. The other is Energy-- talent, ambition, willingness to work hard, vision. Most social and class tensions are centered on the exchange rate between these two, which has historically favored Property except in times of crisis. The reason societies have typically…
Cicero argues that being pro-property (and anti-theft) is simply necessary for people to live together in cities. People can't live together in cities if the means they use to make a living can be taken by their neighbors and they have no recourse. That's a pretty good point, and it means that non-urban societies might have other arrangements but cities require property rights. So no, I don't think it's religious superstition.
Secondly I think that there are several essential commodities. These are land (where to have your office, or for production of food, etc), capital, tools, and labor. The first three we can group together as "means of production."
The fundamental question that has been so much in dispute since the days of Karl Marx is how we want to address means of production. Capitalism has the means of production owned by the wealthy, who then hire labor. Laborers, deprived of their means of production, are dependent on jobs which, if they are lucky, the capitalists will give them, The concentration of the means of production in the hands of the wealthy capitalists disempowers workers.
Communism attempts to solve this problem by taking the means of production from the capitalists and placing them in the hands of the state which, in theory, represents the workers. In practice, however, this creates a more powerful state, and the workers are even more disempowered. In essence you can't solve the problem of big businesses having too much control over the economy by centralizing that control further in the state.
Distributism (think of this in terms of distributed computing) seems instead to distribute access to the means of production to the individual laborers. Worker owned and operated cooperatives, such as Mondragon, are economically distributist systems. Bossless corporations (WL Gore, Valve, GitHub) are distributist workplaces. Open Source is a distributist way of going about developing software. In this model the worker has a chance to own all the means of production needed to start a business sufficient to feed his or her family. If the worker chooses to work for someone else, that a viable choice, but it is more a choice than it is in liberal capitalism.
I mention this because despite the best efforts of lawmakers to regulate businesses into centralized control, I think our nation is moving more towards this latter solution. It may not be exactly what Belloc or Chesterton had in mind but it will be what serves us today.
So from a distributist perspective, social justice is an emergent property of the system in which we live (and to live is to work). We shouldn't need anti-discrimination law, for example, and to the extent we do, it's either to get a fresh start (as regards the problems that existed before the civil rights movement), or as a bandaid to keep a system from looking more broken than it is (regarding gender discrimination).
In the latter case, structural changes to our economy (a shift towards more bossless workplaces, flexible commitments, and ownership by the employees over the workplace) would go a long ways towards rendering these laws unnecessary. Aren't such structural fixes better especially if they add to our freedom rather than detract from it (as regulations do)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've come to the conclusion that there are two essential commodities in any society. One is Property-- land, financial capital, social connections, reputation. The other is Energy-- talent, ambition, willingness to work hard, vision. Most social and class tensions are centered on the exchange rate between these two, which has historically favored Property except in times of crisis. The reason societies have typically…
Your analysis prompts a bunch of knee-jerk reactions from me which I'm going to attempt to squelch. :) First, property as a result of superstition? Really? This is the first I've ever heard of this. In fact, most primitive societies have no concept of property -- this is why they are primitive. "Culture Cult" does a great job expanding on this argument. Second, a dichotomy between energy and property? Really? So you…
There needs to be a way of storing Energy, as you said, but it needs to be limited and kept reasonable. Infinite transferability of property rights is a demonstrated disaster.
For example, private land ownership (at scale, in non-agrarian settings) is pretty much illegitimate. I'm not saying that it's illegitimate for a person to own a small house in the woods on an acre of land. That's fine. I'm talking about what happens at scale. Private land ownership was necessary at one time because it gave people an incentive to use the land properly, but the senseless wealth transfer we see in, e.g., Manhattan is just perverse. People like me (hard-working, ambitious, energetic, talented) are the fucking reason people want to live (or work, or employ people) here... we fucking make cities... and yet, instead of thanks for making this place great, we get the obligation to pay immense sums of money in rent.
I would actually support a government solution to the urban land problem. Since the total price is going to be high anyway (because of the high demand for housing) I'd rather see it go into taxes that make the place better-- better schools, more and nicer parks-- than into the already bloated coffers of multimillionaire real estate owners.
The religion aspect: private land ownership pretty much emerged out of ancestor veneration. Land "ownership" started at the ability to defend land, which was usually the job of the chieftain or king or alpha male. However, being people, they died. If their descendants weren't strong or persuasive or wily enough to defend the land claim through ordinary means, they started using supernatural claims, based on the idea that the ancestor still existed and could enforce those claims supernaturally. (Over generations, these ancestors became gods.) This was almost certainly not the only religious impulse, and it's far from true that all religion was borne of this desire, but it's a strong and consistent strain of the impulse to corrupt religion toward political aims.
The huge amount that comes from capital gains got me thinking... why is the return on capital, versus say the return on labor, so high? Our society is awash with capital. We apparently have more of it than we know what to do with (see, e.g., the real estate bubble, the tech bubble). If the capital markets were efficient, shouldn't supply and demand equilibrate things to drive down the price of capital? I think the st…
I've come to the conclusion that there are two essential commodities in any society. One is Property-- land, financial capital, social connections, reputation. The other is Energy-- talent, ambition, willingness to work hard, vision. Most social and class tensions are centered on the exchange rate between these two, which has historically favored Property except in times of crisis. The reason societies have typically…
The fundamental dichotomy is: Property is by nature excludable, Energy by nature must be applied to something (usually either Property or the Commons) to do any work.
Markets run on excludability. If you can't fence something off and appropriate it as your own, you can't trade it, because someone else can just take it from you.
Here's a theorem: the more excludable something is, the more accurately markets value it. This is why Commons Goods and Public Goods are dramatically undervalued in a market system: they're non-excludable. Anyone can breathe the air or attend public schools, but someone has to keep the air clean and provide public schools.
Beyond this, I recommend reading Henry George's Progress and Poverty, as well as Das Kapital by Karl Marx.
But what it comes to is that in the great struggle between Capital and Labor, or Property and Energy, capital is by nature very excludable, while Labor (lacking organization into a guild or union) is not very excludable (workers cannot stop the capitalist from working for himself, even if only temporarily). Capital will thus be valued more on free markets than Labor, in general.
This actually maps exactly onto left-right politics, outside the United States. In most of the world, the Right represents Property/Capital and the Left represents Labor/Energy, and socioeconomic politics consists of trying to form a workable arrangement between the two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"to drive down the price of capital?" But that's exactly what we do see. Interest rates are absurdly low. Interest rates are the price of capital. The fact that you can select a sample of outliers who won big on risky investments doesn't change the overall statistical situation. Most capital is still getting low returns.
Parent: "shouldn't supply and demand equilibrate things to drive down the price of capital?" You: "Interest rates are absurdly low." Interest rates are low because of government policy.
The huge amount that comes from capital gains got me thinking... why is the return on capital, versus say the return on labor, so high? Our society is awash with capital. We apparently have more of it than we know what to do with (see, e.g., the real estate bubble, the tech bubble). If the capital markets were efficient, shouldn't supply and demand equilibrate things to drive down the price of capital? I think the st…
"to drive down the price of capital?" But that's exactly what we do see. Interest rates are absurdly low. Interest rates are the price of capital. The fact that you can select a sample of outliers who won big on risky investments doesn't change the overall statistical situation. Most capital is still getting low returns.