patrick.net

A million dollars in 1913 (when the Federal Reserve was created) is worth over $30 million in today's inflated currency. So why don't you up the ante a bit?

The fundamental flaw of this system, and all systems like it, is that the orgasmic draw of power does not diminish. It's embedded in the DNA of some human beings...a very strong psychological draw.

The wealth won't be redistributed to the poor. It will be redistributed to a new class of people seeking power...those middle men doing the redistributing.

In laymans terms...meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

IDDQD says

The Professor says

How much money does a person need?

It's up to said person to decide.

"Need" is a harmful word.

How much money does a person want?

You will get 100 answers from 100 people. There is only one correct answer: MORE.

It's important to be able to afford at least one politician.

The Professor says

I know realize that I have chosen the wrong forum to spew my socialist utopian ideals.

Well the flaw is .....its a fairy tale. Much like John Lennon's Imagine(and I despise that song for the same reasons). Its a situation that will never ever exist unless you somehow control or brainwash everyone. Human beings are each individuals and are relatively unique creations with disparate thoughts, ideas, and talents. There simply no one size fits all.

Here's what would work ... every man, woman, and child, hooked up to a virtual reality simulation, where they can experience anything they like to their fitting.

In this scenario, the actual work being done is done by robots and people will simply be living out their fantasies in VR, living on govt subsidies.

The Professor says

How much money does a person need?

why should it be a question of need, but rather what is right?

Why do we want to penalize people for being rich? What crime was committed?
Even if we take this away from legal aspects and speak on the morality of wealth, who is to say that taking wealth away from those who have it a moral thing to do?

To all those who support taxing the rich, etc, etc.... perhaps you should spend more time working to become wealthy, then you wont have to spend so much time thinking of ways to take their money away...

The Professor says

Tax their wealth and not their income.

Because they have devoted many decades to single-mindedly propagandizing the notion that you should never do that? It's the usual problem, most of us are just heads-down doing our thing getting by and getting along.

Richie Rich however lives, breathes, eats, sleeps MONEY. They work 18 hour days thinking about getting MORE MORE MORE and how they can destroy the concept of the estate tax. To tax their WEALTH would be an assault on their ego and their personal dynasty. You may have a variety of interests in your life and money is just an enabler to live that life. To Richie Rich the greatest purpose in life is having a bigger mansion portfolio than the neighbor.

It's sort of the like trying to "understand" a suicide bomber, you can't really relate to them. We have Stockholm Syndrome and will defend them rather than fight them.

Vicente says

Richie Rich however lives, breathes, eats, sleeps MONEY. They work 18 hour days thinking about getting MORE MORE MORE and how they can destroy the concept of the estate tax. You may have a variety of interests in your life and money is just an enabler to live that life. To Richie Rich the greatest purpose in life is having a bigger mansion portfolio than the neighbor:

If people want to devote the majority of their lives to making more and more money, what is it to you? If thats how they want to live, then let them be. Why hate on that? Sounds like envy to me. You want to be rich, but dont want to spend the time nor have what it takes to be rich.

Vicente says

To Richie Rich the greatest purpose in life is having a bigger mansion portfolio than the neighbor:

To the non-rich socialist like yourself, the greatest purpose in life seems to be bring people down to your level so that you feel better about yourself...

Meccos says

If people want to devote the majority of their lives to making more and more money, what is it to you?

Unlike many of my fellow citizens, I don't want to put SOCIOPATHS in charge of everything on the planet. Time was when corporations were not people, and not to be trusted. Trusts were busted, monopolies broken up. Because Richie Rich was not "more equal" of a person than any other citizen. This has changed a lot, corporations hold sway and finance bean-counters get paid 200+ times more than real workers.

Sometimes to fight the dominant paradigm, you need some heat to break the hold it has. Eschew the word "consumer", you are not a fucking economic unit you are a CITIZEN.

Vicente says

Meccos says

If people want to devote the majority of their lives to making more and more money, what is it to you?

Unlike many of my fellow citizens, I don't want to put SOCIOPATHS in charge of everything on the planet. Time was when corporations were not people, and not to be trusted. Trusts were busted, monopolies broken up. Because Richie Rich was not "more equal" of a person than any other citizen. This has changed a lot, corporations hold sway and finance bean-counters get paid 200+ times more than real workers.

Sometimes to fight the dominant paradigm, you need some heat to break the hold it has. Eschew the word "consumer", you are not a fucking economic unit you are a CITIZEN.

Who are these mysterious "rich" people you speak of? Are they those who make over 200K a year? Is it that typical CEO of a very very big corporation that many on this forum generally refer to? Who are these rich that we should hate so much for being so rich and powerful and ruining the rest of our commoner's lives...

DOWN with the RICH... for being so rich! Everyone get your torches and pitchforks out and lets raid Beverly Hills!

Meccos says

Who are these mysterious "rich" people you speak of?

I could go on, but there's plenty of people who should be in jail right now instead of sipping fancy drinks on a private jet. That they are doing so, is testimony to how perverted many are that they worship these fuckers or at least "tut tut" slap them on the wrists and let them slide with "well that's the price we must pay to service our glorious global capitalism!"

Remember those long-ago Enron days when we actually had perp walks?

There is a difference of being "rich" and being a "crook". Unfortunately the problem we have on this forum is that "the rich" have simply been villianized for the sake of being rich.

Many of you have participated in this class warfare by making all "rich" people the enemy while failing to make distinctions between "the rich" and "the crooks".

Im all for sending "crooks" to jail and limiting the gain of wealth through illegal or crooked ways. However there is no fault nor sin for simply being wealthy.

Meccos says

Many of you have participated in this class warfare

Class warfare is terrible, so let's not even bring up this uncomfortable subject? That's the excuse of the oligarchs and their apologists.

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

― Warren Buffett

Meccos says

However there is no fault nor sin for simply being wealthy.

The "sin" is in letting the trend in this chart be our goal and continuing it to infinity:

I was a Libertarian and fiscal conservative for nearly 30 years. For much of that I would quote at the drop of a hat about the glories of capitalism and trickle-down economics. However the fact is it's demonstrably not working. Only fairly recently have I come to the realization that it's fundamentally wrong to let Richie Rich run amok with special status, no constraints, no responsibility, and no consequences for anything they do. Individual rich people may not be conscious of it, but as a class they are working to enrich themselves not just in money but in POWER while all lower classes are frozen in place. It is inherent in their desire to seek MORE profit every quarter and contain every cost, that the wages and wealth of everyone below will always be held as low as possible and that carrot will be forever just out of reach.

Vicente says

Meccos says

Many of you have participated in this class warfare

Class warfare is terrible, so let's not even bring up this uncomfortable subject? That's the excuse of the oligarchs and their apologists.

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

― Warren Buffett

Quoting Buffet? This guy claims his secretary pays more taxes than him, yet he fails to mention a few things.
1. based on his numbers his secretary makes over 6 figures
2. all his income is based on dividends and capital gains. Yet his argument has been to increase wage taxes and does not really push dividends and capital gains taxes

Vicente says

The "sin" is in letting the trend in this chart be our goal and continuing it to infinity:

There is no sin in making money. There is only sin in certain ways that money is made. Lets make that clear distinction. You and many others on this website villainize the rich because they are rich.

Vicente says

it's fundamentally wrong to let Richie Rich run amok with special status, no constraints, no responsibility, and no consequences for anything they do.

I agree with you. I do not think it is ok to let people do things as you say, however you must be sure to make that clear distinction between those who do and those who dont because by making the generalized comments that you do, you are in essence crucifying all rich people unfairly.Vicente says

Individual rich people may not be conscious of it, but as a class they are working to enrich themselves not just in money but in POWER while all lower classes are frozen in place.

No rich people are conscious. Everyone is conscious of making money. THis is the reason why people study to get an education and why people work as hard as they do. Some are more conscious than others. And yes, with more money, there is more power. There is a natural correlation here. It seems that you fundamentally disagree with the basis our semi-capitalistic society, rather in favor of socialistic ideas.

Bellingham Bill says

Meccos says

If people want to devote the majority of their lives to making more and more money, what is it to you?

This is EXACTLY the problem in this country, confusing money for wealth like Meccos does above.

First of all money does equal wealth, although other things can be considered wealth besides money. Secondly, why do you put words into my mouth? where in the quote above did I even imply that? This is one of the problems with you Bill... you put words into peoples mouths.

I simply replied to the previous posters comments as posted below. Vicente says

Richie Rich however lives, breathes, eats, sleeps MONEY. They work 18 hour days thinking about getting MORE MORE MORE and how they can destroy the concept of the estate tax.

Bellingham Bill says

But that's not what we're doing now, not how the 5% operate at least.

They don't create wealth, they just MONETIZE their ownership of existing wealth, looking for sectors with high barriers to entry and highly motivated buyers -- these are where the economics rents lie.

Really? So everyone who makes above 160K, which are the 5% which you speak about) they just "monetize their ownership of wealth?"

Bill, you and many of you on this forum have a fundamental problem of generalizing the rich and making them out to be villains. THis is why many of us who oppose your views. Its not that we are not against those people who are crooked and take advantage of others to gain wealth. We are against this philosophy that the rich are bad and they need to be somehow penalized for being rich. Just as you randomly chose the 5% or others who chose the "2%" or "1%", these are arbitrary numbers. Rather than focusing on the rich, perhaps you and the rest should focus on those who have gained their riches or wealth by cheating and taking advantage. I guarantee you that the majority of the 5% or 2% or even 1% have not. Villainzing the rich for the sake of them being rich makes people look simply envious. Villainize people because they are bad, not just because they are rich.

dodgerfanjohn says

The fundamental flaw of this system, and all systems like it, is that the orgasmic draw of power does not diminish. It's embedded in the DNA of some human beings...a very strong psychological draw.

The wealth won't be redistributed to the poor. It will be redistributed to a new class of people seeking power...those middle men doing the redistributing.

In laymans terms...meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I wanna piggy back on my own comment.

I think theres a substantial number of Pat.net posters who fancy themselves a part of this new "redistributing" class...and I think they'd enjoy the perks of doing so.

Theres no shortage of hypocrites who would absolutely enjoy being the pigs on the farm.

Meccos says

I like how you make your own definitions.

It is very important to understand terms in economics. As Henry George said ca 1870:

"Certain words — such as wealth, capital, rent, and wages — require a much more specific meaning in economic reasoning than they do in everyday speech. Unfortunately, even among economists, there is no agreement on the meaning of these terms. Different writers give different meanings to the same term. Even worse, one author will use the same term in different senses. Nothing shows the importance of precise language like the spectacle of the brightest thinkers basing important conclusions on the same word used in different senses."

and:

"Wealth, then, may be defined as natural products that have been secured, moved, combined, separated, or in other ways modified by human exertion to fit them for the gratification of human desires."

If Henry George is too radical for you, we can turn to Adam Smith, who defined it in passing as:

"the annual produce of the land and labour of the society"

Land and labor do not produce money, printing presses and banks do.

The problem with calling any of these people parasites is the fact that they actually provide a service that other people willingly paying for.

And that's the crux of the problem here, this "willingly" thing. Power comes from controlling scarcity, and there is nothing more scarce than unclaimed land in our economy.

I defy you to find economically useful unclaimed land in your community.

The rent flows from land ownership are maybe a trillion or so.

The rent flows from health care are easily more than that, it's easier to figure out since we can compare our $8500/capita health expense with eg. Canada's $4400, and multiplying the difference by our 300M people.

LIke I said before, the rich are villainized for simply being rich.

Yes, that is the fault of the 99% movement.

But it is very hard to find a member of the 1% who got there by honest work and receives his current income in wealth-accreting activity aka "labor".

This is the point you continue to ignore, preferring to argue about idiotic dividing lines that do not exist in complex economies.

Yes, parasitical wealth is where we find it. And in this economy we find it in way too many places.

FWIW, I think the Eurosocialist economies do use too blunt an instrument to rebalance their economies -- I would like to think that targeting the rent-seeking directly they would not have to have such a high degree of progressive taxation.

I can especially say that France's 75% marginal tax rate is largely counter-productive I would think..

You chose the top 5%... that does not seem to be very selective nor careful at all. And in doing so, you have called many of us who fit into your category of the top 5% as "parasites" as you so called it.

I go into sufficient detail as to how the 5% of this economy are engaged in rent-seeking. Your criticism here is just diversionary noise-making.

Obviously not the entire top 5% of this economy is engaged in rent-seeking. But the higher you go, the greater the degree of the rent-seeking and wealth transfer UP the socio-economic pyramid.

It is these asymmetrical wealth transfers that are killing velocity in our paycheck economy and may yet cause what economy we do have left to throw a rod this decade or next.

But, oddly, you will find very little discussion of this issue in the media. Stiglitz, Krugman, Reich -- that's about it.

Republicans have their "Job Creator" bullshit and they're sticking to it.

Bellingham Bill says

Obviously not the entire top 5% of this economy is engaged in rent-seeking. But the higher you go, the greater the degree of the rent-seeking and wealth transfer UP the socio-economic pyramid.

Well spoken.

Technology field use to be considered the frontline proving that individuals with a big idea and hard work could strike it rich. It's now dominated by patent portfolio warfare and legal maneuvering and acquisitions.

Bellingham Bill says

Land and labor do not produce money, printing presses and banks do.

You are right about this if you want to get technical. But this is analogous to saying flour and bakers do not produce bread, it is the bread machines, the ovens and bread company that produces it. It is rather pointless and a matter of irrelevant technical distinction for the purposes of the previous conversation.

Bellingham Bill says

And that's the crux of the problem here, this "willingly" thing. Power comes from controlling scarcity, and there is nothing more scarce than unclaimed land in our economy.

WHy is this even brought up? way to hijack another thread with your rent seeking and land ownership crap.

Bellingham Bill says

But it is very hard to find a member of the 1% who got there by honest work and receives his current income in wealth-accreting activity aka "labor".

First, are we now talking about the top 1% or the top 5%? The way you change from 1 to 5%, it sure does seem this is arbitrary.
Second, what do you define as "labor" and "honest work"? Do farmers create wealth? Do service profession create wealth? teachers, doctors, police, dry cleaners? stock brokers? TV anchors? Bell boys? crossing guards? land owners who rent their property?

Bellingham Bill says

This is the point you continue to ignore, preferring to argue about idiotic dividing lines that do not exist in complex economies.

The problem is that you are the one who keeps bringing up the dividing lines. This is EXACTLY my point. You arbitrarily pick out the top 5%, now the top 1% with generalized claims. Your argument is "generally these people do this, rent seeker, blah blah blah."

Bellingham Bill says

I go into sufficient detail as to how the 5% of this economy are engaged in rent-seeking.

No you dont. Your whole case is based on this argument, but you barely discuss it.

The Professor says

You can buy bread with money but you can't eat money.

WTF? and?

The Professor says

This thread is about rent seeking.

NO this thread now has become about rent-seeking, which is the case anytime Bill enters the conversation.

The Professor says

Meccos says

NO this thread now has become about rent-seeking, which is the case anytime Bill enters the conversation.

Nope. It is my thread and it has always been about rent seeking.

Thats funny, you never mentioned it.... until after Bill started talking about it. HAHAH

I never denied that some UBER wealthy make money that way. The fact that we have so many lobbies is evidence that this happens. I dont think anyone denies this happens. THe problem I have is that you and others categorize everyone who is "the rich" and generalize all if not most of these "rich" as rent seekers.

BTW what is the "UBER" rich? Lets first define that.

"now", Einstein....

The Professor says

I know realize that I have chosen the wrong forum to spew my socialist utopian ideals.

All the more reason to address this immediately.
For your reputation....

The Professor says

SoftShell says

"now", Einstein....

The Professor says

I know realize that I have chosen the wrong forum to spew my socialist utopian ideals.

How about the day after tomorrow? I have a party to go to.

The Professor says

Meccos says

BTW what is the "UBER" rich? Lets first define that.

People that already make more than they, their children, and grandchildren can ever spend yet still want to make more by exploiting the working class.

If one's goal is to make more and more, is there anything wrong with that? As I mentioned previously, you need to make a distinction of those who want to make more and more and those who exploit. Although they can be one of the same, they are not always as you and a few others seem to suggest. This is your fundamental problem and until you can clearly delineate those who exploit and those who do not, there will always be people who disagree with your views on "the rich". Furthermore, your arguments would be much stronger and in fact I may even agree with you, if your focus was solely on those who exploit, rather than this generalization on "the rich".

The Professor says

They produce nothing but collect rent and profits.

This is also something which you must support. Who decides what is produced is of value or increases wealth? So do only the "UBER rich" not produce anything? Do all UBER rich not produce anything? What do you consider the production of something of value or increased wealth? Does a school teacher produce anything? Does a doctor produce anything? Does a walking guard produce anything? Does a financial planner produce anything? Does security guard produce anything?

If as you say the uber rich does not produce anything, do you say that only because they are uber rich? Would you say the same of the poor who produce nothing? Do you consider the poor who do not work and collect food stamps as one of those who produce nothing? If so they are on your radar as well?

Meccos says

Do you consider the poor who do not work and collect food stamps as one of those who produce nothing? If so they are on your radar as well?

Radar for taxes? You aren't making any sense. Unless of course you are heading off into welfare queen arguments. You are attempting to split hairs, because you can't bring yourself to admit the core thesis is correct. The rent-seeking ultra-rich have perverted the economy for their own ends. It will end when all the real wealth is in their hands. We used to have some mechanisms to ensure permanent dynasties were avoided, but that is being eroded. Whether Shaq collects a few million or not is irrelevant "lost in the noise" bullshit that only an idiot would bother with.

As Chris Rock said: Shaq, he's just rich. The guy who writes his paycheck, he's WEALTHY!

Vicente says

Radar for taxes?

If you cant understand figure of speech, then that is your problem.

Vicente says

The rent-seeking ultra-rich have perverted the economy for their own ends.

Why is it that you and the few others on this thread cant seem to wrap your head around the idea of differentiating those who seek to exploit others for gain and those who do not. Again for the millionth time, you and professor have the fundamental problem of being unable or unwilling to differentiate those "rent seekers" with the rest of the "wealthy". Not everyone who is rich is a rent seeker. Envy is an ugly thing.

The Professor says

The fed is creating money out of thin air stealing the labor of the masses.

I didnt see this comment until now. I 100% agree with this and I will be the first person to tell you that what the fed is doing is BS. Like I said, I also have issues with those who steal wealth from others, but it is a far stretch to portray all of the rich with what the fed does. In fact I would argue that the fed creating money out of thin air steals from the majority of those who you consider to be "rich" as well.

The Professor, in essence, is saying once you reach XXX dollars, it turns from "making more" to "exploitation".

Only the Diaper Doper Babies get to set that threshold....

Meccos says

The Professor says

Meccos says

BTW what is the "UBER" rich? Lets first define that.

People that already make more than they, their children, and grandchildren can ever spend yet still want to make more by exploiting the working class.

If one's goal is to make more and more, is there anything wrong with that? As I mentioned previously, you need to make a distinction of those who want to make more and more and those who exploit

Why do you not consider 'providing rental space' a service?
Is it not better than living under a bridge??

The Professor says

SoftShell says

The Professor, in essence, is saying once you reach XXX dollars, it turns from "making more" to "exploitation".

Nope. Not what I said or meant.

If you can make a product or provide a service that is useful to humankind you deserve to be handsomely rewarded.

Meccos says

Again for the millionth time, you and professor have the fundamental problem of being unable or unwilling to differentiate those "rent seekers" with the rest of the "wealthy".

If you have great wealth, you are probably a rent-seeker. Look at the Forbes richest list, it's full of 'em.

In any case I have no "envy", I merely demand sensible tax policies regarding them. Thanks for caring!

I suppose if you are going to paint me as a relentless "rich hater" then you are a relentless unpaid "class warrior" who thinks everyone else is a taker, moocher, welfare queen, or a socialist. Large majority of Americans believe the wealth gap needs fixing, so you'd better get used to being in the minority.

http://www.mybudget360.com/wealth-inequality-rivals-the-months-prior-to-the-great-depression-america-wealth-distribution/

What is with the new generation and such a lean toward the failure of socialism.

So it would seem you are for landlords/investors that purchase homes outright, then rent them out at the going rate for the location....

No use of bank money needed....

The Professor says

The Professor says

SoftShell says

Why do you not consider 'providing rental space' a service?

I do.

I have mixed feelings on landlords. Some are good; they provide a service by maintaining property and letting it out to people who for one reason or another do not want to "own".

And then there are the investors. They use other peoples money and prevent young familys from buying a home. They then turn around and rent the home to the priced out young family for more rent than they would have paid in mortgage.