An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Pages
▼
Pages
▼
Saturday, February 2, 2019
Video proves Davos billionaires clueless
Many Americans talk about making America great again, but when it really was great, it had a tax take off over 70% for the very wealthy.
. It is natural to regard rich people as somehow smarter than we are.
However this is an illusion.
Rich people can travel anywhere in the world, but they remain forever confined to the surface of life, unable to experience the vast depths below, where regular people live.
Rich people delude themselves that luck is irrelevant, and environment is negligible. They imagine that their wealth is entirely a product of their talent and hard work. Likewise they imagine that poverty is entirely a product of one's own laziness and stupidity.
This is why most governments work for billionaires, and not for the 99%. Billionaires are clueless about people with less privilege. They regard anyone who tries to make a difference as a threat that must be eliminated (e.g. Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela).
Sadly, most people agree with the rich. Just as rich people pretend that those with less privilege are worthless or non-existent, most people at the mid-levels pretend that those below them are worthless or non-existent.
And so the nightmare continues.
Incidentally some people are complaining that Howard Schultz (former head of Starbucks Coffee) wants to run for president. They say that, as a billionaire, Schultz is clueless. They would rather vote for psychopathic candidates like Kamala Harris, who wants to be a puppet of clueless billionaires like Schultz.
One other thing: There are two problems with calls for taxing the rich. First, it won’t work, since rich people own the government. Second, “tax the rich” sustains the false illusion that monetarily sovereign governments need tax revenue.
I say let the rich keep what they have, but let’s not give them any more. No more bailouts and subsidies. No more free lunch. Let’s give to regular people instead.
1950-70 was an absolute boom time for US industrial and economic growth. The era of high tax rates resulted in a nationwide power and communications grid, a nationwide transportation infrastructure, a space program that put men on the moon, etc., not to mention a much higher degree of economic equality where health care was not rationed by extortion, families could thrive on a single paycheck, etc.
RODDIS: Just because you say something does not mean it is true. In fact the opposite is much more accurate.
You are unable to debate even the simplest logical points, such as the basic contradictions inherent in your libertarian fantasy of non-aggression that not only entirely overlooks economic violence against citizens but also the necessity of government to protect us from such predations. Are you still using government services?
Every time I challenge you on these points you go hide in a closet. Do humanity a favor and have someone lock that door from the outside. I'd be happy to volunteer if you don't have any friends - which would be entirely understandable.
That’s the first thing Roddis ever said that I agree with. The rich pay no taxes. Not ever. Nor should the rich pay taxes at the federal level. The US government effectively destroys tax revenue upon receipt. Therefore taxing the rich at the federal level will not help the poor.
(However we should quadruple taxes on the rich at the state, county, and municipal levels.)
As I said above, what’s needed is not higher federal taxes on the rich, but lower federal spending on the rich. Fewer wars, bailouts, subsidies, and other free lunches.
“The era of high tax rates resulted in a nationwide power and communications grid, a nationwide transportation infrastructure…” ~ Noah Way
Tax revenues do not pay for any federal programs. Federal dollars are created out of thin air by changing the numbers in bank accounts. In a sporting game, points are created by changing the numbers on the scoreboard. “Points revenue” is not needed. When we change a scoreboard back to zero, we make the points vanish into thin air where they came from. Likewise, when the federal government taxes dollars, it debits checking accounts. Those dollars vanish into thin air where they came from.
What made the 1950s different from today was not taxation, but priorities. Federal dollars (created out of thin air) were spent on building highways and the other things that Noah Way mentioned. Today, federal dollars are spent on endless war, and on making rich people richer.
++++++++++++++++++
Regarding libertarians, they want total freedom for themselves, and total constraints on everyone they don’t like or don’t agree with.
An economic history lesson for tax warriors @IlhanMN @ACO @SenSanders When the top marginal tax rate DECREASED from 91% to 35% over time, the tax share of the rich INCREASED. So if you RAISE the top tax rate to 70-90%, you'll LOWER the tax burden paid by the rich, see chart.
1950-70 was an absolute boom time for US industrial and economic growth.
Hmmm. Those were the final years of the kinda-sorta Gold [exchange] Standard. Before the full regime of total fiat funny money.
Plus, the same high rates along with the full regime of total fiat funny money brought us the inflationary cruddy 70s. Now there's a program for the future!!! At least the music was good.
Roddis writes in disjointed symbols, abbreviations, and sentence fragments. He does not understand the need to be clear. He assumes that everyone can read his mind without explanation (and if they can't, they are stupid). He does not understand that every assertion should be a logical consequence of the previous assertion, such that assembling a commentary is like knitting a rug, in which each stitch secures all the other stitches.
Oh well.
All we can do is show a person how to do something. Whether he chooses to listen is not our problem.
.
ReplyDeleteIt is natural to regard rich people as somehow smarter than we are.
However this is an illusion.
Rich people can travel anywhere in the world, but they remain forever confined to the surface of life, unable to experience the vast depths below, where regular people live.
Rich people delude themselves that luck is irrelevant, and environment is negligible. They imagine that their wealth is entirely a product of their talent and hard work. Likewise they imagine that poverty is entirely a product of one's own laziness and stupidity.
This is why most governments work for billionaires, and not for the 99%. Billionaires are clueless about people with less privilege. They regard anyone who tries to make a difference as a threat that must be eliminated (e.g. Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela).
Sadly, most people agree with the rich. Just as rich people pretend that those with less privilege are worthless or non-existent, most people at the mid-levels pretend that those below them are worthless or non-existent.
And so the nightmare continues.
Incidentally some people are complaining that Howard Schultz (former head of Starbucks Coffee) wants to run for president. They say that, as a billionaire, Schultz is clueless. They would rather vote for psychopathic candidates like Kamala Harris, who wants to be a puppet of clueless billionaires like Schultz.
One other thing: There are two problems with calls for taxing the rich. First, it won’t work, since rich people own the government. Second, “tax the rich” sustains the false illusion that monetarily sovereign governments need tax revenue.
I say let the rich keep what they have, but let’s not give them any more. No more bailouts and subsidies. No more free lunch. Let’s give to regular people instead.
Economic growth was not particularly good in the 1950s and few people actually paid the high marginal rates. I thought everyone knew this.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.aier.org/article/rich-never-actually-paid-70-percent
1950-70 was an absolute boom time for US industrial and economic growth. The era of high tax rates resulted in a nationwide power and communications grid, a nationwide transportation infrastructure, a space program that put men on the moon, etc., not to mention a much higher degree of economic equality where health care was not rationed by extortion, families could thrive on a single paycheck, etc.
ReplyDeleteRODDIS: Just because you say something does not mean it is true. In fact the opposite is much more accurate.
You are unable to debate even the simplest logical points, such as the basic contradictions inherent in your libertarian fantasy of non-aggression that not only entirely overlooks economic violence against citizens but also the necessity of government to protect us from such predations. Are you still using government services?
Every time I challenge you on these points you go hide in a closet. Do humanity a favor and have someone lock that door from the outside. I'd be happy to volunteer if you don't have any friends - which would be entirely understandable.
That’s the first thing Roddis ever said that I agree with. The rich pay no taxes. Not ever. Nor should the rich pay taxes at the federal level. The US government effectively destroys tax revenue upon receipt. Therefore taxing the rich at the federal level will not help the poor.
ReplyDelete(However we should quadruple taxes on the rich at the state, county, and municipal levels.)
As I said above, what’s needed is not higher federal taxes on the rich, but lower federal spending on the rich. Fewer wars, bailouts, subsidies, and other free lunches.
“The era of high tax rates resulted in a nationwide power and communications grid, a nationwide transportation infrastructure…” ~ Noah Way
ReplyDeleteTax revenues do not pay for any federal programs. Federal dollars are created out of thin air by changing the numbers in bank accounts. In a sporting game, points are created by changing the numbers on the scoreboard. “Points revenue” is not needed. When we change a scoreboard back to zero, we make the points vanish into thin air where they came from. Likewise, when the federal government taxes dollars, it debits checking accounts. Those dollars vanish into thin air where they came from.
What made the 1950s different from today was not taxation, but priorities. Federal dollars (created out of thin air) were spent on building highways and the other things that Noah Way mentioned. Today, federal dollars are spent on endless war, and on making rich people richer.
++++++++++++++++++
Regarding libertarians, they want total freedom for themselves, and total constraints on everyone they don’t like or don’t agree with.
This is called “liberty.”
An economic history lesson for tax warriors @IlhanMN @ACO @SenSanders When the top marginal tax rate DECREASED from 91% to 35% over time, the tax share of the rich INCREASED. So if you RAISE the top tax rate to 70-90%, you'll LOWER the tax burden paid by the rich, see chart.
ReplyDeletehttps://tinyurl.com/y8j3ef8u
1950-70 was an absolute boom time for US industrial and economic growth.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. Those were the final years of the kinda-sorta Gold [exchange] Standard. Before the full regime of total fiat funny money.
Plus, the same high rates along with the full regime of total fiat funny money brought us the inflationary cruddy 70s. Now there's a program for the future!!! At least the music was good.
Roddis writes in disjointed symbols, abbreviations, and sentence fragments. He does not understand the need to be clear. He assumes that everyone can read his mind without explanation (and if they can't, they are stupid). He does not understand that every assertion should be a logical consequence of the previous assertion, such that assembling a commentary is like knitting a rug, in which each stitch secures all the other stitches.
ReplyDeleteOh well.
All we can do is show a person how to do something. Whether he chooses to listen is not our problem.
Plus, the same high rates along with the full regime of total fiat funny money brought us the inflationary cruddy 70s
ReplyDeleteHigh rates of taxation = inflation! And the 1973 oil embargo by OPEC had no effect whatsoever.
Roddis, to call you a retard would be an insult to retards.