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

[Salandriagado]

But still vastly inferior to a computer.

Cybersyn would gladly prove you wrong. Needless to say, if computers were that good at management they'd be splattered all over the place. They aren't simply because while they act as nice data crunchers and daytrading bots, they can't substitute the intuition of businessowners -- proven rather important at decision-making, since 40% of the CEOs still say that a major part of their decisions are guided by intuition.

No CEO in the world consistently produces financial returns anywhere near computers flipping stocks. By your arguments, then, the CEOs should just shut up shop and give all of the money to the computers. Also, I reiterate the bit of my post that you conveniently cut out of your quote.

So, given that, why should we funnel all of the money to people who are going to be entirely outmoded in the mid-to-near future?

Because robots are overestimated (or humans that are underestimated?). For instance, despite the vilification of accounting as an easy-to-automate field, the number of employed accountants has doubled over the last 20ish years, and in fact their share of employment as a % of all jobs has increased.

And this has what relevance to anything? Businesses continuing to employ people whose jobs could be done better by a computer is not news.

[Salandriagado]

You clearly have precisely no knowledge of mathematics. Kindly stop name-dropping it in a vain attempt to make your bullshit sound more legitimate.

You clearly have precisely no skills at reading. If you had you'd notice that it's indeed feasible instead of flinging shit at me.

You're claiming a mathematical basis for your bullshit. This, right here, is an actual mathematician telling you to stop making claims and start providing a fucking proof.

[Great Minarchistan]

Which is my point. The Industrial Revolution, along with the policy I proposed, have their benefits focused on the long-run. Which is a desirable thing unless if you're expecting to live only for a decade or two more.

Except that the thing that made it better was the money ceasing to be concentrated. Your proposal would keep the money concentrated, thereby prolonging the shit bit indefinitely.

If you care about inequality rather than increasing income levels, sure...

[Salandriagado]

You realised that you just started advocating state-led socialism, right?

At worst, it's no worse than redistribution to the poor.

No, you're advocating a totally state-managed economy, with no private business at all. If your arguments weren't total bullshit, this would be vastly better than any capitalist system.

[Salandriagado]

At worst, it's no worse than redistribution to the poor.

And at best, it actually has a positive exponential return value. It still may be immoral, though, as any transfer of wealth without consent is theft.

I'd love to hear how me building a house on my land is theft from my neighbours.

[Cameroi]

This, and socialism is very rarely if ever democratic.

Who cares, democracy isn't the most important thing anyways, nor is it always the best solution.

while this may very well be true, it doesn't make hierarchy in any form a better one.
it is aggressiveness and the lack of consideration, that ARE tyranny, regardless of name brands of social organization and political structures.
and little green pieces of paper, do NOT automagically do a better job of it.

[Great Minarchistan]

But of course, I understand your implied point - after all, its the rich who invest back into capital. And I mean, aside from a diatribe about concentration of wealth and how that's mildly terrifying, they don't invest their money into it, do they? In fact, they don't re-invest significant portions of the money their companies make either. This is why they are wealthy, you see.

Empirically wrong. Most of the net worth from wealthy people comes directly from ownership of stock on companies.

[Salandriagado]

Except that the thing that made it better was the money ceasing to be concentrated. Your proposal would keep the money concentrated, thereby prolonging the shit bit indefinitely.

If you care about inequality rather than increasing income levels, sure...

No, if you care about things like quality of life, available free time, income stability for the poor, health for the poor, or indeed literally anything other than the profits of the rich.

[Salandriagado]

This proposition only benefits the poor if it were ensured that these subsidies were used in ways to benefit the poor, instead of just being used to make more profits for the rich ( further automation, personal savings, buying out smaller businesses, etc. ) - which was exactly what we saw with reganomics. The average American worker is, at present, more productive now than he has ever been. Yet, despite his vast increase in productivity, he has seen nearly stagnate wages. The overwhelming majority of his newly generated wealth is going to the upper echelons of society - far from what is equitable or fair.

Why not give Americans a more equitable share of the wealth which they create instead of passing it through a middle man without the consent of the tax payer? A more wealthy public would be able to better fund their own education, business ventures, be able to take occasional vacations, not have to worry about paying for essentials like gas or food, afford their own health care, be more charitable, and a plethora of other great reasons!

Give the common man a more equitable share of his own money, and his standard of living ( the nation as a whole as well ) will increase dramatically.

You're aware that this plan would end up in having a share of the added wealth (est. at 30%) trickling down in the form of added income to the bottom 99%, right?
Needless to say, total compensation's stagnated since the 2000s, as has productivity. Rather fair deal then, I'd say.

You say "est.", but what you actually mean is "a random number pulled out of thin air".

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Who cares, democracy isn't the most important thing anyways, nor is it always the best solution.

WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU JUST SAY?

[Great Minarchistan]

No CEO in the world consistently produces financial returns anywhere near computers flipping stocks. By your arguments, then, the CEOs should just shut up shop and give all of the money to the computers.

That's untrue, daytrading is rather unprofitable as a whole given that it's mostly a zero-sum game when factoring in all partners involved

And this has what relevance to anything? Businesses continuing to employ people whose jobs could be done better by a computer is not news.

>hey robots can do the job of these people far better than themselves but we wont fire them en masse because as thirsty for profit as they are we are nice employers
yeah doesnt make sense at all

[Great Minarchistan]

You're aware that this plan would end up in having a share of the added wealth (est. at 30%) trickling down in the form of added income to the bottom 99%, right?
Needless to say, total compensation's stagnated since the 2000s, as has productivity. Rather fair deal then, I'd say.

You say "est.", but what you actually mean is "a random number pulled out of thin air".

Given that the ratio was 20% on a good year for the mkt's then its not stretching it by calling out a mean of 30pc.

[Great Minarchistan]

At worst, it's no worse than redistribution to the poor.

No, you're advocating a totally state-managed economy, with no private business at all. If your arguments weren't total bullshit, this would be vastly better than any capitalist system.

Not really, it's just inverted social-democracy at most

[Spindle]

But of course, I understand your implied point - after all, its the rich who invest back into capital. And I mean, aside from a diatribe about concentration of wealth and how that's mildly terrifying, they don't invest their money into it, do they? In fact, they don't re-invest significant portions of the money their companies make either. This is why they are wealthy, you see.

Empirically wrong. Most of the net worth from wealthy people comes directly from ownership of stock on companies.

O shit, this is a new one: deflection by cherry-picking. One sec, I'll get you the whole thing: if you feel like addressing any of the other points feel free to. Or, if you just want to scream "wrong" at me feel free to I guess. It's a free country after all. I can't force you to actually engage with the core ideas I'm putting forwards.

Oh, and if you want to directly nope someone please at least do me the courtesy of providing a source. Even I do that.

The intent of workers doesn't make anyone wealthy if they don't have the human capital necessary to do it.

Because expenditure at the bottom of society doesn't work its way up incredibly fast. See, I can make pithy economic observations too!

But of course, I understand your implied point - after all, its the rich who invest back into capital. And I mean, aside from a diatribe about concentration of wealth and how that's mildly terrifying, they don't invest their money into it, do they? In fact, they don't re-invest significant portions of the money their companies make either. This is why they are wealthy, you see.

Not really. Under the current scenario the proposal is already workable.

Y'know if I've just called out a deflection and then make a point another, deflecting again is probably bad right? Like, it's literally the first portion of this segment, before I go into the part where rich people don't behave the way you model them. If that's a point you don't want to engage with then you're welcome to not have to, but you need a mode of disengagement which isn't pointing elsewhere and saying "look at that". Even if it's just to say "I disagree but can't find sources to support that viewpoint", you feel me?

I hope you read my comment on it. Part of the decline (estimated at ~1/3rd of it, enough to bend the mild decrease into effective stabilization) can be addressed by correcting the figures on proprietors' income, rather than interpolating it. The bulk of it since the early 00s coincides a lot with the huge surge in unemployment ever since the dotcom crash.

I'm just gonna put something out there, just saying "correct this" doesn't actually make the thing say what you want it to - that's something a lot of flat earthers realise when they try to correct footage of the earth taken from edge-of-atmosphere flights and find that when on the ground the horizon looks concave. In this situation, the concave horizon is googling "BEA calculated labour share" and finding a City University of Hong Kong paper and a US Bureau of Labour Statistics notification piece on how the labour share is actually declining. And look, I get that you might be an economic genius but if you just say "well the horizon is flat if you correct it" I kinda am gonna want evidence beyond your word. Appeal to authority only works if you are appealing to an authority.

[Great Minarchistan]

O shit, this is a new one: deflection by cherry-picking.

No I'm just on low effort mode for the sake of laziness, but if you think that not answering everything you want is cherrypicking then may as well type nothing to avoid further alleged fallacies

[Joohan]

This proposition only benefits the poor if it were ensured that these subsidies were used in ways to benefit the poor, instead of just being used to make more profits for the rich ( further automation, personal savings, buying out smaller businesses, etc. ) - which was exactly what we saw with reganomics. The average American worker is, at present, more productive now than he has ever been. Yet, despite his vast increase in productivity, he has seen nearly stagnate wages. The overwhelming majority of his newly generated wealth is going to the upper echelons of society - far from what is equitable or fair.

Why not give Americans a more equitable share of the wealth which they create instead of passing it through a middle man without the consent of the tax payer? A more wealthy public would be able to better fund their own education, business ventures, be able to take occasional vacations, not have to worry about paying for essentials like gas or food, afford their own health care, be more charitable, and a plethora of other great reasons!

Give the common man a more equitable share of his own money, and his standard of living ( the nation as a whole as well ) will increase dramatically.

You're aware that this plan would end up in having a share of the added wealth (est. at 30%) trickling down in the form of added income to the bottom 99%, right?
Needless to say, total compensation's stagnated since the 2000s, as has productivity. Rather fair deal then, I'd say.

That assumes an exceptionally good market and that the rich make investments which will benefit the lower classes ( so, none of what I mentioned ).

And productivity slightly slowed down during the 2000's, but it's gotten back on track according to the epi ( Cant source, on phone ).

We are assuming very fair markets and very liberal returns from self interested individuals who have shown that they more concerned with personal profit than the welfare of their employees ( look at the current wage gap for example ).

You don't trust the state with such power, why on Earth would you trust sketchy numbers with individuals proven to be more concerned with personal profit than the public?

[Salandriagado]

No CEO in the world consistently produces financial returns anywhere near computers flipping stocks. By your arguments, then, the CEOs should just shut up shop and give all of the money to the computers.

That's untrue, daytrading is rather unprofitable as a whole given that it's mostly a zero-sum game when factoring in all partners involved

It isn't a zero sum game at all.

And this has what relevance to anything? Businesses continuing to employ people whose jobs could be done better by a computer is not news.

>hey robots can do the job of these people far better than themselves but we wont fire them en masse because as thirsty for profit as they are we are nice employers
yeah doesnt make sense at all

It makes perfect sense: humans are fucking stupid. In particular, most businesses are run by fucking idiots. Even more specifically, the overwhelming majority of people running businesses have absolutely no idea what their computers are capable of. The people who do mostly automate their own jobs, then spend the next few decades being paid a full time salary to press a button once a week and look busy the rest of the time. I'd say easily a quarter of the employees at businesses I've spent any amount of time in could have been replaced by Excel macros, let alone any actual high-level stuff.

[Salandriagado]

You say "est.", but what you actually mean is "a random number pulled out of thin air".

Given that the ratio was 20% on a good year for the mkt's then its not stretching it by calling out a mean of 30pc.

Except it is. Because you're taking the best-case scenario, and boosting it by 50% with literally no justification.

[Salandriagado]

No, you're advocating a totally state-managed economy, with no private business at all. If your arguments weren't total bullshit, this would be vastly better than any capitalist system.

Not really, it's just inverted social-democracy at most

Not at all: if, as you claim, the relevant factor in improvements for the poor is the amount of resources available to the people making decisions, then the best strategy is to concentrate all resources into a single decision-making aparatus. That, in particular, necessitates absolute and total state control of the market.

[Great Minarchistan]

That assumes an exceptionally good market and that the rich make investments which will benefit the lower classes ( so, none of what I mentioned ).

Not really. It assumes an average, mid-stage-cycle market and the data based on income encompasses all the way from 1988 to 2008 -- a period that wasn't "particularly prime" tbh.

And productivity slightly slowed down during the 2000's, but it's gotten back on track according to the epi ( Cant source, on phone ).

It bumped during 08 but it resumed to semi-stagnation ever since

We are assuming very fair markets and very liberal returns from self interested individuals who have shown that they more concerned with personal profit than the welfare of their employees ( look at the current wage gap for example ).

Not really, I'm not extrapolating too much from what would be realistic figures ('cept for the trickledown rate which is likely near from actual figures, tbh)

You don't trust the state with such power, why on Earth would you trust sketchy numbers with individuals proven to be more concerned with personal profit than the public?

Simply because I'm not assuming nor expecting benevolence from the wealthy in this case

[Spindle]

O shit, this is a new one: deflection by cherry-picking.

No I'm just on low effort mode for the sake of laziness, but if you think that not answering everything you want is cherrypicking then may as well type nothing to avoid further alleged fallacies

See, I like this strategy - "deflection by condescension", let's call it. The idea is to try and continuously close the door while refusing to actually engage with any of the real points - note how the lead-in is picked out to reply to specifically to avoid the part where I ask for empirical evidence. At the same time, you stonewall - in this case you attempt to justify it with the whole "alleged fallacy" part while avoiding including the post I quoted because then you'd have to realise you ignored two-thirds of my points to scream "wrong!!111!!" without citation at the one you thought you could. It's pretty neat because if it is the last word someone who scans it might actually think you are a poor, beleaguered bastion of rationality amidst a sea of screaming assholes and not, as is actually the case, someone who can't handle being asked for sources.

Oh, but the laziness mode doesn't extend to other people. Well now, isn't that interesting.

[Great Minarchistan]

No I'm just on low effort mode for the sake of laziness, but if you think that not answering everything you want is cherrypicking then may as well type nothing to avoid further alleged fallacies

See, I like this strategy - "deflection by condescension", let's call it. The idea is to try and continuously close the door while refusing to actually engage with any of the real points - note how the lead-in is picked out to reply to specifically to avoid the part where I ask for empirical evidence. At the same time, you stonewall - in this case you attempt to justify it with the whole "alleged fallacy" part while avoiding including the post I quoted because then you'd have to realise you ignored two-thirds of my points to scream "wrong!!111!!" without citation at the one you thought you could. It's pretty neat because if it is the last word someone who scans it might actually think you are a poor, beleaguered bastion of rationality amidst a sea of screaming assholes and not, as is actually the case, someone who can't handle being asked for sources.

Oh, but the laziness mode doesn't extend to other people. Well now, isn't that interesting.

It actually does, I'm just not bothering to read walls of text right now. But if you prefer being an ass about it while pulling fallacies out of nowhere to build your high ground then that's okay, dont really care

[Great Minarchistan]

Given that the ratio was 20% on a good year for the mkt's then its not stretching it by calling out a mean of 30pc.

Except it is. Because you're taking the best-case scenario, and boosting it by 50% with literally no justification.

Periods of high market growth benefit the rich disproportionately (therefore decreasing the ratio as consumption doesnt vary nearly as much), so averaging it out would concede more realistic figures -- and a higher ratio as a result

[Torrocca]

Or we could just do Socialism and make work democratic for everybody.

Socialism and democracy are two different things.

Socialism practically requires democracy in order to be such.

[The South Falls]

GM, I see you. I'd be willing to say that reaganomics-esque policies are not new. I'd think that trickle down wealth relies on the benevolence of the "big bosses" towards the people. With the improvement of automation and cheap labor, that's just not feasible anymore. It's not profitable to be a human. Trickle-down economics worked in an age of manufacturing and more reliable jobs for all, but that's just not where we are in this day and age.