Capitalism and Inequality (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

Not sure how many follow Fred Wilson. He's one of the more influential voices in business and VC financing. His blog is super popular.

I thought his post today was interesting. 

https://avc.com/2019/01/capitalism-and-inequality

I was talking to a friend about AOC’s proposal to increase marginal federal rates to 70% to fund investments in fighting climate change. My friend said he was disappointed that she didn’t propose a top federal rate of 83.25% so that the marginal rate in NYC would be 100%. He was joking but his remark is important because it speaks to the nuance of the marginal rate, something AOC and her followers don’t really understand as much as they claim.

It reminds me of a heated conversation I had with my kids and their friends during our family ski trip over the year end break. Our kids, like most millennials I know, are struggling with the notion of capitalism at any cost and the massive income and wealth inequality that we are witnessing.

This headline I came across on Twitter today kind of sums it up well:

.@AOC: Economic system that allows billionaires is "immoral"   https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1087694130153705478

— The Hill (@thehill) January 22, 2019

I am in the business of helping founders start companies which results in some of them becoming billionaires. Contrary to what some think, my wife and I aren’t in that club ourselves. But I know a fair number of billionaires and I have had a front row seat to the process of them going from not having a penny in their pockets to billions on their balance sheet.

And we are participants in the “economic system that creates billionaires.” I do not think it is immoral and I do not think billionaires are immoral. I do think the inequality that we allow in our country is immoral.

To me, these are two different things. And that is the gist of the discussion I was having with my kids and their friends over the year end holiday. They asked me why I don’t believe in massively raising taxes on the rich to pay for all of these new social programs that the candidates on the left are proposing.

I am a fan of many of these social programs, like medical care for all, like more affordable education for all, like new approaches to what we once called “welfare” and now is taking shape as Universal Basic Income. I have been called a communist, a socialist, a liberal, and more on this blog and all of those labels could be accurate in someone’s mind. I believe that society must find ways to support the basic needs of everyone, which include wellness, knowledge, and income. That we do not is immoral. That we allow billionaires is not.

I am a capitalist and a business person. I understand that increasing taxes on the wealthiest leads many of them to move their income and assets to lower tax jurisdictions and can be counter productive, particularly when you go beyond a certain threshold. I also understand that government is bloated and there are many places where we could cut spending to fund these new innovative programs that could help counter the immoral wealth imbalance we have in our country.

I believe that technological revolutions, like the industrial revolution and the information revolution, create opportunities for entrepreneurs to reimagine how the economy should operate. Those entrepreneurs, like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, Bezos, Page, Zuckerberg, build very powerful monopolies and amass billions.

As these revolutions reimagine how the economy should operate, many people lose jobs, can’t find jobs, find themselves in lower paying jobs, and there is real dislocation that results. And you get this “immoral wealth imbalance.”

The one part of the economy that seems immune to re-imagination is the government. If we were to force it to go through the same technological revolution that the private sector is going through, we would see massive efficiencies, and massive job losses, that would free up a huge amount of capital that could be used to pay for things like medical care for all, affordable education for all, and some amount of income for all.

That is what I am for. That is what I explained to my kids and their friends that I am for.

Times of change are times of change. And we can’t change some things but not everything.

I will end with a story from a book I read a few years ago. The book is called The Prize that was written by Dale Russakoff and is about the effort by Chris Christie, Cory Booker, and Mark Zuckerberg to fix the broken Newark NJ public school system.

The story takes place at an anti-charter school rally. Dale meets a woman who is protesting against the charter schools that are replacing the district schools. As he is talking to this woman, she explains that she is late to the rally because she had to spend all morning in line trying to get her child into the new charter school in her neighborhood. Dale is perplexed. Why would she be protesting charter schools if she is that committed to getting her child into one? The woman explains that most of her family works in the district schools and will lose their jobs if the city moves to charter schools.

And that’s where we are. We are not willing to move away from the things of the past to get the things of the future. So our elected officials decide to try to give us both and we struggle with how to pay for it all.

I am not for the emerging progressive Robin Hood narrative. I am certainly not for the entrenched conservative Let Them Eat Cake narrative. I am for a new narrative that understands that everything must change if we are to find ways to support everyone in our society.




3




3

 

[joffer]

The one part of the economy that seems immune to re-imagination is the government. If we were to force it to go through the same technological revolution that the private sector is going through, we would see massive efficiencies, and massive job losses, that would free up a huge amount of capital that could be used to pay for things like medical care for all, affordable education for all, and some amount of income for all.

How?

I like what he wrote though

 

[IvanKaramazov]

That's an interesting article, and I had a nearly-identical dinner table debate with my high school daughter along the same lines.  For reasons that are largely baffling to me, she's really bothered by the fact that some people become very rich.  This is a mindset that I truly don't get.  To me, inequality is only a problem at the low end, which is why I also support something like a UBI.  But I can't understand why I'm supposed to care what somebody on the upper end of the curve earns.  The fact that some hedge fund manager (for example) pulls down a ton of money each year doesn't make me any poorer.  

 

[dgreen]

That's an interesting article, and I had a nearly-identical dinner table debate with my high school daughter along the same lines.  For reasons that are largely baffling to me, she's really bothered by the fact that some people become very rich.  This is a mindset that I truly don't get.  To me, inequality is only a problem at the low end, which is why I also support something like a UBI.  But I can't understand why I'm supposed to care what somebody on the upper end of the curve earns.  The fact that some hedge fund manager (for example) pulls down a ton of money each year doesn't make me any poorer.  

I agree. But I think that’s the disconnect in the debate. One side cares about the gap and thinks about the relative poverty created by the gap. The other side cares less about the gap and focuses more on the level of absolute poverty. At least that’s how I see the debate. Maybe I’m mischaracterizing the inequality side. 

 

[The General]

For me this is one of those subjects where everyone is kind of right. Pretty hard to dictate how much money someone can collect. However, a system where 25 people can collect as much wealth as the poorest 50% of the planet (and that’s only going to get more extreme) is pretty awful. 

Lots going on with this question but returning to a much more progressive tax system in our country is where we should start.

Take issue with how the money is spent but it should be used to help raise the quality of life of everyone. It’s an investment, it would make our country a better place to live.

 

[dgreen]

How?

I like what he wrote though

Good question. I’d say the private sector goes through technological revolution out of necessity, brought on by competition. Evolve or die. That doesn’t seem to apply to a lot of government. Or if it does apply, it’s a much, much slower death. 

 

[dgreen]

For me this is one of those subjects where everyone is kind of right. Pretty hard to dictate how much money someone can collect. However, a system where 25 people can collect as much wealth as the poorest 50% of the planet (and that’s only going to get more extreme) is pretty awful. 

What “system” are you referring to? 

And what about that situation is “pretty awful”?

 

[The General]

What “system” are you referring to? 

And what about that situation is “pretty awful”?

Whatever you want to call it where wealth can be concentrated in such an extreme manner. I think that is messed up.

Take Mexico City or Cape Town. You have shanty towns for miles, then a little tiny enclave of extreme wealth. 

This is not what I think is the path we should try to go down. 

 

[Mookie]

The uber rich should be taxed more, plain and simple, and more money should be spent on things that we ALL benefit from like infrastructure, health care, education, reducing carbon emissions. 

I feel the sting of taxes in my day to day life and I do pretty well.  For low income people, that sting is much more pronounced tot he point of being crippling.  What real life impact does a 50% tax (I'm being extreme to make a point) on $50 million per year have? 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

That's an interesting article, and I had a nearly-identical dinner table debate with my high school daughter along the same lines.  For reasons that are largely baffling to me, she's really bothered by the fact that some people become very rich.  This is a mindset that I truly don't get.  To me, inequality is only a problem at the low end, which is why I also support something like a UBI.  But I can't understand why I'm supposed to care what somebody on the upper end of the curve earns.  The fact that some hedge fund manager (for example) pulls down a ton of money each year doesn't make me any poorer.  

Because of our evolutionary past, human brains are wired for zero-sum thinking. If one person has become super rich, it must be at someone else’s expense. (Which is basically true for hunter-gatherers.) It’s hard to train your brain not to view things that way.

 

[Henry Ford]

That's an interesting article, and I had a nearly-identical dinner table debate with my high school daughter along the same lines.  For reasons that are largely baffling to me, she's really bothered by the fact that some people become very rich.  This is a mindset that I truly don't get.  To me, inequality is only a problem at the low end, which is why I also support something like a UBI.  But I can't understand why I'm supposed to care what somebody on the upper end of the curve earns.  The fact that some hedge fund manager (for example) pulls down a ton of money each year doesn't make me any poorer.  

The only reason to care what someone else earns is because of the low end.  If the low end were eliminated, very few people would care.  But we haven't eliminated the low end.  Because society doesn't care enough to address it.  And yes, the fact that we don't address the low end does mean that the fact that some hedge fund manager pulls down a ton of money every year and isn't taxed to eliminate the low end does make you - and the rest of society - poorer.  In my opinion.

My guess is that your daughter may be  bothered by how much some people make solely because we as a society have chosen not to require that massive wealth on one end be balanced by eliminating extreme poverty and food, shelter, and clothing insecurity.  That's the disgusting bit.

 

[Da Guru]

The uber rich should be taxed more, plain and simple, and more money should be spent on things that we ALL benefit from like infrastructure, health care, education, reducing carbon emissions. 

I feel the sting of taxes in my day to day life and I do pretty well.  For low income people, that sting is much more pronounced tot he point of being crippling.  What real life impact does a 50% tax (I'm being extreme to make a point) on $50 million per year have? 

I would be OK with that..there is one caveat though.  If that happens many of the uber rich and their investments will not stay here.

 

[jonessed]

The uber rich should be taxed more, plain and simple, and more money should be spent on things that we ALL benefit from like infrastructure, health care, education, reducing carbon emissions. 

I feel the sting of taxes in my day to day life and I do pretty well.  For low income people, that sting is much more pronounced tot he point of being crippling.  What real life impact does a 50% tax (I'm being extreme to make a point) on $50 million per year have? 

Are you thinking in terms of salary?  The wealthiest people aren’t earning their money that way.

We could jack up capital gains taxes, but we compete with other countries for those investments so we are somewhat constrained.

 

[dgreen]

The only reason to care what someone else earns is because of the low end.  If the low end were eliminated, very few people would care.  But we haven't eliminated the low end.  Because society doesn't care enough to address it.  And yes, the fact that we don't address the low end does mean that the fact that some hedge fund manager pulls down a ton of money every year and isn't taxed to eliminate the low end does make you - and the rest of society - poorer.  In my opinion.

My guess is that your daughter may be  bothered by how much some people make solely because we as a society have chosen not to require that massive wealth on one end be balanced by eliminating extreme poverty and food, shelter, and clothing insecurity.  That's the disgusting bit.

But we are working towards eliminating extreme poverty. We've made great advances in helping the poor.

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

 

[Henry Ford]

Are you thinking in terms of salary?  The wealthiest people aren’t earning their money that way.

We could jack up capital gains taxes, but we compete with other countries for those investments so we are somewhat constrained.

I'm glad you included the word "somewhat" because there's some truth to this talking point and some hysteria.  I haven't seen last year's numbers yet but in 2017 (the same year Trump's tax cuts were signed at the end of the year) foreign investment in the United States dropped 32% from 2016.  Economic uncertainty is the most likely cause of loss of foreign investment, not increased capital gains taxes.

 

[Henry Ford]

But we are working towards eliminating extreme poverty. We've made great advances in helping the poor.

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

In the world? Sure.

In the U.S.? Not so much.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

 If the low end were eliminated, very few people would care.  But we haven't eliminated the low end.

I’m skeptical about that first sentence. It seems like human nature to always worry about keeping up with the Joneses in relative rather than absolute terms.

Your second sentence is true, and it’s a moral travesty. We should absolutely be doing more to help people at the low end.

Except for rhetorically, though, that seems like a separate issue from what the top marginal tax rates should be. We could do much more to reduce poverty and its hardships with current tax revenues. We could do much more, in fact, even if we reduced current revenues. We haven’t, though, and we likely still wouldn’t even if we increased current tax revenues. (Also, increasing the top marginal rates is not necessarily a good proxy for increasing total tax revenues.)

Our government tends to spend money on projects that benefit special interests. Homeless people and other poor people have little to no political clout. Raising taxes won’t affect that.

I don’t know of a good, politically realistic solution, but I do think that we ought to solve the spending part (giving greater priority to spending on poverty-relief programs than we currently do) before we focus on the revenue part.

 

[timschochet]

Of course I agree with Ivan on this. And let me add that it’s a populist thing. The same emotional urging that is behind many conservatives blaming most of our problems on undocumented immigrants is also behind many progressives blaming most of our problems on the very wealthy. Among other things, it’s lazy thinking. 

On the other hand, many people who defend the very wealthy are subject to a number of myths, the main one being that in our society anyone can become very wealthy if you work hard enough and are smart enough- you get there largely through your own efforts. This myth is essential to the American Dream, and also to resistance against many social efforts to help poor people and some minority groups. 

 

[Henry Ford]

I’m skeptical about that first sentence. It seems like human nature to always worry about keeping up with the Joneses in relative rather than absolute terms.

Your second sentence is true, and it’s a moral travesty. We should absolutely be doing more to help people at the low end.

Except for rhetorically, though, that seems like a separate issue from what the top marginal tax rates should be. We could do much more to reduce poverty and its hardships with current tax revenues. We could do much more, in fact, even if we reduced current revenues. We haven’t, though, and we likely still wouldn’t even if we increased current tax revenues. (Also, increasing the top marginal rates is not necessarily a good proxy for increasing total tax revenues.)

Our government tends to spend money on projects that benefit special interests. Homeless people and other poor people have little to no political clout. Raising taxes won’t affect that.

I don’t know of a good, politically realistic solution, but I do think that we ought to solve the spending part (giving greater priority to spending on poverty-relief programs than we currently do) before we focus on the revenue part.

The problem is that the response is always "well, how would we pay for that?"  The only way we get over that hump is to say "we pay by taxing the rich" and hopefully get those with political clout to find some other way to pay for it in order to save themselves.

The will to fix this has to come first, and it won't until donors are at risk.

 

[Slapdash]

I am a fan of many of these social programs, like medical care for all, like more affordable education for all, like new approaches to what we once called “welfare” and now is taking shape as Universal Basic Income. I have been called a communist, a socialist, a liberal, and more on this blog and all of those labels could be accurate in someone’s mind. I believe that society must find ways to support the basic needs of everyone, which include wellness, knowledge, and income. That we do not is immoral. That we allow billionaires is not.

I am a capitalist and a business person. I understand that increasing taxes on the wealthiest leads many of them to move their income and assets to lower tax jurisdictions and can be counter productive, particularly when you go beyond a certain threshold. I also understand that government is bloated and there are many places where we could cut spending to fund these new innovative programs that could help counter the immoral wealth imbalance we have in our country.

I think this is the crux of the debate though and it is very sparse on specifics.  We aren't funding a massive new welfare program with savings on government efficiency?  Arguing against increasing taxes on the wealthy is fine, but with the same or more spending you're arguing we should tax lower incomes more (tariffs or other regressive taxes) or for a higher deficit.  

The overall point that capitalism and redistribution cannot coexist is not convincing to me.  Other advanced democracies all seem to do it, which is specifically evidenced in the difference in Gini-coefficents:  https://slate.com/business/2015/03/pre-and-post-tax-inequality-a-country-by-country-breakdown.html

In fact, a lot of these more socialist models have an ever bigger amount of inequality before redistribution than the US.  Why can't we have both?

 

[The General]

That's an interesting article, and I had a nearly-identical dinner table debate with my high school daughter along the same lines.  For reasons that are largely baffling to me, she's really bothered by the fact that some people become very rich.  This is a mindset that I truly don't get.  To me, inequality is only a problem at the low end, which is why I also support something like a UBI.  But I can't understand why I'm supposed to care what somebody on the upper end of the curve earns.  The fact that some hedge fund manager (for example) pulls down a ton of money each year doesn't make me any poorer.  

It’s more not being bothered by people who have collected this extreme wealth, it’s that it exists with such extreme poverty. It’s pretty jarring.

It’s not Zuckerburg’s fault or anything that he amassed this crazy amount of money and I’m sure he does all kinds of good with it. Feels off to me when people are upset when they talk about raising taxes on extreme wealth when in his town there are serious issues with the homeless and poverty, talking within walking distance away from where he lives.

 

[Mookie]

Are you thinking in terms of salary?  The wealthiest people aren’t earning their money that way.

We could jack up capital gains taxes, but we compete with other countries for those investments so we are somewhat constrained.

It was an overly-simplistic example, but it applies to many.  As for the others, figure out ways to make them pay more.  Practically, it isn't that hard.  Politically though ....

 

[Slapdash]

But we are working towards eliminating extreme poverty. We've made great advances in helping the poor.

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

Hah, the Slate piece I posted also derives from Our World in Data:  https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality 

Also, to @Henry Ford's point: yikes

 

[dgreen]

In the world? Sure.

In the U.S.? Not so much.

The U.S. uses a much different definition than world poverty rates.  And I think that gets to some of the disconnect in this debate. One side looks at the US poor and points out how much better they are than the poor around the world, which I think is true. That shouldn't be an excuse, though, to ignore the concerns of the US poor. We should continue to strive to make the poor richer even if they already are considered rich by the poor in India or Haiti or wherever else.

 

[The Commish]

Of course I agree with Ivan on this. And let me add that it’s a populist thing. The same emotional urging that is behind many conservatives blaming most of our problems on undocumented immigrants is also behind many progressives blaming most of our problems on the very wealthy. Among other things, it’s lazy thinking. 

On the other hand, many people who defend the very wealthy are subject to a number of myths, the main one being that in our society anyone can become very wealthy if you work hard enough and are smart enough- you get there largely through your own efforts. This myth is essential to the American Dream, and also to resistance against many social efforts to help poor people and some minority groups. 

I don't think I've ever seen this once, unless you are talking about progressives complaining that the richest aren't paying their fair share.  But that's not even close to bold.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think I've ever seen this once, unless you are talking about progressives complaining that the richest aren't paying their fair share.  But that's not even close to bold.

You haven’t heard progressive candidates point the finger at Wall Street and at corporations as the source of most of our problems? 

 

[Henry Ford]

The U.S. uses a much different definition than world poverty rates.  And I think that gets to some of the disconnect in this debate. One side looks at the US poor and points out how much better they are than the poor around the world, which I think is true. That shouldn't be an excuse, though, to ignore the concerns of the US poor. We should continue to strive to make the poor richer even if they already are considered rich by the poor in India or Haiti or wherever else.

A different poverty line isn't the same as a different definition.

 

[dgreen]

Hah, the Slate piece I posted also derives from Our World in Data:  https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality 

Also, to @Henry Ford's point: yikes

I love Our World in Data.

That chart, though, is about relative poverty. I think one side of this debate focuses on relative (within the US) poverty and the other focuses on absolute poverty. My guess is those 20% of children in the US are better off in absolute terms (food, water, shelter, clothing, electricity, etc) than the children in many of the countries lower on the chart. ETA: And probably worse off than children in some of the countries.

 

[The Commish]

You haven’t heard progressive candidates point the finger at Wall Street and at corporations as the source of most of our problems? 

No...I've heard them rail on the inequality gap.  I've heard them say they aren't paying their fair share.  I've heard them say politicians are beholden to them over the general electorate( which is true, but they aren't the problem in that scenario, the politician is)  I have never heard them say "because so and so is so rich, we can't do medicare for all" or "because so and so is so rich it's resulting in poverty for others"....that's just dumb.  As I go through all these scenarios, I am wondering if you didn't mean something other than the words you typed out  

 

[Henry Ford]

I love Our World in Data.

That chart, though, is about relative poverty. I think one side of this debate focuses on relative (within the US) poverty and the other focuses on absolute poverty. My guess is those 20% of children in the US are better off in absolute terms (food, water, shelter, clothing, electricity, etc) than the children in many of the countries lower on the chart.

All poverty is relative poverty.

 

[Henry Ford]

No...I've heard them rail on the inequality gap.  I've heard them say they aren't paying their fair share.  I've heard them say politicians are beholden to them over the general electorate( which is true, but they aren't the problem in that scenario, the politician is)  I have never heard them say "because so and so is so rich, we can't do medicare for all" or "because so and so is so rich it's resulting in poverty for others"....that's just dumb.  As I go through all these scenarios, I am wondering if you didn't mean something other than the words you typed out  

Yeah, I'm not sure he didn't mean exactly that.  He's a recovering Republican, this may be part of what's still stuck in his craw.

IT'S OKAY, TIM, WE DON'T WANT TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM BUYING SUPER-YACHTS. WE JUST WANT KIDS TO HAVE FOOD.

 

[timschochet]

No...I've heard them rail on the inequality gap.  I've heard them say they aren't paying their fair share.  I've heard them say politicians are beholden to them over the general electorate( which is true, but they aren't the problem in that scenario, the politician is)  I have never heard them say "because so and so is so rich, we can't do medicare for all" or "because so and so is so rich it's resulting in poverty for others"....that's just dumb.  As I go through all these scenarios, I am wondering if you didn't mean something other than the words you typed out  

No I meant what I typed out. They don’t say it in the way you wrote- it’s a little more subtle. They will say we don’t have Medicare for All because of “the special interests” or “Big Pharma”; we have poverty because the government serves “Wall Street”, we have climate change because the government serves the interests of “Big Energy”., etc. 

Special interests, Big Pharma, Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Energy- who exactly do you think they’re referring to here? It’s always the very wealthy and the corporations. They are the enemies of society (according to progressives). 

 

[The Z Machine]

That's an interesting article, and I had a nearly-identical dinner table debate with my high school daughter along the same lines.  For reasons that are largely baffling to me, she's really bothered by the fact that some people become very rich.  This is a mindset that I truly don't get.  To me, inequality is only a problem at the low end, which is why I also support something like a UBI.  But I can't understand why I'm supposed to care what somebody on the upper end of the curve earns.  The fact that some hedge fund manager (for example) pulls down a ton of money each year doesn't make me any poorer.  

I think it has to do with the notion that wealth = power.  And immense wealth wields immense power.  The most powerful among us don't play by the same set of rules as those without power.  Laws simply don't seem to be applied to that group, or when applied produce far different outcomes than they do for those without power.

 

[Henry Ford]

No I meant what I typed out. They don’t say it in the way you wrote- it’s a little more subtle. They will say we don’t have Medicare for All because of “the special interests” or “Big Pharma”; we have poverty because the government serves “Wall Street”, we have climate change because the government serves the interests of “Big Energy”., etc. 

Special interests, Big Pharma, Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Energy- who exactly do you think they’re referring to here? It’s always the very wealthy and the corporations. They are the enemies of society (according to progressives). 

No, a government that serves only them is the enemy.  

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."

 

[timschochet]

In fact, only yesterday I heard Bernie say that if he decides to run, his campaign is going to be all about going after the “special interests.” Do you suppose any of the “special interests” he’s going to target are made up of poor people, or middle class people? Of course not. He’s going after the rich, same way he did last time around. 

 

[dgreen]

A different poverty line isn't the same as a different definition.

OK. Sorry about that. My point is "poverty in the US" is different than "poverty in China". It's also somewhat different than "poverty in Switzerland".

 

[Henry Ford]

In fact, only yesterday I heard Bernie say that if he decides to run, his campaign is going to be all about going after the “special interests.” Do you suppose any of the “special interests” he’s going to target are made up of poor people, or middle class people? Of course not. He’s going after the rich, same way he did last time around. 

I'd like to see or hear the quote, please.  I'm afraid I don't trust your interpretation of it. Because I'm betting it's "taking on" special interests, not "going after" special interests.

 

[timschochet]

No, a government that serves only them is the enemy.  

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."

That’s a rational way to think. I would vote for you. But many progressives are far more targeted and simplistic IMO

 

[The General]

In fact, only yesterday I heard Bernie say that if he decides to run, his campaign is going to be all about going after the “special interests.” Do you suppose any of the “special interests” he’s going to target are made up of poor people, or middle class people? Of course not. He’s going after the rich, same way he did last time around. 

When you say “going after the rich” what are you talking about? 

 

[timschochet]

I'd like to see or hear the quote, please.  I'm afraid I don't trust your interpretation of it. Because I'm betting it's "taking on" special interests, not "going after" special interests.

 Could well have been. I don’t remember. I don’t see the significance of the distinction that you do here. 

 

[Henry Ford]

 Could well have been. I don’t remember. I don’t see the significance of the distinction that you do here. 

That's a problem.

They're going to stand up to the special interests and refuse to simply serve them, as opposed to trying to destroy or harm them.  It's a big distinction.

 

[dgreen]

All poverty is relative poverty.

Not sure what you mean by that.

I've always heard the term "relative poverty" used to describe those who live far below others within their society and "absolute poverty" to describe those who can't reach basic needs (food, water, shelter, and other stuff).

 

[timschochet]

When you say “going after the rich” what are you talking about? 

He wants to reduce their level of influence on politics, and then tax them much more in order to pay for social programs that he wants to see enacted. 

Both ideas may make sense, BTW, depending on specifics. I’m not necessarily opposed to either. What concerns me is the rhetoric involved, which is why I suggested it was populist. 

 

[Slapdash]

In fact, only yesterday I heard Bernie say that if he decides to run, his campaign is going to be all about going after the “special interests.” Do you suppose any of the “special interests” he’s going to target are made up of poor people, or middle class people? Of course not. He’s going after the rich, same way he did last time around. 

I don't think going after large special interests like regulating corporations is equivalent to saying you're going after the wealthy and, again, this isn't a zero sum situation. 

 

[timschochet]

That's a problem.

They're going to stand up to the special interests and refuse to simply serve them, as opposed to trying to destroy or harm them.  It's a big distinction.

I understood your point when you made it. I simply don’t agree with your analysis. 

If standing up to special interests and refusing to simply serve them was all that this is about, then there wouldn’t be a current litmus test among progressives in which any politician who accepts any amount of money from corporations is immediately suspect and regarded as the enemy. They ARE trying to harm special interests. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Not sure what you mean by that.

I've always heard the term "relative poverty" used to describe those who live far below others within their society and "absolute poverty" to describe those who can't reach basic needs (food, water, shelter, and other stuff).

Even the definition of "absolute poverty" changes based on the society being discussed.  In part because the concept of "acceptable housing/shelter" is societally relative and access to some of the other basic needs is societally dependant.  

Did the Anasazi live in absolute poverty?  Would their lifestyle be considered absolute poverty today?

40% of the Navajo Nation Reservation live without ready access to water.  Is that absolute poverty? They get free water at a watering hole that some people drive 20 miles to get to.  Can you be in "absolute poverty" and still run a bed and breakfast that you have to stock water from the local water hole for?  If someone's living in that society he or she gets free water, does that mean he or she cannot be in absolute poverty?

Any time there's a balancing test with multiple factors, the term "absolute" gets a little muddy.

 

[Henry Ford]

I understood your point when you made it. I simply don’t agree with your analysis. 

If standing up to special interests and refusing to simply serve them was all that this is about, then there wouldn’t be a current litmus test among progressives in which any politician who accepts any amount of money from corporations is immediately suspect and regarded as the enemy. They ARE trying to harm special interests. 

What are you talking about?

The point is that people assume that those who give you money have influence.  And refusing to be influenced by so-called "special interests" is the issue, not "trying to harm them."

 

[Dedfin]

I don't are if our system is zero sum or not. I don't care if billionaires exist or not. I don't care if there are things or experiences I or anyone in my circle will never have. I just want people to not go malnourished, get proper healthcare, have proper shelter, for our government and justice system to represent them and their interests as an equal and for everyone to pursue their version of The American Dream. This doesn't exist currently, which makes the backlash against super wealthy so easy and common. I know no one here defends  individual superwealthy people , but they do defend the idea of superwealthy people, which while I'm sure makes people feel intellectually superior, it is still in support of the grotesque.

All of you are smarter than I am. Let's forget about economic systems, and just tell me from a moral pov why should there be massive resource inequality? This should be an easy one for all of you, but I can't come up with good reasons, besides some weirdo utilitarian ones.

 

[dgreen]

OK, this might be a stupid hypothetical with holes in it, but I'll give it a try. Let's jump back in time about 25 years and let's pretend that nobody has a cell phone. By some magic, cell phones are instantly made available for everyone. However, the poorer you are, the worse cell phone you get; the richer you are, the better cell phone you get. The poor get something equivalent to the first flip phones and the rich get brand new iPhones. In this situation, are the poor now poorer or richer than they were before? My understanding of the arguments related to inequality is that one side would say they are poorer while the other side would say they are richer.

 

[Henry Ford]

OK, this might be a stupid hypothetical with holes in it, but I'll give it a try. Let's jump back in time about 25 years and let's pretend that nobody has a cell phone. By some magic, cell phones are instantly made available for everyone. However, the poorer you are, the worse cell phone you get; the richer you are, the better cell phone you get. The poor get something equivalent to the first flip phones and the rich get brand new iPhones. In this situation, are the poor now poorer or richer than they were before? My understanding of the arguments related to inequality is that one side would say they are poorer while the other side would say they are richer.

I would say that the poor would have a higher standard of living than previously, but also lower social mobility and influence and we as a society would have a significantly larger equality gap between the rich and poor.