The memory shortage is causing a repricing of consumer electronics

681–682 of 682 posts

Re: The memory shortage is causing a repricing of consumer electronics

#681

Post by hackyhacky » Sun, May 31, 2026, 11:57 AM UTC

ivewonyoung wrote: post #680

hackyhacky wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Capitalism creates wealth only when people are able to keep a decent amount of what they make. As a thought experiment, if you tax people at close to 100% under capitalism and "distribute" it to people that don't work, what do you think will happen? That's one approach, but not the only one, to eliminating capitalism. > Surely there is a disincentive to working hard as taxes approach high levels while resources are…

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/taxes-on-the-rich...

This chart looks at the top 1%. This is intentionally deceptive. "The total national income share earned by the top 1% and top 0.1% in that era was far lower than it is now, and consequently, the income thresholds required for entry into the ranks of the top 1% or the top 0.1% were lower. By today’s standards, there were many fewer rich households in the 1950s than there are now—in fact, almost none. The rich people from the 1950s that Greenberg is comparing to the rich of today were what we would now call the upper middle class—thus, not an apples-to-apples comparison. Had there been any 2017-style rich people in those days, they would likely have faced an effective tax rate near that confiscatory statutory rate of 91%.... It’s not a coincidence that the rich are so much richer now than they were in the 50s: it’s precisely because effective tax rates on the rich have gone down so much that it’s worthwhile to become rich in the first place." [1]

Why is your article making claims that, while true, give a distorted view of 1950s tax policy? It's certainly possible that an organization called the "Tax Institute" has an agenda they are trying to push.

[1] https://rooseveltinstitute.org/blog/effective-progressive-ta...

Re: The memory shortage is causing a repricing of consumer electronics

#682

Post by sophrosyne42 » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:30 AM UTC

hackyhacky wrote: post #667

sophrosyne42 wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then capitalism cannot exist and never has, because there is no such thing as something which produces wealth merely by possession. Mere ownership (as in a legal title) does not and cannot yield an income. To have a yield, something must be put to use. Without a use, there is no yield. Capital (in the sense of the monetary value of assets) is merely an index for the utility of assets in producing a yield. There is no…

> Mere ownership (as in a legal title) does not and cannot yield an income. To have a yield, something must be put to use. Money is used by loaning it out, which requires no effort and most importantly: the amount of money you can loan out (and make a profit from) is not limited by the number of hours in the day, and therefore owners can always out-compete laborers. > The distinction between capitalism and earlier fo…

> Money is used by loaning it out, which requires no effort

Money is a medium of exchange. It is used by exchanging it for something else. A loan involves trading money in the present, which is more valuable, for money in the future. What produces value here is surrendering present goods indirectly through the intermediary of money. The creditor gives up consumption so that others can consume or produce earlier than they otherwise could have in absence of the loan. This is the value produced by loans in the eyes of the debtor.

> Now you're getting it!

Notice how any market automatically involves said accounting immediately when money is used. Your earlier insistence that markets and capitalism are distinct cannot be maintained.

Post reply on HN