161–170 of 219 posts
Americans have allowed the rich to become too wealthy. The kind of power that comes with billions of dollars just doesnt work with justice or democracy.
> The kind of power that comes with billions of dollars just doesnt work with justice or democracy. The government has billions of dollars. Thankfully government officials are immune to the corrupting influence of billions of dollars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Virtually all monopolies, historically, have been due to government intervention in markets to give special privileges to certain players Really? * Search: What special privilege for Google? * Desktop OS: Microsoft? * On line retail: Amazon What am I missing? These firms got no "special privilege " from government, did they?
> These firms got no "special privilege " from government, did they? They did and still do. They spend millions lobbying the government to make it harder for outsiders to break into their industries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the reason most governments reduced the rate was because economists argued that the higher rate reduces economic activity so much that total tax revenue (collected by the government) is actually higher at the reduced rate. Look up the "Laffer curve".
But taxes don't exist as an income flow, but to give incentives. Taxes exist to reduce economic activity for goods where you want that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But taxes don't exist as an income flow, but to give incentives. Taxes exist to reduce economic activity for goods where you want that.
What gives you that impression? I get that they are used that way at times, but the core purpose of taxation is to generate revenue for the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t think of a single legitimate reason why Google should be allowed to pay Apple to use its search engine. Google is using the proceeds of its monopoly to exclude competition to maintain its monopoly. How is that norm per se antitrust violation? (That said, I’m not an antitrust lawyer and find it quite unintuitive, lol.)
Basically it should be illegal per se but since the 70's the Court has really limited how they apply that and so courts generally prefer to do a competitive analysis/quick look first. In this case, the argument might be that since the cost to consumer doesn't increase, it isn't a naked price fix so it's not per se illegal. As I learned it, since BMI & ASCAP v. CBS, in 1979, it's essentially been that the per se rule…
If you want to break up google, you should break it into workable coherent profitable business units like youtube, maps and geo, search, adsense, android, google cloud (including email) or some combination of the above.
I think it makes little sense to sell off their loss leading platforms that don’t make up coherent business units.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But does that mean we shouldn't raise taxes? "Effective Income Tax Rates Have Fallen for The Top One Percent Since World War II" https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/effective-income-tax-rate...
It just means to me that you haven't put much thought into this. What about the federal government gives you the impression that they'd be responsible stewards of the money you want to confiscate and redistribute?
The government does lots of things well. That's why those in power are trying to destroy it right now.
Here's where you go "But it's not perfect, therefore it can't work." or maybe "all taxation is theft".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I understand what distinction you're drawing between ideological opposition to rich people existing and opposition to disproportionately powerful people existing. In what hypothetical world are these not the exact same thing? Money is a unit of exchange that exists to compel action. That's the point of it, and is just another way of saying "power over others". A world where being rich doesn't grant power…
> Money is a unit of exchange that exists to compel action. That's the point of it Citation required. Money is an intermediary form of exchange. It arises organically because if, for example, you are a dairy farmer, there is no practical way for you to a) save enough milk to barter for a house (not only is it perishable but where do you store it all? Especially before refrigeration) and b) find someone with a house t…
An article treatment: https://archive.is/20250725000932/https://www.theatlantic.co...
A book treatment (that of course covers many other things): https://archive.org/details/DebtTheFirst5000Years
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I face palm through the back of my skull when people think billionaires have billions of dollars. Virtually none of them do.
I talk about the ultra-rich as "they have waaaaay too much money". I do understand that this is not exactly big purse with a lot of cash that they carry everywhere with them. Still, it's way too much.
People put limits on what they should be able to own, but if we extend that idea globally (i.e. don't discriminate based on simply where you were born), then most of us in the first world would also be liable to give up our TVs, cars, latops, houses etc. And then suddenly seizing assets is bad...
The problem is not simple or straightforward. It's mostly people who want more complaining about those who also want more.