Is Inequality Good? New concept says "Very much so"

[Great Minarchistan]

I'm rather surprised to see you admitting that feudalism offers better social progress than social democratic capitalism.

This a sad event.
Especially with you stretching ten percent and saying its not a big deal. While still going off of an alternate amount to justify current economic reasons....

It's really not a big deal, given that capital markets operate on strong gains during expansions and strong losses during contractions. 20% during a strong year gives enough room to stretch long-term figures to 30.

[Salandriagado]

The only one who's peddling that lie is yourself.

GM is a classical liberal LARPing as a RIght-Libertarian, pay no mind to him.

Seems to me that he's more of a literal feudalist pretending to be any kind of Libertarian at all.

[Valrifell]

Inequality is only good so long as I'm the one in the top half, of course.

[Torrocca]

"New" concept? """""""""""New""""""""""" concept?

What's with all these wide-eyed, self-congratulatory, young right-wingers trying to pretend that ideas like "the rich are just better than the poor," or "women are most equal when they stay in the kitchen," or "human races are just different," are all new, revolutionary breakthroughs? They're not, they've just never read a history book, and that's why they buy into it.

I'm sorry, I don't care how many times you lazily paint over the expatriation date on that can, the food inside is still rotten and shit.

The guy peddling this shit has been supporting Bolsonaro in Brazil, as a Brazilian himself, if you want a better idea of what you're arguing against.

GM is a classical liberal LARPing as a RIght-Libertarian, pay no mind to him.

Seems to me that he's more of a literal feudalist pretending to be any kind of Libertarian at all.

"Quick! Give your crops money to the local baron CEO, because he promised to return some of it to you!"

[Aclion]

I think it's hilarious that supply side economics works so well that even it's strawman works better then the alternative.

[Teshlon]

"New" concept? """""""""""New""""""""""" concept?

What's with all these wide-eyed, self-congratulatory, young right-wingers trying to pretend that ideas like "the rich are just better than the poor," or "women are most equal when they stay in the kitchen," or "human races are just different," are all new, revolutionary breakthroughs? They're not, they've just never read a history book, and that's why they buy into it.

I'm sorry, I don't care how many times you lazily paint over the expatriation date on that can, the food inside is still rotten and shit.

Just more right wing garbage here. The rich are better than the poor bullshit.

Shut The Front Door!

[Great Minarchistan]

"New" concept? """""""""""New""""""""""" concept?

What's with all these wide-eyed, self-congratulatory, young right-wingers trying to pretend that ideas like "the rich are just better than the poor," or "women are most equal when they stay in the kitchen," or "human races are just different," are all new, revolutionary breakthroughs? They're not, they've just never read a history book, and that's why they buy into it.

I'm sorry, I don't care how many times you lazily paint over the expatriation date on that can, the food inside is still rotten and shit.

So you're basically ranting about the concept presented because it doesn't virtual-signal love and care towards the poorest of the society, ignoring the potential advantages to the poor that can be brought up from it? It's a bit hypocritical to attack right-wing populists given your position.

[Torrocca]

The only one who's peddling that lie is yourself.

GM is a classical liberal LARPing as a RIght-Libertarian, pay no mind to him.

Whoa, now, Hammer! Be careful before he calls you bourgeoisie for saying his arguments are Feudalist nonsense!

I think it's hilarious that supply side economics works so well that even it's strawman works better then the alternative.

Supply Side Jesus will save the people!

"Inequality is good because the wealth will trickle down"

This is a new idea?

Did someone go back in time and erase Reagonomics?

Did they kill Capitalism's patron saint? Oh no!

Inequality is only good so long as I'm the one in the top half, of course.

"Equality for me, none for thee!"

[Teshlon]

"New" concept? """""""""""New""""""""""" concept?

What's with all these wide-eyed, self-congratulatory, young right-wingers trying to pretend that ideas like "the rich are just better than the poor," or "women are most equal when they stay in the kitchen," or "human races are just different," are all new, revolutionary breakthroughs? They're not, they've just never read a history book, and that's why they buy into it.

I'm sorry, I don't care how many times you lazily paint over the expatriation date on that can, the food inside is still rotten and shit.

So you're basically ranting about the concept presented because it doesn't virtual-signal love and care towards the poorest of the society, ignoring the potential advantages to the poor that can be brought up from it? It's a bit hypocritical to attack right-wing populists given your position.

SURE. WE HAVE A RIGHT WING POPULIST IN CONTROL OF AMERICA AND NOW WE ARE THE WORLDS BIGGEST CRIMINAL NATION. AMERICA MAY AS WELL BE CLASSIFIED AS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION SPENDING 800B A YEAR ON ITS FOOLISHLY OVER BLOATED MILITARY.

ZERO TRUST FOR RIGHT WINGERS. ZERO SUPPORT FOR RIGHT WING IDEOLOGIES. I’M DONE WITH THIS THREAD.

[Torrocca]

So you're basically ranting about the concept presented because it doesn't virtual-signal love and care towards the poorest of the society, ignoring the potential advantages to the poor that can be brought up from it? It's a bit hypocritical to attack right-wing populists given your position.

-CapsSnip- I’M DONE WITH THIS THREAD.

TBH, you're saving yourself a huge headache by leaving this thread.

[Frachen]

For decades (possibly centuries), the dispute regarding the gap between the rich and the poor has been as fiercely divided as the socioeconomic conditions of both groups. From those who highlight the disparity between the vilified top 1% and the bottom 99% to those who consider the current inequality levels as reasonable, there's often the common consideration that constantly high/increasing inequality levels is inherently bad, citing studies that prove it lowers economic dynamism -- even though most of the decrease is credited to a lower incidence of ravage consumerism, which is a good thing from an environmentalist and neoclassical POV.

However, Tyler Cowen lays a rather interesting case for the subsidization of the wealthy in his book. Simply put, when analyzing return over capital and trickledown rates it is definitely possible for the poor to be better off by handling their money to the top earners. The logic is that, assuming that the long-run trickle down rate of the income generated on the economy is 30% (a good year in the markets renders around 20%, so 30% as a mean isn't really stretching it), the bottom earners would need the wealthy to have capital returns just a bit over three times higher than themselves to achieve a breakeven on upward income redistribution. Such figures -- at least in the developed world -- are definitely attainable as explicited in the spoiler below:

(Image)

This chart, alternatively known as the elephant chart, details on the global income growth from 1988 to 2008 by percentile of income. The developed lower middle class (all the way to upper middle) is situated around the P85-95 level, where the mean income growth was approximatedly 15%. The top 1%, on the other hand, reaped an income growth of 65% over the same time period, more than four times higher than the bottom earners. Under such scenario, redistributing money to the top percent would be a good idea for the typical citizen in the First World. Knowing that the bulk of the income of the wealthiest derives from capital gains and businesses (approx. 75pc in longrun estimates) the notion is reinforced since the vast majority of income gains from the rich is implied to come from investments, not real wage growth. Such proposal can be also applied to the extremely poor countries (located at P1-5 level) with a clique of few extraordinary rich men.

Truthfully, from a historical scope, such concept might go to the extent of justifying why developing countries with redistributive policies to the poor eventually decayed into a trap of low growth (e.g. USSR, Brazil) while poor countries which maintained a caste of rich people being constantly subsidized by the State eventually ascended to attain personal incomes equivalent to First World levels (e.g. South Korea with the Chaebols and Japan with the Zaibatsu).

Albeit the OP does seem a bit bloggy due to the extent of the explanation involved, I really think it's necessary to bring this up to the NS community given the raging debates on inequality that have been long happening. That said, I'd like to hear the arguments from the users regarding the subsidization of the rich, since it's an innovative solution to boost the condition of extremely poor countries.

Communism

[Great Minarchistan]

"Inequality is good because the wealth will trickle down"

This is a new idea?

Did someone go back in time and erase Reagonomics?

Reagan didn't go far enough, as capital gains were constrainted thanks to the increase in the effective corporate tax rate during his presidential tenure.

[Great Minarchistan]

SURE. WE HAVE A RIGHT WING POPULIST IN CONTROL OF AMERICA AND NOW WE ARE THE WORLDS BIGGEST CRIMINAL NATION. AMERICA MAY AS WELL BE CLASSIFIED AS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION SPENDING 800B A YEAR ON ITS FOOLISHLY OVER BLOATED MILITARY.

I agree that the military is bloated, mentioned that a few posts ago when Ifreann argued that each dollar on the military boosts the economy by $1.45.

ZERO TRUST FOR RIGHT WINGERS. ZERO SUPPORT FOR RIGHT WING IDEOLOGIES. I’M DONE WITH THIS THREAD.

Take it easy with the capslock.

[USS Monitor]

While I'm supportive of natural inequality, I am strongly opposed to a class of aristocrats being subsidized by the state. If a wealthy individual falls or rises, it is not for the state to intervene.

The success of the wealthy aristocrats is far higher than the success of ordinary, poor people though. As a result, its a net societal gain to subsidize the rich -- think of it as giving money to the best managers you know of.

That doesn't follow logically, though. Their success proves that they are very skilled at getting a large share of pie for themselves. That doesn't necessarily mean that giving them more will help grow the pie. It just means they are good at getting a lot for themselves. The ability to stake out a large share is not necessarily the same as the ability to grow the pie.

There are people who manage investment funds professionally, and it is possible for middle class people to hire someone like that to help them manage their investments. That's the closest thing I can think of to an existing system that would test your hypothesis experimentally -- but in practice, those services are mostly just a convenience to save you the trouble of thinking about it, not a money-making miracle.

[Great Minarchistan]

The guy peddling this shit has been supporting Bolsonaro in Brazil, as a Brazilian himself, if you want a better idea of what you're arguing against.

Your constant appeal to ideological labels rather than considering the essence of the argument is amusing, to say the least.

[Torrocca]

The guy peddling this shit has been supporting Bolsonaro in Brazil, as a Brazilian himself, if you want a better idea of what you're arguing against.

Your constant appeal to ideological labels rather than considering the essence of the argument is amusing, to say the least.

The essence of your argument is literally NeoFeudalist trash.

[Valrifell]

The guy peddling this shit has been supporting Bolsonaro in Brazil, as a Brazilian himself, if you want a better idea of what you're arguing against.

Your constant appeal to ideological labels rather than considering the essence of the argument is amusing, to say the least.

Your constant appeal/insistence to invalidate Torra's argument by claiming she is bourgeois in other threads, though? Greatly less so.

[Great Minarchistan]

That doesn't follow logically, though. Their success proves that they are very skilled at getting a large share of pie for themselves. That doesn't necessarily mean that giving them more will help grow the pie. It just means they are good at getting a lot for themselves. The ability to stake out a large share is not necessarily the same as the ability to grow the pie.

There's no evidence for diminishing returns over their money though. In fact they might reap higher returns with more money, as they'd be able to invest on innovative projects that have high barriers of entry.

There are people who manage investment funds professionally, and it is possible for middle class people to hire someone like that to help them manage their investments. That's the closest thing I can think of to an existing system that would test your hypothesis experimentally -- but in practice, those services are mostly just a convenience to save you the trouble of thinking about it, not a money-making miracle.

That's also valid, thought the idea of subsidizing the rich is more thought provoking and possibly better than simply delivering your own savings to investment funds.

[Great Minarchistan]

Your constant appeal to ideological labels rather than considering the essence of the argument is amusing, to say the least.

The essence of your argument is literally NeoFeudalist trash.

So what? Will you keep appealing to ideological labels instead of respectfully exchange ideas wrt the proposal?

[Great Minarchistan]

Your constant appeal to ideological labels rather than considering the essence of the argument is amusing, to say the least.

Your constant appeal/insistence to invalidate Torra's argument by claiming she is bourgeois in other threads, though? Greatly less so.

Never sought to invalidate her claims through this, but if you say so...
(besides that not being a valid topic for this thread)

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

OP is free to give their money to the richest person in Brazil, I doubt they will though, because it would be stupid.

[Valrifell]

Your constant appeal/insistence to invalidate Torra's argument by claiming she is bourgeois in other threads, though? Greatly less so.

Never sought to invalidate her claims through this, but if you say so...
(besides that not being a valid topic for this thread)

"I didn't want to invalidate her claims, I just wanted to paint her as a hypocrite. You know, for fun I guess"

Regardless, pointing out that this is essentially neo-feudal trash isn't exactly a worthless complaint. The premise is that essentially all of the wealth should be given to the wealthy so we can go back to something akin to 17th century France and boy does that not end well for 18th century France.

[Great Minarchistan]

OP is free to give their money to the richest person in Brazil, I doubt they will though, because it would be stupid.

Of course I wouldn't as the benefits are spread around rather than being returned individually -- which is why it would work at its best if a very large amount of people were subject to it. In which case I'd gladly do it.

[Torrocca]

The essence of your argument is literally NeoFeudalist trash.

So what? Will you keep appealing to ideological labels instead of respectfully exchange ideas wrt the proposal?

Considering I have no respect for Bourgeois dogma? Nah. I'll just keep rightfully referring to this entire idea that you're peddling as the NeoFeudalist trash that it assuredly is.

OP is free to give their money to the richest person in Brazil, I doubt they will though, because it would be stupid.

Have you ever imagined being a middle-man for a pickpocketer? Well, wonder no longer, as GM graces us with the idea of NeoFeudalism and shows us what being that middle-man is like!

[The Great-German Empire]

I see how this would work and even believe the premise to be largely true, but I believe that just like wealth redistribution to the poor, it's a collectivist concept that goes against individual agency. I'm pretty sure that these days, there are other methods that achieve economic growth and market adaptation without such grandiose sacrifice.