Live data from Hacker News

The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

stratfor.com

141–150 of 151 posts

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#141
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, I didn't call it a burden so you can't exactly quote me as having said that. But it's cool, it is a pain in the ass so go for it. Second, I don't think America is a "homogeneous mass that behaves that way" and neither did I say that. I said that this (getting to hear long-winded rants about political views, religion, social issues, etc.) occurs constantly when I'm in the US. You've confused my statement of ane…

My point is that I highly doubt you've met that many Americans, not enough to state an opinion on a "significant portion of Americans" at least -- hence my statement about judging us as a homogenous mass. Perhaps I should have been clearer: I suspect you are over-extrapolating. I also believe there are plenty of people from other countries with similar (and equally vocal) beliefs as well. I visit Canada frequently, N…

Good points.

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea has possible merit, but I want to complain about how you're getting to it. For one thing, the implication that inflation is politically easy is probably not true. There is a large contingent of the right (e.g. the Ron Paul crowd) who are always running around talking about auditing the Fed and how fiat money is ruining everything, etc. More strategically, the people who have the greatest incentive to fight i…

I think we're grokking the same here, but one disconnect: You're presupposing that the wealthy want _some_ return on their wealth, and I think that in many cases, that simply isn't true. Take a look at all of the money stranded offshore that corporate America is waiting on Uncle Sam to allow into the US without taxing- that money is probably not earning much if anything; think of the tinpot dictator or the kleptocrat…

Why do you expect that capital held offshore for tax reasons is invested inefficiently? These companies are not (in general) in violation of the law, they're just exploiting transfer pricing[1] to accumulate capital in a foreign subsidiary in a low tax jurisdiction. That subsidiary can for the most part still invest it in whatever, including U.S. stocks and other securities. They can in many cases even loan it back to their domestic sister company so that it can use the money to grow its business (without paying tax on it, because it's a loan instead of income), which often provides even more tax benefits because the interest paid on the loan is often tax deductible in the higher tax jurisdiction.

There are some restrictions, e.g. the U.S. company may not be able to issue a dividend or do a stock buyback unless it reports at least some taxable profits within the U.S., but as long as the foreign subsidiary's capital account keeps growing, it causes the parent company's stock price to appreciate accordingly and that provides investors with their ROI.

There are ways that this can be less efficient. In particular, the parent company's investors may themselves have made more efficient investment choices than the company's executives investing the money on their behalf if their returns were provided in the form of dividends or stock buyback instead of stock price appreciation as the existing tax code strongly encourages. And this is actually very likely to be the case in practice, because e.g. Apple executives are now sitting on a huge mountain of cash that it likely will never be more cost effective to issue all of as dividends under the current tax code than continue to invest in situ, which means that computer company executives are now permanently in charge of picking stocks for however many hundred billion dollars worth of the world economy. That doesn't guarantee that those execs will make worse investment decisions (or will choose poorly in hiring someone to do it), but it seems at least plausible that someone hired primarily for their ability to sell iPhones or manage a global supply chain will be a worse hedge fund manager than an actual hedge fund manager. But this is just the capital gains tax debate all over again: As long as we tax even reinvested dividends immediately but allow unrealized stock appreciation to be tax deferred indefinitely we're going to spur that sort of crazy economic machinations.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_pricing

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#143
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The less income someone has, the more taxes cut into basic living expenses (because a greater portion of that person's income is spent on basic needs)." Covered by Milton Friedman's proposal of a flat tax with a minimum standard of living deductible, e.g. 10k USD. Furthermore, those making less than that 10k would get the 'refund' as some sort of social security. Developed in his book "Capitalism and Freedom". "I'm…

Oh god. Don't give them a refund, just make the first X,000 tax free. That's better than circulating the money through the hands of a bunch of bureaucrats.

I think the act of actually paying a tax is quite important, despite the bureaucratic overhead. For the same reason, I think payroll taxes and the like should be directly paid by checks (not just deducted from pay and handled by the employer). This way, a person would actually have that money and then have to commit the physical act of giving their money to the government instead of just seeing it as money not in their paycheck.

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#144
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible to travel and believe this 100%? Capitalism might be the best option but I'm not that confident after seeing the so-called progress it has inflicted on a lot of places. I don't know what a better option is, but I the warts of capitalism sure are ugly.

>Capitalism might be the best option but I'm not that confident after seeing the so-called progress it has inflicted on a lot of places. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "so-called progress".

I mean that I have seen the opposite of progress. Native people with formerly proud cultures. Not technologically advanced, sure, but long traditions and ones anyone should be proud to have (or had, past tense, in this case). And these groups appeared completely devastated and exploited.

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#145
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So taxes are voluntary? Awesome.

You live here. You agree. If you don't, move to somalia or something. (somalia is tongue in cheek, obviously).

Well maybe not so tongue in cheek. You see, I have lived in US for more than a decade and noticed there is a disproportionate number of Randian type libertarians here. Mostly are just college kids who read Atlas Shrugged and now they want government to get out of their business.

This is the immaturity and fantasy world that I was referring above. For all intended purpose, a place where FDA, SEC, tax authority (IRS) don't exist and are out of people "hair" exist -- many of those places are pretty scary to live in, Somalia is one of them, other poor countries are also there. You'd think those would be a libertarian paradise, no controls, no need to pay taxes, but reality the opposite is true.

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#146
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that somebody else has agreed ?

So taxes are voluntary? Awesome.

Taxes are part of the package deal. You get some things back for them. The package deal (the contract if you will) in theory is voluntary. You are free to get your ocean liner and set sail into the international waters where you don't have to pay anyone anything.

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#147
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Capitalism might be the best option but I'm not that confident after seeing the so-called progress it has inflicted on a lot of places. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "so-called progress".

I mean that I have seen the opposite of progress. Native people with formerly proud cultures. Not technologically advanced, sure, but long traditions and ones anyone should be proud to have (or had, past tense, in this case). And these groups appeared completely devastated and exploited.

From your point of view, maybe. But these aren't museum exhibits. They're people. They want the same sorts of things the rest of us want, and they're willing to make adjustments.

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Those kinds of people will never be able to vote in their best interests" What happened to voting in the interests of the entire population?

Nobody knows for certain what the interests of the entire population are; voting is a mechanism for groping towards identifying those interests.

But there's a big difference in thought process between "I think voting this way is best for everyone" and "I think my benefits will go up if I vote this way".

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#149
Globalization is much of the reason.

When unions were strong (c. 1950-1980), they were essentially a monopoly on certain types of workers that were vital to production in many industries.

This monopoly allowed the workers to extract a larger proportion of the value of this industrial production through higher wages.

With the US focus on free trade (c. 1975-present), the unions no longer had a monopoly on labor, since companies could now find labor in other countries. Labor could no longer enforce their favorable monopoly pricing. (They tried, and had some success in the US, but often the "victory" caused companies or factories that paid good wages to their workers to be uncompetitive with overseas companies or factories that did not, and forced to close.)

The bottom line is that I'm very much afraid that globalization and a rising middle class are mutually exclusive, and will continue to be so for several decades.

Re: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power

#150
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"immorality " That is a strange moral system you have in the US. In other countries, it is morally acceptable to take from the rich and redistribute to the poor. The reason is that in those countries, wealth and lack of wealth is thought to be a great part influenced by factor outside your control (chance). That is even backed by studies, if you are born in a poor families, you will have less opportunities than a ric…

How is it moral to take somebody else's propety?

Take a look at "your" money. Notice that it says "Federal Reserve Note." That's because it's a promise created, promoted, distributed and backed by the government. In a very real sense, it's their money.

As the "property" you feel so strongly about, belongs to the government, it seems only fair that you should follow their rules in the use and disposition of it, don't you think?

I have another question, too, which is on a completely different tack. Why don't you care about the poor and weak in your society? Don't you see you're all in it together? Doesn't common fellow feeling let you see that trying to lift up the disadvantaged is a genuinely human and humane thing to do?

Post reply on HN