www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Wondering what comes next
The liberal world order has been defined as standing for "greater individual freedom, greater choice, support for democratic forms of government, a fundamental faith in free-market capitalism and private enterprise, a belief in constitutional forms of government with divided powers, an independent judiciary, separation of church and state, a strong support for free trade and an aversion to protectionism, among other things". Obviously there is a lot to like about these values. Most economists believe that this system is the one that is best suited to the creation of wealth. However the predominance of the liberal world order in the last 30 years has also demonstrated that while the system is good for the creation of wealth overall, it isn't all that good in the distribution of that wealth. That not only leads to a lot of opposition, but is also somewhat self-defeating in the long run: Concentrated wealth is less good at further powering the economy than distributed wealth.
In the USA and a lot of other places the current main opposition against the liberal world order comes from the right, from nationalism, protectionism, populism, and ethnocentrism. However if you look at those right-wing forces enacting policies like the current US tax reform or the Brexit from the UK, it is likely that the right will not solve the problem of wealth distribution any better than the liberal world order (and will presumably create less wealth in the first place). Blaming foreigners and the media will only get right-wing politicians so far until the people realize that they aren't in fact "better off than they were four years ago". It is that, and not the whole lot of unrelated shouting about various values, that ultimately will bring change. The liberal world order failed the people, but the conservative version isn't doing any better. So I'm wondering what will come next.
One likely answer is in the form of people like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. The economic left might one day look like a good answer to people whose main concern is wealth distribution, because the economic left has always stood for redistribution of wealth. However the economic left also has some policies in their book that hinders wealth creation more than necessary for a fair distribution. And they have a long history of ending up with "more equal than others" policies that aren't in fact much closer to a fair distribution of wealth than the conservative version.
What an optimist could hope for would be a reformed liberal world order, the same values as above but with a priority for wealth distribution and against too much wealth concentration. A vision like in Robert Reich's Saving Capitalism. However if you look at how the world previously solved excesses of wealth creation, there are only few examples of peaceful solutions (e.g. Theodore Roosevelt) and lots of examples of the wealth ending up destroyed or redistributed through war and revolution. A pessimist would buy gold coins instead of bitcoins.
In the USA and a lot of other places the current main opposition against the liberal world order comes from the right, from nationalism, protectionism, populism, and ethnocentrism. However if you look at those right-wing forces enacting policies like the current US tax reform or the Brexit from the UK, it is likely that the right will not solve the problem of wealth distribution any better than the liberal world order (and will presumably create less wealth in the first place). Blaming foreigners and the media will only get right-wing politicians so far until the people realize that they aren't in fact "better off than they were four years ago". It is that, and not the whole lot of unrelated shouting about various values, that ultimately will bring change. The liberal world order failed the people, but the conservative version isn't doing any better. So I'm wondering what will come next.
One likely answer is in the form of people like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. The economic left might one day look like a good answer to people whose main concern is wealth distribution, because the economic left has always stood for redistribution of wealth. However the economic left also has some policies in their book that hinders wealth creation more than necessary for a fair distribution. And they have a long history of ending up with "more equal than others" policies that aren't in fact much closer to a fair distribution of wealth than the conservative version.
What an optimist could hope for would be a reformed liberal world order, the same values as above but with a priority for wealth distribution and against too much wealth concentration. A vision like in Robert Reich's Saving Capitalism. However if you look at how the world previously solved excesses of wealth creation, there are only few examples of peaceful solutions (e.g. Theodore Roosevelt) and lots of examples of the wealth ending up destroyed or redistributed through war and revolution. A pessimist would buy gold coins instead of bitcoins.
- posted by Tobold @ 1:31 PM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
Before re-distribution phase you got to first block capital from escaping once threatened... and that is easier with nationalism trappings.
Once global nature of capital is removed, they can be forced to pay their fair share to locals - both left and right have policies that can be used to that end.
Once global nature of capital is removed, they can be forced to pay their fair share to locals - both left and right have policies that can be used to that end.
Tobold, this is a really confusing post to me. Everything else you write is so well reasoned, I suspect someone has hacked your account.
The "definition" that it's based on doesn't stand up as true to begin with. Our liberals here in the USA, don't believe in free-market at all, they want all jobs to be regulated and generated by the government. Their big government and high taxation of small business is the opposite of private enterprise. They don't believe in a separation of church and state either. The liberal belief system is that the state should strictly adhere to the church of atheism, and that all other religions should be prosecuted and done away (look need no further than recent supreme court cases).
I don't support the current power monger "conservatives" these days either, but the liberals are certainly not what they are defining themselves as.
The "definition" that it's based on doesn't stand up as true to begin with. Our liberals here in the USA, don't believe in free-market at all, they want all jobs to be regulated and generated by the government. Their big government and high taxation of small business is the opposite of private enterprise. They don't believe in a separation of church and state either. The liberal belief system is that the state should strictly adhere to the church of atheism, and that all other religions should be prosecuted and done away (look need no further than recent supreme court cases).
I don't support the current power monger "conservatives" these days either, but the liberals are certainly not what they are defining themselves as.
@BugHunter: Please follow the link. "Liberal" means something completely different in the rest of the world and in the rest of history than it does in the USA today. For me the identity politics of the US left aren't much different from those of the US right, and whether you disguise your attempts to control the thoughts and behavior of others in left wing "political correctness" or right wing "family values" ultimately is the same.
The liberalism of the 18th century Enlightenment is something very different. In most countries "liberals" are center or just right-of-center, not left wing. The liberal world order that took hold in the late 80's is one of deregulation and small government, increased globalization and free market. Economic politics that both Reagan and Bill Clinton subscribed to. So did left-of-center and right-of-center parties in many other countries, which is why the system is now so prevalent world-wide. It is the extreme left and the extreme right that are now trying to tear that liberal world order down.
The liberalism of the 18th century Enlightenment is something very different. In most countries "liberals" are center or just right-of-center, not left wing. The liberal world order that took hold in the late 80's is one of deregulation and small government, increased globalization and free market. Economic politics that both Reagan and Bill Clinton subscribed to. So did left-of-center and right-of-center parties in many other countries, which is why the system is now so prevalent world-wide. It is the extreme left and the extreme right that are now trying to tear that liberal world order down.
@Tobold: if conservatism is bad at creating wealth, why does Trump has higher GDP growth in his first year, despite unprecedented attacks and obviously inexperienced team than Obama had any of his years?
The truth about "inequality" is that morons and slackers exist. This is why there is inequality in a video game which is a paradise for equal chances: full employment, no illness, no disasters, no inherited wealth.
There can be no way to stop inequality without damaging growth as you can only decrease it by taking resources from the hard working and smart and give it to the morons and slackers.
Trump has a magic wand: he realized that tens of millions of the morons and slackers have no citizenship and can be deported. He never tried to shut down merit-based immigration. He INCREASED the amount of H1B visas (for highly skilled workers). He wants to get rid of those who don't work or only work for sub-minimal wage.
Sure, you are right that this doesn't help the World as a whole as the same moron will be a starving moron in Mexico instead of a drunken moron living on welfare in the USA. But for the USA this will be "someone else's problem". I already proposed a real solution for the World: https://greedygoblinblog.wordpress.com/my-utopia-free-market-no-worksale-taxes-full-employment-low-gini/
The truth about "inequality" is that morons and slackers exist. This is why there is inequality in a video game which is a paradise for equal chances: full employment, no illness, no disasters, no inherited wealth.
There can be no way to stop inequality without damaging growth as you can only decrease it by taking resources from the hard working and smart and give it to the morons and slackers.
Trump has a magic wand: he realized that tens of millions of the morons and slackers have no citizenship and can be deported. He never tried to shut down merit-based immigration. He INCREASED the amount of H1B visas (for highly skilled workers). He wants to get rid of those who don't work or only work for sub-minimal wage.
Sure, you are right that this doesn't help the World as a whole as the same moron will be a starving moron in Mexico instead of a drunken moron living on welfare in the USA. But for the USA this will be "someone else's problem". I already proposed a real solution for the World: https://greedygoblinblog.wordpress.com/my-utopia-free-market-no-worksale-taxes-full-employment-low-gini/
The thing about "redistribution of wealth", is that it has become a politically correct way to promote socialism as an agenda. Also, regardless of which side of the political spectrum one's beliefs are attached, the "redistribution of wealth" ideology only goes as far as detailing how it should affect someone else's wealth, and any proposed plan of action will always be such that it affects someone else dis-proportionally in its application. Socialism can never work on a large scale, and as Ms. Thatcher accurately stated "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.".
I'm fairly certain that if Tobold was forced to take a substantial pay cut due to his employer jumping on the "wealth redistribution" bandwagon, his ideology would no doubt change over time as wage equalization saw people with less of an education or skills than himself, were being paid wages not reflective of our current system of determining wage worth.
This is what drives the issues people have with globalization, in that any corporation can move to another country with a lower standard of living and make huge profits from paying wages that are lower than in their host country. The problem with any system is one of greed and improper stewardship of natural resources. One is finite, the other is not. The other issue is greed that ensues from the service industry taking advantage of any wage increases that may occur. When wages go up, the price of food, medical care, gas, electricity and housing go up due to the comically defined term of "inflation", which is just another way of defining greed and is supported in many cases by governmental influence. All one has to do is look at how many of today's global entities have diversified their holdings to where they indirectly control many of the service industries in areas where manufacturing jobs are also controlled by them. Simply put, greed is not limited to the ideology of capitalism. It exists in any system.
I'm fairly certain that if Tobold was forced to take a substantial pay cut due to his employer jumping on the "wealth redistribution" bandwagon, his ideology would no doubt change over time as wage equalization saw people with less of an education or skills than himself, were being paid wages not reflective of our current system of determining wage worth.
This is what drives the issues people have with globalization, in that any corporation can move to another country with a lower standard of living and make huge profits from paying wages that are lower than in their host country. The problem with any system is one of greed and improper stewardship of natural resources. One is finite, the other is not. The other issue is greed that ensues from the service industry taking advantage of any wage increases that may occur. When wages go up, the price of food, medical care, gas, electricity and housing go up due to the comically defined term of "inflation", which is just another way of defining greed and is supported in many cases by governmental influence. All one has to do is look at how many of today's global entities have diversified their holdings to where they indirectly control many of the service industries in areas where manufacturing jobs are also controlled by them. Simply put, greed is not limited to the ideology of capitalism. It exists in any system.
if Tobold was forced to take a substantial pay cut due to his employer jumping on the "wealth redistribution" bandwagon
The situation you describe is the current situation. Employers cut pay to employees to redistribute the wealth away from the people who created it with their work and towards the shareholders who get a far bigger share than they deserve. A better distribution of wealth would give more money to employees and workers, and less to morons and slackers who just happen to own shares.
why does Trump has higher GDP growth in his first year
The GDP of any president in his first years obviously depends on the actions of his predecessor. You will need to judge Trump on what happens to GDP *after* his tax reform. Trump hasn't done *any* major legislation up to now which could have affected GDP.
The situation you describe is the current situation. Employers cut pay to employees to redistribute the wealth away from the people who created it with their work and towards the shareholders who get a far bigger share than they deserve. A better distribution of wealth would give more money to employees and workers, and less to morons and slackers who just happen to own shares.
why does Trump has higher GDP growth in his first year
The GDP of any president in his first years obviously depends on the actions of his predecessor. You will need to judge Trump on what happens to GDP *after* his tax reform. Trump hasn't done *any* major legislation up to now which could have affected GDP.
@Tobold: I agree that Trump did nothing that would warrant economic growth. But look at the stock prices graph (NASDAQ, but all look the same: https://greedygoblinblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/stockch.jpg) It started to boom on election night. Soros lost a billion over shorting the "Trump disaster" which ended up the largest boom in 17 years.
He wasn't even president until Jan 20. It's not that "Trump is booming the economy now he is here", it was "Obama was holding the economy back and now he's gone".
He wasn't even president until Jan 20. It's not that "Trump is booming the economy now he is here", it was "Obama was holding the economy back and now he's gone".
You confuse the stock market with the economy. The stock market depends on the mood of rich people. The mood of rich people improves if a president promises them a huge tax cut. And he is delivering on that, which is a huge windfall to himself and other rich people. The economic pain to the middle class and poor people comes years later, because the "trickle down" theory has been disproved back in the Reagan area.
@Gevlon
"if conservatism is bad at creating wealth, why does Trump has higher GDP growth in his first year, despite unprecedented attacks and obviously inexperienced team than Obama had any of his years?"
Tobold is right, I don't know of any respected economist who doesn't credit the previous president with the economic growth in the first year of a new president. This is for 2 reasons. First, the economy is a battleship, not a speed boat, it changes direction slowly over time. Second, you realize the 2017 federal budget was passed by Obama, right? Just as the 2009 budget was passed by Bush, the 2001 budget was passed by Clinton etc. The federal budget is the primary way presidents can affect the economy, and anything significant a president might pass in their first year wouldn't come into effect until the next year, or late in the year at earliest.
This is why the economy has not been significantly different than it was under Obama. Mostly, this means unemployment slowly going down with wages stagnating, as they have been for 30 years or so. The jobs added per month is pretty much identical to 2016. And I don't know where you have heard we are having any kind of amazing GDP growth, but it really hasn't been anything notable compared to most of Obama's tenure:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/188185/percent-chance-from-preceding-period-in-real-gdp-in-the-us/
Also, the president doesn't have nearly as much impact on the stock market as they are given credit for. You should be glad about this, because the stock market was considered overvalued at the start of 2016 when a lot of people predicted it would have a 20-30% correction that year, but instead has gone up significantly over the last 2 years. It is now massively overvalued, and really due for a significant correction. People are going to blame Trump when that part really won't be his fault. I suspect you will be shouting this rather loudly when it happens.
"There can be no way to stop inequality without damaging growth as you can only decrease it by taking resources from the hard working and smart and give it to the morons and slackers."
This is pretty much exactly the opposite of what basically every respected economist says now. However lazy you think poor people are, the bottom 40-60% make fantastic consumers because they spend everything they get, stimulating the economy. Meanwhile, the wealthy save most of their money. I'm not going to argue about whether it's "fair," but things like food stamps have a great economic return on investment, while tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy have basically no impact. In fact, lower top income tax rate is pretty heavily correlated with lower economic growth.
That being said, Trump has talked about doing infrastructure spending, which IS effective.
"if conservatism is bad at creating wealth, why does Trump has higher GDP growth in his first year, despite unprecedented attacks and obviously inexperienced team than Obama had any of his years?"
Tobold is right, I don't know of any respected economist who doesn't credit the previous president with the economic growth in the first year of a new president. This is for 2 reasons. First, the economy is a battleship, not a speed boat, it changes direction slowly over time. Second, you realize the 2017 federal budget was passed by Obama, right? Just as the 2009 budget was passed by Bush, the 2001 budget was passed by Clinton etc. The federal budget is the primary way presidents can affect the economy, and anything significant a president might pass in their first year wouldn't come into effect until the next year, or late in the year at earliest.
This is why the economy has not been significantly different than it was under Obama. Mostly, this means unemployment slowly going down with wages stagnating, as they have been for 30 years or so. The jobs added per month is pretty much identical to 2016. And I don't know where you have heard we are having any kind of amazing GDP growth, but it really hasn't been anything notable compared to most of Obama's tenure:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/188185/percent-chance-from-preceding-period-in-real-gdp-in-the-us/
Also, the president doesn't have nearly as much impact on the stock market as they are given credit for. You should be glad about this, because the stock market was considered overvalued at the start of 2016 when a lot of people predicted it would have a 20-30% correction that year, but instead has gone up significantly over the last 2 years. It is now massively overvalued, and really due for a significant correction. People are going to blame Trump when that part really won't be his fault. I suspect you will be shouting this rather loudly when it happens.
"There can be no way to stop inequality without damaging growth as you can only decrease it by taking resources from the hard working and smart and give it to the morons and slackers."
This is pretty much exactly the opposite of what basically every respected economist says now. However lazy you think poor people are, the bottom 40-60% make fantastic consumers because they spend everything they get, stimulating the economy. Meanwhile, the wealthy save most of their money. I'm not going to argue about whether it's "fair," but things like food stamps have a great economic return on investment, while tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy have basically no impact. In fact, lower top income tax rate is pretty heavily correlated with lower economic growth.
That being said, Trump has talked about doing infrastructure spending, which IS effective.
@Samus
"However lazy you think poor people are, the bottom 40-60% make fantastic consumers because they spend everything they get, stimulating the economy. Meanwhile, the wealthy save most of their money."
It's not that the wealthy are able to save most of their money, it's that the current tax laws enable them to invest those monies in low risk ventures, put them in blind trusts or other avenues of tax reduction. It's important to point out that if the wealthy were actually "saving" their money, it would reside in a bank just like everyone else's money. It would face the same risks, but it would also earn taxable interest which they want to avoid or reduce, so that put that money into an apparatus that benefits no one in the 40-60% you mention above.
"However lazy you think poor people are, the bottom 40-60% make fantastic consumers because they spend everything they get, stimulating the economy. Meanwhile, the wealthy save most of their money."
It's not that the wealthy are able to save most of their money, it's that the current tax laws enable them to invest those monies in low risk ventures, put them in blind trusts or other avenues of tax reduction. It's important to point out that if the wealthy were actually "saving" their money, it would reside in a bank just like everyone else's money. It would face the same risks, but it would also earn taxable interest which they want to avoid or reduce, so that put that money into an apparatus that benefits no one in the 40-60% you mention above.
@Samus: are you even listening to the nonsense coming out of your mouth? "The 40-60% make fantastic consumers because they spend everything they get."
If you think it's a plus and stimulate the economy, please send me your salary and I promise that I'll spend it all in an hour!
The economy grows when people build and create. Getting someone taking it FOR FREE is the easy part (if they spend tax money of the working people, the working people people practically gave it them for free).
If you are worried about everyone living a frugal life and not spending his money, I have a wonderful idea: how about taking the same tax money and spend it on cancer research, space program and nature preservation? That would increase the well-being of the working people AND the GDP. If you consider this opportunity cost, you surely realize that M&S are nothing but ball and chain on the economy.
If you think it's a plus and stimulate the economy, please send me your salary and I promise that I'll spend it all in an hour!
The economy grows when people build and create. Getting someone taking it FOR FREE is the easy part (if they spend tax money of the working people, the working people people practically gave it them for free).
If you are worried about everyone living a frugal life and not spending his money, I have a wonderful idea: how about taking the same tax money and spend it on cancer research, space program and nature preservation? That would increase the well-being of the working people AND the GDP. If you consider this opportunity cost, you surely realize that M&S are nothing but ball and chain on the economy.
@Gevlon: Could you define "morons & slackers", please? Economic measures that I would propose would be a raise of the minimum wage, and greater percentage of a company's profits going to employees rather than to shareholders. If somebody was a complete moron & slacker and wasn't working at all, these measures wouldn't benefit him.
Or are you calling people who work 40+ hours a week at minimum wage "morons & slackers"? Not even in America are 40%-60% people not working at all and living on welfare. Actually in America those 40%-60% call themselves the "middle class", although elsewhere and in previous times they would have been called the "working class" instead. That is the people that a good economy should funnel more money to.
Or are you calling people who work 40+ hours a week at minimum wage "morons & slackers"? Not even in America are 40%-60% people not working at all and living on welfare. Actually in America those 40%-60% call themselves the "middle class", although elsewhere and in previous times they would have been called the "working class" instead. That is the people that a good economy should funnel more money to.
@Gevlon
If you don't understand the link between consumer spending and economic growth, I don't know what to say here. I wouldn't like it if you spent my salary in an hour, but it would boost the economy. Trickle down economics has been thoroughly debunked, there aren't any respected economist still endorsing it. The "nonsense coming out of my mouth" is what's coming out of the mouths of everyone worth listening to on the subject.
Growth does require a balance between available investment capital and profitable investment opportunities, which are driven by consumer spending. In the US, there has not been any shortage of investment capital since the great depression. Even through the 2008 financial crisis, there was more than enough. Right now, the amount of currently available investment capital is at record levels. There is no rational analysis of the current US economic situation that would lead an intelligent person to say "the problem is we need more investment capital."
I don't really care what restrictions you put on how you funnel money to consumers (the economy certainly doesn't care "why"). Tobold's suggestion for a minimum wage increase is a good one, you can't possibly benefit from it without working. I already said infrastructure spending is effective, which again is paying people for work done. If you have another suggestion, I would love to hear it.
"If you are worried about everyone living a frugal life and not spending his money, I have a wonderful idea: how about taking the same tax money and spend it on cancer research, space program and nature preservation?
I absolutely think we should do this. It is a shame that Republicans in congress are looking to cut these things.
If you don't understand the link between consumer spending and economic growth, I don't know what to say here. I wouldn't like it if you spent my salary in an hour, but it would boost the economy. Trickle down economics has been thoroughly debunked, there aren't any respected economist still endorsing it. The "nonsense coming out of my mouth" is what's coming out of the mouths of everyone worth listening to on the subject.
Growth does require a balance between available investment capital and profitable investment opportunities, which are driven by consumer spending. In the US, there has not been any shortage of investment capital since the great depression. Even through the 2008 financial crisis, there was more than enough. Right now, the amount of currently available investment capital is at record levels. There is no rational analysis of the current US economic situation that would lead an intelligent person to say "the problem is we need more investment capital."
I don't really care what restrictions you put on how you funnel money to consumers (the economy certainly doesn't care "why"). Tobold's suggestion for a minimum wage increase is a good one, you can't possibly benefit from it without working. I already said infrastructure spending is effective, which again is paying people for work done. If you have another suggestion, I would love to hear it.
"If you are worried about everyone living a frugal life and not spending his money, I have a wonderful idea: how about taking the same tax money and spend it on cancer research, space program and nature preservation?
I absolutely think we should do this. It is a shame that Republicans in congress are looking to cut these things.
@Tobold: in the USA there are 154M employed people for 350M citizens and 50M immigrants. So that 40-60% is probably understatement. I know: kids, elderly, housewives and so on. 44M are on literal food stamps.
Morons and slackers are those who don't work and live on some form of welfare. Not just government welfare, but the stereotypical "lives in mom's basement and plays games" types.
I would support bigger share of the profit going to workers, I just don't see a way to do it other than cutting low income taxes. However making the rich pay taxes can only happen if they can't just move their wealth to other countries, so international trade and investment must be strongly taxed, so they rather pay tax at home. This is why I think Trump can make real difference: http://greedygoblin.blogspot.hu/2017/02/trumpian-economic-justice.html
@Samus: I of course understand that in order to have economy, there must be demand for products. But we don't need poor people for that. Let me explain:
- Government collect $1000 in taxes.
- Government gives $1000 to poor.
- Poor spends $1000 on food and eats it.
- Food industry now have $1000 reason to produce food
Alternative:
- Government collect $1000 in taxes.
- Government spends $1000 on food and throws it into the sea
- Food industry now have $1000 reason to produce food
For the GDP there is no difference. The only "contribution" of the welfare leech is that he ate the food. Now, if we accept that the two are the same for GDP, we can find a better way to spend $1000:
- Government collect $1000 in taxes.
- Government spends $1000 on Mars program
- Aerospace industry now have $1000 reason to produce rockets
I never said that I'm supporting trickle-down. I'm NOT a small government free market capitalist. I merely think that among the politically existing parties, the small government free market capitalists are the least bad. The alternative is those who pay people for being useless.
Morons and slackers are those who don't work and live on some form of welfare. Not just government welfare, but the stereotypical "lives in mom's basement and plays games" types.
I would support bigger share of the profit going to workers, I just don't see a way to do it other than cutting low income taxes. However making the rich pay taxes can only happen if they can't just move their wealth to other countries, so international trade and investment must be strongly taxed, so they rather pay tax at home. This is why I think Trump can make real difference: http://greedygoblin.blogspot.hu/2017/02/trumpian-economic-justice.html
@Samus: I of course understand that in order to have economy, there must be demand for products. But we don't need poor people for that. Let me explain:
- Government collect $1000 in taxes.
- Government gives $1000 to poor.
- Poor spends $1000 on food and eats it.
- Food industry now have $1000 reason to produce food
Alternative:
- Government collect $1000 in taxes.
- Government spends $1000 on food and throws it into the sea
- Food industry now have $1000 reason to produce food
For the GDP there is no difference. The only "contribution" of the welfare leech is that he ate the food. Now, if we accept that the two are the same for GDP, we can find a better way to spend $1000:
- Government collect $1000 in taxes.
- Government spends $1000 on Mars program
- Aerospace industry now have $1000 reason to produce rockets
I never said that I'm supporting trickle-down. I'm NOT a small government free market capitalist. I merely think that among the politically existing parties, the small government free market capitalists are the least bad. The alternative is those who pay people for being useless.
@Gevlon
I don't know where you got your numbers, but the US population is 325M, which already includes 7% non-citizens (or just under 23M). People ages 15-64 account for 66.8% of the population (217M). Labor participation rate is 62.7% (204M), which is a historic low due to baby boomers retiring. About 9 million elderly individuals (65+) have jobs, leaving 195M working age people who have or are looking for jobs, which in turn leaves 22M who are not. There are 15.1M people in public high school, another 2.2M are in private high school, 25% of high school kids have jobs (4.3M) There are 20.4M in college, 70% of which are working (14.3M). I couldn't find employment numbers for housewives (I don't know if you count those as "slackers" or not), but even ignoring them that leaves only 3M working age individuals in the US who are not working, looking for work, or in school. 1% of the population is pretty far off from 40-60%.
As for welfare, I can't speak for your country, but welfare in the US was overhauled during the late 90s under Clinton. Almost all welfare outside of Medicaid now has a work requirement. The exceptions are for single mothers, elderly, and "temporary assistance" which requires you to be looking for a job and stops after 2 years even if you haven't found one. The idea of lazy people just deciding not to work and live off the government does not really exist here.
On top of that, total welfare spending in the US is $356 billion, out of a budget of over $4 trillion. It's less than 10% of total spending, less than half of defense spending. It really doesn't cost that much comparatively.
"The alternative is those who pay people for being useless."
I know I'm not going to convince you to care about helping people, but surely you can see that a program which gives $1000 to the poor for food could put conditions on that money? There is no reason it needs to be a program that "pays people for being useless." You can give the food industry $1000 to produce food AND get those people to do something useful.
But that is not an alternative on offer right now. The two sides are either economically stimulating spending (even if you hate who it goes to) or economically damaging austerity to (partially) pay for tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals. The tax bill Republicans in congress are passing does not contain any of the tax reform you claim Trump wants. Will he veto it? Will you actually criticize him if he doesn't?
I don't know where you got your numbers, but the US population is 325M, which already includes 7% non-citizens (or just under 23M). People ages 15-64 account for 66.8% of the population (217M). Labor participation rate is 62.7% (204M), which is a historic low due to baby boomers retiring. About 9 million elderly individuals (65+) have jobs, leaving 195M working age people who have or are looking for jobs, which in turn leaves 22M who are not. There are 15.1M people in public high school, another 2.2M are in private high school, 25% of high school kids have jobs (4.3M) There are 20.4M in college, 70% of which are working (14.3M). I couldn't find employment numbers for housewives (I don't know if you count those as "slackers" or not), but even ignoring them that leaves only 3M working age individuals in the US who are not working, looking for work, or in school. 1% of the population is pretty far off from 40-60%.
As for welfare, I can't speak for your country, but welfare in the US was overhauled during the late 90s under Clinton. Almost all welfare outside of Medicaid now has a work requirement. The exceptions are for single mothers, elderly, and "temporary assistance" which requires you to be looking for a job and stops after 2 years even if you haven't found one. The idea of lazy people just deciding not to work and live off the government does not really exist here.
On top of that, total welfare spending in the US is $356 billion, out of a budget of over $4 trillion. It's less than 10% of total spending, less than half of defense spending. It really doesn't cost that much comparatively.
"The alternative is those who pay people for being useless."
I know I'm not going to convince you to care about helping people, but surely you can see that a program which gives $1000 to the poor for food could put conditions on that money? There is no reason it needs to be a program that "pays people for being useless." You can give the food industry $1000 to produce food AND get those people to do something useful.
But that is not an alternative on offer right now. The two sides are either economically stimulating spending (even if you hate who it goes to) or economically damaging austerity to (partially) pay for tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals. The tax bill Republicans in congress are passing does not contain any of the tax reform you claim Trump wants. Will he veto it? Will you actually criticize him if he doesn't?
And this is going to be made worse once automation gains momentum. The 'morons' are the first to go. I am very certain we will end up with some sort of basic income system - but not until a lot of Blood has been shed :-(
@Samus: if only 3M people don't work, where do the 356B goes?! That's 120K per unemployed. If we assume that an average welfare recipient gets 10K, that assumes 36M welfare recipients.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm says 153M employed. Labor participation rate is the % of employed out of the 15-64 and not total population!
So we are talking about 70-80M 15-64 people who don't work. And even "work" is subjective as someone with a few days employment last month is called "employed".
Noncitizens are horribly underestimated, as illegals can't be measured. They are estimated to 10M in official statistics, based on absolutely nothing, the real numbers are closer to 40M. They take awful lot of welfare for their US born children.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm says 153M employed. Labor participation rate is the % of employed out of the 15-64 and not total population!
So we are talking about 70-80M 15-64 people who don't work. And even "work" is subjective as someone with a few days employment last month is called "employed".
Noncitizens are horribly underestimated, as illegals can't be measured. They are estimated to 10M in official statistics, based on absolutely nothing, the real numbers are closer to 40M. They take awful lot of welfare for their US born children.
@Samus: sorry, missed the end. I already disawoved Trump. I think he is a con artist who just wanted to stick it up to Obama to get even for the Lion King show, without meaning anything he said. That doesn't mean that what he said isn't the best political program of my lifetime and he wouldn't be the greatest politician I've seen if only he'd keep his words.
He still have moments. The way he fights the fake news media and the "intelligence community" is remarkable. But on economics it's Paul Ryan who runs the show with the Goldman Sachs execs. Their tax plan is stupid. But it's still better than Obama's.
The tax plan (or its expectation) doesn't cause the stock and GDP boom. It's the cultural change that companies are no longer expecting to have to diversity hire and pay to every offended idiot.
He still have moments. The way he fights the fake news media and the "intelligence community" is remarkable. But on economics it's Paul Ryan who runs the show with the Goldman Sachs execs. Their tax plan is stupid. But it's still better than Obama's.
The tax plan (or its expectation) doesn't cause the stock and GDP boom. It's the cultural change that companies are no longer expecting to have to diversity hire and pay to every offended idiot.
@Gevlon
The "civilian noninstitutional population" figure they are using (256M) counts everyone over the age of 16 (325M - 70M kids 15 or younger). This includes all elderly over 65 (49M total, 40M not working) and students (roughly 15M not working). Out of 60M married couples, in 46% of them both parents work, or another 32M "housewives" (or house husbands). I don't know if you count housewives as "slackers," it would be 47M if you do, 15M "slackers" if you don't. This is not far off from the current 4% unemployment number. I guess I don't feel strongly about calling them slackers, although you aren't counted as "unemployed" if you aren't actively searching for a job.
"if only 3M people don't work, where do the 356B goes?!"
As I said in the previous post, it almost entirely goes to working poor, elderly, and single mothers. Even at 40 hours a week, the current minimum wage does not pay enough to go above the poverty line. Raising the minimum wage would go a long way to reducing their dependence on welfare. Can't say I see a good solution for single mothers or poor elderly, though.
"the real numbers are closer to 40M. They take awful lot of welfare for their US born children."
I don't suppose you have a credible source to back up either of those statements?
The "civilian noninstitutional population" figure they are using (256M) counts everyone over the age of 16 (325M - 70M kids 15 or younger). This includes all elderly over 65 (49M total, 40M not working) and students (roughly 15M not working). Out of 60M married couples, in 46% of them both parents work, or another 32M "housewives" (or house husbands). I don't know if you count housewives as "slackers," it would be 47M if you do, 15M "slackers" if you don't. This is not far off from the current 4% unemployment number. I guess I don't feel strongly about calling them slackers, although you aren't counted as "unemployed" if you aren't actively searching for a job.
"if only 3M people don't work, where do the 356B goes?!"
As I said in the previous post, it almost entirely goes to working poor, elderly, and single mothers. Even at 40 hours a week, the current minimum wage does not pay enough to go above the poverty line. Raising the minimum wage would go a long way to reducing their dependence on welfare. Can't say I see a good solution for single mothers or poor elderly, though.
"the real numbers are closer to 40M. They take awful lot of welfare for their US born children."
I don't suppose you have a credible source to back up either of those statements?
@Samus: the solution for single mothers is simple: if you don't give them money, they stop having kids single. Poor women "marrying the state" is just a mass-producing of next generation poor.
Raising the minimum wage would just lead to more formally employed citizens replaced by illegal immigrants employed without papers. The only way to increase wages is decreasing work supply, ergo deporting immigrants. Elderly poor: "you should have saved money while young, sucks to be you".
https://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Households-Children
Raising the minimum wage would just lead to more formally employed citizens replaced by illegal immigrants employed without papers. The only way to increase wages is decreasing work supply, ergo deporting immigrants. Elderly poor: "you should have saved money while young, sucks to be you".
https://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Households-Children
@Gevlon
I really don't think most single mothers decided "I think I'll become a single mother for the awesome welfare." Countries with more welfare have lower instances of single parent families.
Minimum wage hikes have been extensively studied, both here and in other countries. The research has overwhelmingly shown no significant change in unemployment. Countries with far higher minimum wage do not have higher unemployment rates. There are few things in economics with as much certainty as the fact that a minimum wage increase does not have significant negative impacts. It does mean lower class workers have more money and use less welfare.
I know I'm not going to convince you to care about poor people, even elderly poor, but "sucks to be you" is not a solution.
Also, so that's a "no" on finding a credible source on your immigration claims? The Center for Immigration Studies is a far right anti-immigration group, they produce their own heavily criticized research to further those goals. Here's a hint: if all their links are to Fox News instead of legitimate academic sources, they aren't a credible group.
I really don't think most single mothers decided "I think I'll become a single mother for the awesome welfare." Countries with more welfare have lower instances of single parent families.
Minimum wage hikes have been extensively studied, both here and in other countries. The research has overwhelmingly shown no significant change in unemployment. Countries with far higher minimum wage do not have higher unemployment rates. There are few things in economics with as much certainty as the fact that a minimum wage increase does not have significant negative impacts. It does mean lower class workers have more money and use less welfare.
I know I'm not going to convince you to care about poor people, even elderly poor, but "sucks to be you" is not a solution.
Also, so that's a "no" on finding a credible source on your immigration claims? The Center for Immigration Studies is a far right anti-immigration group, they produce their own heavily criticized research to further those goals. Here's a hint: if all their links are to Fox News instead of legitimate academic sources, they aren't a credible group.
@Samus: if minimum wage has no change in unemployment, why not everyone rising minimal wage? The solution is that few post ago you had no idea about the EMPLOYMENT rate of the USA. The thing is that "unemployed" (person without job but looking) is - save for recessions and crazy booms - is ALWAYS 4-5%, everywhere. It's probably related to a time that an average person spends seeking employment without giving up. What grows is the underclass who gives up on ever having a job. Ergo, every study that uses unemployment numbers is as good as the toilet paper they are printed on.
Every research on illegal immigration in the US is heavily political. It is true that everyone first writes the conclusion and then finds biased data to prove his point, making any kind of discussion hard. It's pretty challenging to provide you anything that you don't dismiss out of hand and not something that ends with "AMNESTY NOW". But maybe I got something for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Parents_of_Americans This is a regulation attempt by Obama to protect those who have US citizen children, blocked by SC, scrapped by Trump. It would have given protection to 3.5M by the claims of those who supported it (ergo, the true number is somewhere between 10M and 15M, estimated from the fact that the 1986 farm worker amnesty that was meant to legalize 350K ended up legalizing 1.5M). So even pro-amnesty Obama officials believe that there are 3.5M illegals with US citizen kids. That's about 5M kids, considering the average family size of low income households (most of them are not double-illegal, just one parent is illegal). Since these parents have absolutely no legal income or property in the USA, their kids are eligible for all and every welfare.
Every research on illegal immigration in the US is heavily political. It is true that everyone first writes the conclusion and then finds biased data to prove his point, making any kind of discussion hard. It's pretty challenging to provide you anything that you don't dismiss out of hand and not something that ends with "AMNESTY NOW". But maybe I got something for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Parents_of_Americans This is a regulation attempt by Obama to protect those who have US citizen children, blocked by SC, scrapped by Trump. It would have given protection to 3.5M by the claims of those who supported it (ergo, the true number is somewhere between 10M and 15M, estimated from the fact that the 1986 farm worker amnesty that was meant to legalize 350K ended up legalizing 1.5M). So even pro-amnesty Obama officials believe that there are 3.5M illegals with US citizen kids. That's about 5M kids, considering the average family size of low income households (most of them are not double-illegal, just one parent is illegal). Since these parents have absolutely no legal income or property in the USA, their kids are eligible for all and every welfare.
@Samus: raising the formal minimal wage would do nothing, as most low income earners aren't employed but contracted. The Uber driver isn't hourly paid, but per fare. Increase the minimal wage and you get more workers replaced by contractors, part time workers and above all: immigrants.
Every research on illegal immigration in the US is heavily political. It is true that everyone first writes the conclusion and then finds biased data to prove his point, making any kind of discussion hard. It's pretty challenging to provide you anything that you don't dismiss out of hand and not something that ends with "AMNESTY NOW". But maybe I got something for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Parents_of_Americans This is a regulation attempt by Obama to protect those who have US citizen children, blocked by SC, scrapped by Trump. It would have given protection to 3.5M by the claims of those who supported it (ergo, the true number is somewhere between 10M and 15M, estimated from the fact that the 1986 farm worker amnesty that was meant to legalize 350K ended up legalizing 1.5M). So even pro-amnesty Obama officials believe that there are 3.5M illegals with US citizen kids. That's about 5M kids, considering the average family size of low income households (most of them are not double-illegal, just one parent is illegal). Since these parents have absolutely no legal income or property in the USA, their kids are eligible for all and every welfare.
Every research on illegal immigration in the US is heavily political. It is true that everyone first writes the conclusion and then finds biased data to prove his point, making any kind of discussion hard. It's pretty challenging to provide you anything that you don't dismiss out of hand and not something that ends with "AMNESTY NOW". But maybe I got something for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Parents_of_Americans This is a regulation attempt by Obama to protect those who have US citizen children, blocked by SC, scrapped by Trump. It would have given protection to 3.5M by the claims of those who supported it (ergo, the true number is somewhere between 10M and 15M, estimated from the fact that the 1986 farm worker amnesty that was meant to legalize 350K ended up legalizing 1.5M). So even pro-amnesty Obama officials believe that there are 3.5M illegals with US citizen kids. That's about 5M kids, considering the average family size of low income households (most of them are not double-illegal, just one parent is illegal). Since these parents have absolutely no legal income or property in the USA, their kids are eligible for all and every welfare.
@Gevlon
You'll have to forgive me if I disregard Gevlon Goblin's totally unsupported personal theories about minimum wage and unemployment, and stick to the broad consensus of experts. We have raised the minimum wage many times. It doesn't have negative effects. The only reason we haven't already raised it is because the federal government is run by conservatives who proudly ignore the experts in favor of their personal opinions, on this and every issue. You wouldn't know about that, though, would you?
"Since these parents have absolutely no legal income or property in the USA, their kids are eligible for all and every welfare."
Please, by all means, expand upon the specific federal programs these kids are able to get, what the restrictions are, how much the benefits are per month, and the total yearly cost.
You'll have to forgive me if I disregard Gevlon Goblin's totally unsupported personal theories about minimum wage and unemployment, and stick to the broad consensus of experts. We have raised the minimum wage many times. It doesn't have negative effects. The only reason we haven't already raised it is because the federal government is run by conservatives who proudly ignore the experts in favor of their personal opinions, on this and every issue. You wouldn't know about that, though, would you?
"Since these parents have absolutely no legal income or property in the USA, their kids are eligible for all and every welfare."
Please, by all means, expand upon the specific federal programs these kids are able to get, what the restrictions are, how much the benefits are per month, and the total yearly cost.
@Samus: where did I say it will have negative effects? Where did I question that it WOULD be good to have a higher minimal wage? I've said it'll have no effect, since most lowly paid worker are already not employed properly, but as contracted "partner", rented worker, part-time worker. Again: an Uber driver has NO salary at all from Uber, he gets a cut from the fares paid to him. Ergo, raising the minimal wage would do nothing but push even more workers off their job security and transform them into contracted partners. They wouldn't be unemployed, but they'd still make the same money, just under a different paper.
Also, you could tell me why Obama didn't raise the minimal wage when Ds had the Congress and the Senate in 2008? Let me guess, these pesky conservatives ruined it.
These kids are citizens, so they get all the help that citizens get, like health care, education, food stamps, everything. Their yearly costs are not separated from the costs of these programs, since - again - they are citizen kids like the next kid. However most kids with citizen parents don't need help, while anchor kids all do.
Also, you could tell me why Obama didn't raise the minimal wage when Ds had the Congress and the Senate in 2008? Let me guess, these pesky conservatives ruined it.
These kids are citizens, so they get all the help that citizens get, like health care, education, food stamps, everything. Their yearly costs are not separated from the costs of these programs, since - again - they are citizen kids like the next kid. However most kids with citizen parents don't need help, while anchor kids all do.
@Gevlon
I tire of being the only one in this conversation who looks up the facts. Obviously, the vast majority of low wage workers are hourly. If you want to claim there are 150 million Uber drivers or whatever crazy theory you made up in your mind, you can be the one to find a source saying that. I'm not going to hold my breath.
"Also, you could tell me why Obama didn't raise the minimal wage when Ds had the Congress and the Senate in 2008? Let me guess, these pesky conservatives ruined it."
Democrats had a majority in the senate, but not a super-majority. In order to override the filibuster, you need 60 votes. Republicans screamed and cried against changing the rule as "destroying democracy", "violating the constitution," etc., and so Democrats were cowards and didn't. When Trump was elected and Republicans held the senate, they changed the rule in the first month.
So yes, Democrats tried to raise the minimum wage, and Republicans blocked it. Although you could certainly argue it was their own cowardice and incompetence that they didn't manage it anyway. But it has always been a major issue that Democrats have wanted to pass.
Your claim is 3.5M illegals with US citizen kids. How much welfare do they use? It really doesn't seem like it should be that hard to add up, you are just too lazy to the research and math yourself.
Post a Comment
I tire of being the only one in this conversation who looks up the facts. Obviously, the vast majority of low wage workers are hourly. If you want to claim there are 150 million Uber drivers or whatever crazy theory you made up in your mind, you can be the one to find a source saying that. I'm not going to hold my breath.
"Also, you could tell me why Obama didn't raise the minimal wage when Ds had the Congress and the Senate in 2008? Let me guess, these pesky conservatives ruined it."
Democrats had a majority in the senate, but not a super-majority. In order to override the filibuster, you need 60 votes. Republicans screamed and cried against changing the rule as "destroying democracy", "violating the constitution," etc., and so Democrats were cowards and didn't. When Trump was elected and Republicans held the senate, they changed the rule in the first month.
So yes, Democrats tried to raise the minimum wage, and Republicans blocked it. Although you could certainly argue it was their own cowardice and incompetence that they didn't manage it anyway. But it has always been a major issue that Democrats have wanted to pass.
Your claim is 3.5M illegals with US citizen kids. How much welfare do they use? It really doesn't seem like it should be that hard to add up, you are just too lazy to the research and math yourself.
<< Home
