Wealth Distribution in the United States

[Cyc]

I can't help but chuckle when Americans bitch about taxation. You are one of the least taxed countries in the civilized world, yet you somehow manage to make the most noise. You don't really understand how much freedom the wealthy have in your Country relative to other nations.

.. and you should realize it, because it's reflected very obviously in your mainstream culture.

 

[Cyc]

Another problem is skin in the game. Large companies will require their executives to own a substantial amount of stock which motivates them without the need for much monitoring. Government is a different story, since it can't go out of business everyone will always get their paycheck and pension no matter what. There isn't that knowledge in the back of your mind that your company could go under. So employees must be monitored much more in government. This is expensive. It is proven that people shirk when given the opportunity. By its very nature the free market kills off the shirking by pulling investment from inefficient operations. In government that effect doesn't exist so organizations must monitor and be monitored to a greater degree.

Yes, because it's my dream to be surrounded by the stink of people who run around all day chasing a dollar, while constantly looking over my shoulder to make sure nobody is putting a price tag on my job/cubicle.

You talk about inefficiency in terms of labour, but capitalism has its own brand of inefficiency. The quest for profit often contradicts the quest for efficiency. When it's more profitable to conserve, ration or regress, a private business will necessarily avoid the efficient option, even in the face of consumer demand.

The recording industry waged an unwinnable war against what was clearly a more efficient means of distribution, and there were many casualties in the process. That's only one example. There are many more. I argue that profit protection is a greater enemy to efficiency than worker laziness.

 

[kong]

Yes, because it's my dream to be surrounded by the stink of people who run around all day chasing a dollar, while constantly looking over my shoulder to make sure nobody is putting a price tag on my job/cubicle.

Oh no, life sucks. This does nothing to address my argument that government is less efficient. Yes, government jobs are nice...its tough to get fired in many cases. Thats another reason they are inefficient. If we don't need you you must be fired and find work where we do need you.

You talk about inefficiency in terms of labour, but capitalism has its own brand of inefficiency. The quest for profit often contradicts the quest for efficiency. When it's more profitable to conserve, ration or regress, a private business will necessarily avoid the efficient option, even in the face of consumer demand.

So if demand slows it is less efficient to make less? Why else would you regress? Did I understand that correctly?

The recording industry waged an unwinnable war against what was clearly a more efficient means of distribution, and there were many casualties in the process. That's only one example. There are many more. I argue that profit protection is a greater enemy to efficiency than worker laziness.

Isn't that an example of the market working? The money is shifting from marketing to talent? Of course corrections don't happen overnight, my point is, when a better alternative comes along thats where the money migrates.

Maybe people like the music the giant record companies put out. No big deal...if some talentless hack gets famous its only fair they get 50c a CD since there entire career is just marketing anyway.

If there are large profits to be protected that usually means competition is on the way. I don't think worker laziness is that big of problem in most private companies because of the way they are structured i.e. they can fail and agents have skin in the game. Where they require expensive monitoring is in government positions where no matter how bad they do their "company" will almost always continue to exist.

 

[kandytime]

I can't help but chuckle when Americans bitch about taxation. You are one of the least taxed countries in the civilized world, yet you somehow manage to make the most noise. You don't really understand how much freedom the wealthy have in your Country relative to other nations.

.. and you should realize it, because it's reflected very obviously in your mainstream culture.

the wealthy have higher freedoms relative to other nations due to the poor tax system and loopholes easily manipulated by the rich. Not because their tax bracket isn't high enough.

 

[Cyc]

Oh no, life sucks. This does nothing to address my argument that government is less efficient. Yes, government jobs are nice...its tough to get fired in many cases. Thats another reason they are inefficient. If we don't need you you must be fired and find work where we do need you.

You need to stop looking at people as commodities, and look at work as a commodity. Work is the ONLY commodity; the one that can be measured in cold, hard calories and joules. You can't eliminate people, only work. And why do you eliminate work? For the people. So they can enjoy a shorter work week, and there is more wealth to redistribute back to the populace, so they may spend that extra free time pursuing enjoyable activities.

Why is this so fucking difficult for people to grasp? Are you so conditioned by misery, that you've lost any bright vision for the future?

So if demand slows it is less efficient to make less? Why else would you regress? Did I understand that correctly?

Sorry no, that's not what I meant at all. I mean when a more efficient technology causes ease of manufacturing or transfer, companies will subdue, or otherwise restrict that technology in order to continue capitalizing on their current (less efficient) model. Sometimes it's not as black and white as the recording industry example. My point is that the pursuit of money is a poor measuring stick for progress, and even poorer one for efficiency.

Isn't that an example of the market working? The money is shifting from marketing to talent? Of course corrections don't happen overnight, my point is, when a better alternative comes along thats where the money migrates.

Maybe people like the music the giant record companies put out. No big deal...if some talentless hack gets famous its only fair they get 50c a CD since there entire career is just marketing anyway.

I'm talking more about the reticence of the major music companies, to shift from physical media to digital transfer. Yes, eventually they were forced into submission, but not before filing a million lawsuits. The take-home message, is that efficiency isn't always in the best interest of capitalism. You seem to think this is always the case. The reason I like the record industry example, is because I believe socialism won the war, even if it lost many of the battles.

If there are large profits to be protected that usually means competition is on the way. I don't think worker laziness is that big of problem in most private companies because of the way they are structured i.e. they can fail and agents have skin in the game. Where they require expensive monitoring is in government positions where no matter how bad they do their "company" will almost always continue to exist.

Again, all I can tell you is to stop treating people as commodities. People require work, but work doesn't always, nor will it ever again require (as many) people. It's best you get rid of this mindset right now.

 

[Cyc]

the wealthy have higher freedoms relative to other nations due to the poor tax system and loopholes easily manipulated by the rich. Not because their tax bracket isn't high enough.

No, you generally just have lower taxes.

In Canada, people pay 29% of taxable income over $126,264 to the federal government, and between 12-20% on the amount over $73,698 to the provincial government. source In many cases, and in many provinces, people who make 6 figures pay 49% income tax.

On top of that, where I live we pay 14% tax on all goods and services. That means if I sell you a car for $4,000, I must pay $560 to the government before I can hand you the ownership.

We also have property tax, which pays for our municipal (local) government branch. That is based on its use (residential or commercial) and the land value itself. In some areas, it's astronomically high. It's not unusual for a medium-sized suburb to cost upwards of $200mo.

So educate me, Kandy. How much does the average 6-figure American legally pay in taxes? Loopholes notwithstanding.

 

[kong]

You need to stop looking at people as commodities, and look at work as a commodity. Work is the ONLY commodity; the one that can be measured in cold, hard calories and joules. You can't eliminate people, only work. And why do you eliminate work? For the people. So they can enjoy a shorter work week, and there is more wealth to redistribute back to the populace, so they may spend that extra free time pursuing enjoyable activities.

Why is this so fucking difficult for people to grasp? Are you so conditioned by misery, that you've lost any bright vision for the future?

What the hell?

I never suggested eliminating people, when they get fired its because we don't need them doing that particular thing. They go find another thing to do that we need.

I guess I have no idea what you are talking about to be honest. I agree with it, but you are arguing with me? I don't see how what you said goes against anything I said?

Sorry no, that's not what I meant at all. I mean when a more efficient technology causes ease of manufacturing or transfer, companies will subdue, or otherwise restrict that technology in order to continue capitalizing on their current (less efficient) model. Sometimes it's not as black and white as the recording industry example. My point is that the pursuit of money is a poor measuring stick for progress, and even poorer one for efficiency.

Thats what anti-trust laws are for. I understand what you mean though, intel selling us 5yr old chips, oil companies buying up green tech etc...I still think its the best measurement we'll every get though.

I'm talking more about the reticence of the major music companies, to shift from physical media to digital transfer. Yes, eventually they were forced into submission, but not before filing a million lawsuits. The take-home message, is that efficiency isn't always in the best interest of capitalism. You seem to think this is always the case. The reason I like the record industry example, is because I believe socialism won the war, even if it lost many of the battles.

Just because efficiency isn't in the best interest of a subset of an industry doesn't mean it isn't in the interest of capitalism. Buggy whips etc...someone has to lose when things get more efficient. The entity losing may try to stop the efficiency from coming to market but its obvious they fail the vast majority of the time. Otherwise we would be ridding in a buggy pulled by horses.

Again, all I can tell you is to stop treating people as commodities. People require work, but work doesn't always, nor will it ever again require (as many) people. It's best you get rid of this mindset right now.

I don't get it.

 

[LVTfan (google it)]

Is anyone here interested in the extent to which corporations own our natural resources, without paying much to we-the-people for what they extract from a finite supply? While I find virtually everything Sarah Palin has said appalling, I have to admit that she did something very wise with respect to Alaska's oil. The oil companies pay significant royalties to Alaska, over and above the costs of providing current government services. The Alaska Permanent Fund receives some oil revenues, which it invests in a diversified portfolio in order to provide an income to every permanent resident. Palin increased the amount the oil companies pay. Alaska is a bit different: much of the land is state land.

In the lower 48, the Jed Clampetts get some royalties -- and Pres. Clinton let some very low royalty leases occur during his administration.

The value of natural resources, like the value of the land in our country, is rightly common property, and we ought to be treating it that way. The revenues created this way would allow us to fund many things and reduce our reliance on the taxes which damage our economy and discourage job creation and enterprise.

And we ought not to ignore urban land value. There is a lot in midtown Manhattan, an acre, which a couple of years ago was valued at $400 million to $1.2 billion as a teardown. The current owners are satisfied with an operating profit of perhaps $25 million a year while they wait for the land value to bounce back up before they reap what we-the-people sow. Were NYC to collect the land rent -- say, most of 5% per year -- on the $400 million, that would be $20 million a year. Sure beats collecting it in sales taxes and wage taxes.

Does it make any difference whether the landholder is an American mogul, an American corporation, a foreign government? I don't think so. The value of America's land ought to be our common treasure, not the private treasure of any kind of landholder.

 

[rant*N*rave]

Since hypos seem to be the theme du jour. Given the option between your life and someone else's, would you always choose suicide? I mean, even if the other person was 90-years-old, or a convicted murderer, or severely disabled in some form?

I don't mean to push the issue too far, but I seek to understand at what point (if any) we can act judiciously on one person's behalf at the direct expense of someone else.

The point is not what you would choose, but the fact that you have a choice.

And most Americans aren't 90 years old, murderers, or severely disabled, so it's not a particularly relevant stipulation to make. The point is that those things don't matter, anyhow...

 

[rant*N*rave]

I'm talking more about the reticence of the major music companies, to shift from physical media to digital transfer. Yes, eventually they were forced into submission, but not before filing a million lawsuits. The take-home message, is that efficiency isn't always in the best interest of capitalism. You seem to think this is always the case. The reason I like the record industry example, is because I believe socialism won the war, even if it lost many of the battles.

HA! Socialism didn't win - are we getting subsidized music downloads anywhere? CAPITALISM WON! Efficiency isn't in its best interest necessarily, but it's what happened, by force, because of capitalism. That's why we have massive digital download stores in the first place, but that's why we still pay an outrageous price per song. Otherwise Apple/Zune/etc wouldn't have ever made downloads available - demand forced the hand of the market to provide a more efficient, more desired service, but it didn't force the profit margin of the companies. It doesn't cost 99cents to provide a download... BUT the demand for those downloads forced the companies to find their profit in a new way, a way the consumer wanted.

How much does the average 6-figure American legally pay in taxes? Loopholes notwithstanding.

My parents earn at the low end of six figures, and last year they paid 50% of their income in taxes (and that's ignoring 5.6% sales tax in their county).

 

[Unbreakable]

quick question? Is this thread only about wealth held by Americans only? or by other as well.... Because i guess i must be confused.... thanks

 

[Unbreakable]

Our deficits are growing and our overall debt is swelling. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are making a bad problem much, much worse - no question.....The elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about (Democrats or Republican) is the unfunded liabilities associated with entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security..... It's an economic tsunami headed our way and we're not even talking about what we're going to do...... Bush tried to start to nibble at the Social Security issue and the progressives in congress would have no part of it..... Their re-elections were more precious than the soundness of our economy... When the bulk of the baby boomers are retired and the ratio of workers to retirees nears 2:1 we are going begin to hemorrhage. The longer we wait to address these, the greater the suffering....... Politicians only want to postpone the disaster beyond their terms..... As Reagan said, "Government is not the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem."..... 8)

 

[Cyc]

HA! Socialism didn't win - are we getting subsidized music downloads anywhere?

Yes lol.. you might say that.

rant, I'm a little surprised. Come on. People don't pay for music. People know how to download, and those who don't download, know how to transfer between external storage devices. I know people with over 50,000 songs on 2TB drives. Those files aren't going anywhere except on the hard drives and USB sticks of their friends.

Whatever miniscule share that Apple and Microsoft are getting from music sales, is nothing compared to what the big studios were getting circa 1998. They lost billions.

You can say that capitalism corrected for inefficiency in the end, and you may be right, but to pretend that digital music sales are running the industry is just naive.

My parents earn at the low end of six figures, and last year they paid 50% of their income in taxes (and that's ignoring 5.6% sales tax in their county).

Good, glad to hear it. Makes me happy.

 

[Heuristic]

Assume we have the current tax rates, and 50% after $500,000, and 75% after 1 million. Someone who earns 2 million before taxes would take home about 1.3 million after taxes. That is still a very big reward for their risk taking.

I think you're overestimating, but the important point here is really the incentive at the margin.

For the individual, the choice is not between zero and 1.3 million, but involves a large number of points between, perhaps beyond, those points.

Each additional dollar beyond 1 million represents only 25 cents of incentive (ignoring declining marginal utility here). When they decide whether to work more, to invest more, etc., it's that marginal gain they will be focused upon. Cut that marginal gain, and you cut incentive. One dollar more is greater than 25 cents more.

At least one Swedish economist disagrees with you. They said that the best tax rate is 70%.

Yeah, but they'd probably all agree that a top rate of 40% will result in a more productive economy than a top rate of 70%. The disagreement you linked to is over which rate produces the most tax revenue, which is a different question than that of which rate produces the more productive economy.

I'm just saying that you're basing everything on these economic theories. You act like these are physical laws that can't ever be broken. A few hundred years ago, many economists believed in the labor theory of value. How can you be so sure that your assumptions about economics aren't wrong also?

This is fair, but we can probably take certain ideas, such as that human beings are motivated in economic matters by gains they would expect to reap from the next unit of work, as true. It comports well with an evolutionary view of human nature, and, from a rational perspective, it will maximize individual gain.

Come on. People don't pay for music. People know how to download, and those who don't download, know how to transfer between external storage devices. I know people with over 50,000 songs on 2TB drives. Those files aren't going anywhere except on the hard drives and USB sticks of their friends.

Whatever miniscule share that Apple and Microsoft are getting from music sales, is nothing compared to what the big studios were getting circa 1998. They lost billions.

Well, let's slow down a second. I'm running on a cup and a half of coffee today.

Socialism and capitalism both involve forms of property rights. In capitalism, an individual's right to property includes the right of alienation with respect to all parties (excluding taxes and eminent domain). That is, the individual decides who gets to possess whatever property he has a right to, and at what price, and, often, the extent of the possession.

In socialism, the government decides who gets to possess what property. Theoretically, an individual would not be able to decide whether to sell or buy property; the distribution would be determined entirely by the government.

Neither one really occurs purely.

In the case of pirated music, no one is controlling the property--not the government, and not any private rights holder. So I'm not sure this is really a case of socialism winning over capitalism.

That said, the people who get the music well known, put it in a place to be obtained by lots of people, etc., do so out of financial incentive. Clubs feature music that brings in, and brings back, customers; radios play music that keep listeners, and gain new ones; iTunes sells music, obviously, to make money; agents take on performers to make money; studios, etc.

If the public doesn't like your product, fewer people buy your product, and you make less money. Keep it up, and you'll soon lose access to resources that enable you to sell products. Do a great job, and you'll gain access to additional resources. So the resources for delivering music to the public are placed in the hands of people who are delivering the most demanded music. The market facilitates this faster than any centralized system ever could.

The example you give of record companies attempting to stop the tide of digital music is a great example. They were acting almost like a centralized system, trying to decide how music would flow to the public. They were not only unresponsive to public demand, but were actively intransigent to it. They failed, and resources flowed to the devices and medium demanded by the public--and various companies, who build those storage devices, maintain the data networks, and sell billions of dollars worth of digital music each year, were there to meet it.

You need to stop looking at people as commodities, and look at work as a commodity. Work is the ONLY commodity; the one that can be measured in cold, hard calories and joules. You can't eliminate people, only work. And why do you eliminate work? For the people. So they can enjoy a shorter work week, and there is more wealth to redistribute back to the populace, so they may spend that extra free time pursuing enjoyable activities.

Well, most people do expend less joules, if we're measuring that, during a workweek than they once did. And for that lower expenditure, they get a lot more in return. If people were motivated solely by the total amount of leisure time, you'd find vacation time to be more widely offered in lieu of other forms of compensation. I think that many people actually enjoy working--or at least enjoy the benefits of working too much to really cut back dramatically on hours.

 

[kong]

The more I think about it the more I see the music industry as an example of capitalism working to reduce wealth disparity.

1. Far more artists have been able to make a living selling their music, not just the few that the record company deems worthy. Once more without the giant record company they can keep all their profits.

2. Consumers actually have supply meeting their fragmented taste in contrast to record companies determining what music is popular. This is happening at less cost to the consumer.

3. The profit is migrating from giant companies to artists. Just because e.g. sony loses billions doesn't mean capitalism failed. That is what is supposed to happen.

 

[Pander Bear]

creative destruction is very easy to appreciate when the only losers are 5 shitty multinationals, yes.

 

[qwe]

In the case of pirated music, no one is controlling the property--not the government, and not any private rights holder. So I'm not sure this is really a case of socialism winning over capitalism.

the ideals of communism/socialism/marxist ideas aren't confined to government; they have to do with all aspects of society

nobody understands socialists

 

[marsmellow]

As I recall, we were guaranteed (in the US, at least) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Not, "maximizing group utility."

Here is how the constitution starts out...

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

In the very first sentence, it says that the USA was created to promote the general welfare and establish justice. Those are pretty much the 18th century equivalents of "maximizing group utility." So, as long it doesn't prevent us from achieving the other goals mentioned (national security and freedom), we are free to do the kinds of things I'm talking about.

But even if you are right, even if the USA was created ONLY to do those three things you mentioned, redistributing wealth is still okay to do. Because how can a person "pursue happiness" if they are starving or homeless? They won't be able to, because they will be preoccupied with finding food and shelter. So, this is all a part of guaranteeing the pursuit of happiness.

It's great that some people would CHOOSE to trade their foot to save the life of another.

But they certainly shouldn't be FORCED to do so.

You can use the same argument against ALL taxes. They are all technically non-consensual.

Are you against all taxes?

Actually, they aren't really non-consensual. In exchange for having a government, people agree to pay taxes. They let the government force them to pay taxes, because they like the services that the government provides. Services like police protection, national defense, and social safety nets. If someone doesn't like this, they can either work to change things, or move to different country. But they can't say they never consented to taxes, because they have to consent if they want a government. You consent to taxes by living here.

I don't think free markets allocate wealth more fairly exactly. Although hard work is often rewarded some people work their ass off and don't see much of a return. I think it creates the most total wealth...I think the average poor person is more wealthy in a free market than a planned one. That doesn't say anything about relative wealth however.

Okay, that makes sense, but I don't think it's the right way to do things. Because there is a limited amount of energy and natural resources in the world. Constant economic growth isn't sustainable in the long term. The environment is already getting destroyed by capitalism. This infinite growth mentality has led to very serious problems with the environment and short supplies of many important natural resources. The only sustainable way is to have a smaller pie, and spread it out fairly among all people.

Depends if they take risk or not. Take an investor with a large sum of money, they will have to pull their money out of the market. It would be crazy to take that risk when they only get a 5% or even 30% return. There is no way to justify it.

I think I understand what you are saying, but I don't think this would be a big problem, because the government would make the large kinds of investments that you are talking about. Private investors would be investing much smaller amounts of money than they do now, because earnings would be limited to about 1 million a year or so.

Basically, the private investors wouldn't be worrying about taxes too much, because they would not be earning more than a million or so from investments. Because wealth would be limited, they would have less money to invest. Which means they wouldn't worry too much about only getting a 5% or 25% return, because they would have that kind of money invested in the first place.

The other point we haven't much discussed is who will pay this tax, the consumer or the firm. I can tell you proctor and gamble will pass most of the tax onto the consumer because demand is inelastic. So poor people will pay most of any tax increases on companies making tooth paste etc..thats pretty cut and dried economic theory.

Yeah, I said that there would be no corporate taxes, and this is basically the reason why. Because I think it is true that they will pass the costs of taxes onto consumers, instead of paying it themselves.

We aren't hunter-gatherers. The free market is capitalism. Profit motivates every possible person who has money and knowledge to help determine who gets invested in, how much, and at what rate. That is an effect a room full of finance degrees can't replicate no matter how big a room it is.

But they would profit. They would start out earning basically minimum wage, and if they did good, they would eventually earn 1 million or more. If they didn't do good, they would lose their jobs and have to work somewhere else. So, it's pretty similar to capitalism. They would just get their profit in the form of promotions and pay increases, instead of directly earning money from the investments.

Its because there is no competition and for all practical purposes a bank check. No one can compete with a government that can spend as much money as it wants. So the inefficient parts of government don't "go out of business" like they do in the private market.

We could create two government agencies, instead of one. Each would get half of the total money, and they would compete with themselves.

Like senators sons.

No. You are misunderstanding me. The government wouldn't just hand out a million dollars to random people. People would earn that money by making and selling products, or providing a useful service. They would earn the money just like people earn money now.

I didn't say you said that. I was suggesting that was a likely outcome of the government running investment.

Yeah, I guess I CAN see how that might become a problem. It might decide to invest in a steel company, and then decide to invest in a skyscraper building company to make demand for the steel company, even though there is no major demand for skyscrapers.

But I'm sure there is some kind of solution to this problem... but I can't think of it right now. Maybe they should be forced to show that there is some kind of demand for the product before they invest in a business... somehow. I have to think about this some more. There has got to be a way to have the benefits of capitalism without the extreme wealth disparities that usually come with it.

 

[kong]

Okay, that makes sense, but I don't think it's the right way to do things. Because there is a limited amount of energy and natural resources in the world. Constant economic growth isn't sustainable in the long term. The environment is already getting destroyed by capitalism. This infinite growth mentality has led to very serious problems with the environment and short supplies of many important natural resources. The only sustainable way is to have a smaller pie, and spread it out fairly among all people.

While consumption fueled by capitalist success may hurt the environment because people have more resources at their disposal I think it is clear our environmental standards are far higher than many "peoples environment" countries. Granted Russia and China are probably not examples of how you want things run.

Basically, the private investors wouldn't be worrying about taxes too much, because they would not be earning more than a million or so from investments. Because wealth would be limited, they would have less money to invest. Which means they wouldn't worry too much about only getting a 5% or 25% return, because they would have that kind of money invested in the first place.

How do you get to this point though? There are plenty of rich people with money in the market. Is it fair to just take their wealth? How else will you get it? They won't keep it in the market to get taxed at those rates. Is it fair to the businesses they are invested in to lose their financing because of higher taxes? I don't think you can make this transition without screwing everyone pretty bad in the meantime.

Yeah, I said that there would be no corporate taxes, and this is basically the reason why. Because I think it is true that they will pass the costs of taxes onto consumers, instead of paying it themselves.

That depends on the relative elasticity of supply vs demand. That is what determines if a firm can pass on taxes or not.

Taxes are taxes. It doesn't make much difference if they are levied directly on a firm or its employees instead. You plan on hitting the owners with capital gains and dividends anyway so having no corporate taxes makes no difference at all. Your taxing the same people (owners and employees) and whether you do so at the employee or firm level is arbitrary. The taxes will absorbed or passed down according to demand/supply elasticity just as before.

But they would profit. They would start out earning basically minimum wage, and if they did good, they would eventually earn 1 million or more. If they didn't do good, they would lose their jobs and have to work somewhere else. So, it's pretty similar to capitalism. They would just get their profit in the form of promotions and pay increases, instead of directly earning money from the investments.

Its nothing like capitalism. You designed an incentive system for your government employees to invest government money. So what. That won't allocate capital efficiently like a market, (the knowledge in a market is a few orders of magnitude greater than a government agency).

We could create two government agencies, instead of one. Each would get half of the total money, and they would compete with themselves.

Thats your idea for competition Two agencies? I'd expect you are firmly supportive of anti-trust laws. Is there a reason for that, or is it just fun fucking with giant companies? Lets not structure the government by replicating the worst parts of capitalism.

No. You are misunderstanding me. The government wouldn't just hand out a million dollars to random people. People would earn that money by making and selling products, or providing a useful service. They would earn the money just like people earn money now.

Just to be clear we are talking about knocking out someone who makes 500m which according to you leads to 500 people with a million. I'd still like to know how. Just because you prevent someone from producing 500m worth of value to the market every year doesn't mean 500 people just end up with a million as a result.

But I'm sure there is some kind of solution to this problem... but I can't think of it right now. Maybe they should be forced to show that there is some kind of demand for the product before they invest in a business... somehow. I have to think about this some more. There has got to be a way to have the benefits of capitalism without the extreme wealth disparities that usually come with it.

Heres the problem, government cannot allocate capital as well as the market can. It doesn't matter how well intentioned the government is or how much integrity its politicians possess. Even under the absolute best circumstances the knowledge possessed in an agency cannot compare the knowledge possessed by the collective mind of the market.

If you can figure out a way to enjoy the benefits of capitalism without so large a disparity in wealth I'm all ears. I doubt any improvements can be made that do not involve a free investment market and taxes below 50%.

 

[kong]

All of the sudden I am double posting all the time? I'm not sure why.