51–60 of 118 posts
That's really unfortunate, and results in a lot of non-self-aware political bickering.
[flagged]
>> people don't contribute to society equally That's a catastrophically flawed line of thinking. How can you quantify a person's contributions to society? You certainly can't do it by their ability to generate wealth as you seem to imply.
Generated wealth is a very, very coarse measure of the contribution. But I posit that a seriously more precise measurements would involve grave violations of privacy.
Just want to point out two things: 1) Rognlie[1] pointed out that Piketty's central premise -- that the returns to capital are growing faster than the overall growth rate of the economy -- falls apart when you properly account for asset class and depreciation. The accelerating returns are specifically to real estate , while the returns to capital (excluding real estate) are flat. 2) Tyler Cowen pointed this out on hi…
Georgism just makes more and more sense the more you think about it. The idea that people should be allowed to profit off unimproved land is so clearly immoral, and that’s not to say anything for the efficiency Georgism brings and the amount it would help lower rental costs.
( submitting this as a reference to Piketty's whole school of thought not just the latest book ) ( Discussion prompt: what are some radical ideas for slashing poverty/inequality globally in 2 decades or less - assuming the public support/political will can eventually be obtained through effort/luck )
100% inheritance tax on any estate value over $N (inflation indexed), use that money to fund "baby bonds" to give every newborn an investable trust fund. Nobody should get to be rich because of who their daddy was.
Is there a single example in history where income redistribution worked while it was also easy for foreigners to enter the country and growth persisted for everyone while maintaining said ratios of acceptable inequality? - If you don't allow foreigners, I'll argue that you haven't solved anything. You've simple picked the winners. - If the ratio of inequality is disrupted, I'd also argue you haven't done anything oth…
And who gets to decide what inequality is and why?
Just want to point out two things: 1) Rognlie[1] pointed out that Piketty's central premise -- that the returns to capital are growing faster than the overall growth rate of the economy -- falls apart when you properly account for asset class and depreciation. The accelerating returns are specifically to real estate , while the returns to capital (excluding real estate) are flat. 2) Tyler Cowen pointed this out on hi…
He’s still just one man. There’s no need to listen to him.
I’d rather listen to the majority who are being fleeced by thought ending men like Rognlie. “Oh but don’t think to change things; see look here is other math!”
Humans don’t exist in a vacuum of externalities; Rognlies advice makes it seem so. Fidgeting with the numbers doing nothing real for the people in need is no different than “thoughts and prayers”.
Story mode still rules, as we keep setting aside work of value to people for the story of how some people earned their status. I don’t care what Rognlies credentials are; he’s one of seven billion.
I applied my masters in elastic structures to design power distribution equipment for people. Rognlie sits and pontificates. Screw him.
( submitting this as a reference to Piketty's whole school of thought not just the latest book ) ( Discussion prompt: what are some radical ideas for slashing poverty/inequality globally in 2 decades or less - assuming the public support/political will can eventually be obtained through effort/luck )
100% inheritance tax on any estate value over $N (inflation indexed), use that money to fund "baby bonds" to give every newborn an investable trust fund. Nobody should get to be rich because of who their daddy was.
Why? It is non-obvious to me that we should have a collective say in why the rich become rich.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Georgism just makes more and more sense the more you think about it. The idea that people should be allowed to profit off unimproved land is so clearly immoral, and that’s not to say anything for the efficiency Georgism brings and the amount it would help lower rental costs.
I don't see how Georgism solves anything. You need a government to enforce taxation - said government is profiting off unimproved land. Said governments colonize and take others land with force.
Point being that society loses nothing by increasing taxes on unimproved land except an opportunity for parasitic wealth extraction whereas by taxing spending you lose valuable and productive economic activity.
For the greatest political impact the money from a land value tax should initially be given to poverty stricken pensioners.
I often really like this community, but I have found people here especially prone to falling to the "meritocracy trap". ie.: believing they are mostly where they are because of ability, worthiness or hard work, rather than mostly luck. That's really unfortunate, and results in a lot of non-self-aware political bickering.
That's really unfortunate, and results in a lot of non-self-aware political bickering.
Is there a single example in history where income redistribution worked while it was also easy for foreigners to enter the country and growth persisted for everyone while maintaining said ratios of acceptable inequality? - If you don't allow foreigners, I'll argue that you haven't solved anything. You've simple picked the winners. - If the ratio of inequality is disrupted, I'd also argue you haven't done anything oth…