If governments controlled disposable income of the .1 %, would poverty end?
If governments controlled disposable income of the .1 %, would poverty end?
The rich presently control our security of the person in our socio economic demographic position. They control the constitution and our social contracts.
Security of the person is everyone’s number one goal in life, and the rich control ours.
I think I would rather have my security of my person be in the hands of my government, than be in the hands of some rich person. They are strange and have forgotten their duty to those who are beneath them, demographically speaking.
I believe it to be a crime for a rich country to impose poverty onto its citizens. Gandhi ji and others voiced the same notion.
Our rich owners are abusing their power and I think that using a small % of their disposable income would solve many problems, --- that they have created, --- by poisoning our collective environments.
Thoughts?
Regards
DL
https://imgur.com/DiDyO2e
The rich presently control our security of the person in our socio economic demographic position. They control the constitution and our social contracts.
Security of the person is everyone’s number one goal in life, and the rich control ours.
I think I would rather have my security of my person be in the hands of my government, than be in the hands of some rich person. They are strange and have forgotten their duty to those who are beneath them, demographically speaking.
I believe it to be a crime for a rich country to impose poverty onto its citizens. Gandhi ji and others voiced the same notion.
Our rich owners are abusing their power and I think that using a small % of their disposable income would solve many problems, --- that they have created, --- by poisoning our collective environments.
Thoughts?
Regards
DL
https://imgur.com/DiDyO2e
Comments (143)
Of course it's a disastrous tax policy, but who cares. The objective isn't to improve the economy or the government incomes, but please those who hate the rich.
Comes to my mind how a kulak was defined during the Russian revolution: the peasants with the most land picked from an arbitrary selected group was deemed kulaks, class enemies, that were then deported or killed.
Our systems are purchasable, thats a big part of the problem and its a human problem, not a rich person problem per say.
There isn't much chance that the government as it is now constituted would be able to seize the piles of the rich folk's wealth. Inconveniently, it isn't piled up in swimming pools full of gold coins. It's in the form of various equities, land, buildings, and so forth, so one could give shares of real assets, but one would have to convert the shares to cash, and in order to do that there would have to be buyers with cash to give, and so on and on. It gets very complicated.
But supposing it could be just cashed in and distributed? All households in the United States own a combined wealth of $94 Trillion. The top 1% control 90% of the 94 trillion. The bottom half of all households each own about $11,000 worth of wealth. If we divided all the wealth evenly, each household would get about $760,000. So, there you go.
Now, we don't know what would happen if this were actually carried out. How would 124 million households behave financially if their wealth was increased by many hundred percent? Would massive spending send us into an inflationary tizzy? It's likely that many of those households would opt to spend at least some of their $760,000. Some people would decide to buy cars, build houses, purchase education, drink much better liquor in better glasses, eat better food, wear better clothing and shoes, and so on.
A few hundred thousand uber rich people spend a lot on luxury goods, but there is only so much stuff even the richest pigs can buy. 124 million households holding a sudden large surplus of cash could, and probably would, buy much, much more stuff than a few hundred thousand overfed pigs. This sudden wave of consumption would quickly outstrip supplies, and market disruptions would occur around the world.
Giving a lot of money to the poor isn't a problem, per se. It's 124,000,000 householders' quite understandable desire to benefit from the cash right away that is the problem. Inflation could reduce the value of all that cash pretty fast.
So, some other method is needed.
One way of doing it is to nationalize equity, commercial land, and the assets that rich people hold. The wealth of the rich would become the collective property of the people, and the economy represented by all the equity, properties, buildings, factories, and so forth would go on as before, except that the profits would devolve to the people. The rich just wouldn't be rich any more.
$94 Trillion Dollars worth of assets would pay off the national de debt which is about $22 Trillion. Various entitlement funds could/should/would be fully funded. It would be a whole new ballgame.
Will this happen?
It has a snowball's chance on an unusually hot day in hell.
Why not?
Because it would take a revolution to accomplish this, and the government as now constituted would feel steeply inclined to protect the interests of the rich, and they would shoot you and me before they would shoot the rich folk. We would be dead and the rich would live on in plush comfort.
I always enjoy your take on these issues. I like that you're willing to lay it out so flat without blushing. I have a somewhat less revolutionary, less ambitious, approach. All I want is that everyone has enough money to live a decent life. Worthwhile work with decent pay. Affordable, safe, clean housing. Affordable medical care. Affordable education. Protection from emergencies. A decent life in old age.
Reforming the tax code would be highly appropriate, since earlier changes that contributed to the concentration of wealth.
Another thing that has helped the uber wealthy is that much of their income comes from manipulation of abstract assets, like currency and highly derivative instruments (like credit default swaps...). In the last 20 years, at least -- maybe longer -- this area of financial skullduggery has been unusually profitable, while serving no useful purpose, really.
Those are admirable and attractive goals. I've always assumed that they are possible. Your goals are so desirable and presumably achievable, why have they not come to pass?
Concentration of wealth is clearly one reason. Maintaining the system of concentration deprives the many for the benefit of the few.
A question for which I do not have an answer: Is it possible for a few billion people to live well (per your aspirations) without a substantial number (a few billion, give or take) being forced to provide cheap goods and services? Like, I have numerous pieces of clothing, utensils, and so forth that are affordable because somebody else lives a meager existence.
For example, blueberries have been available all winter from near and far south of the border--all the way to Chile. The quality has been excellent, and the prices have been the same as they are when the berries come from the USA. How much are the farmworkers who produce blueberries getting per hour? Same with apples. The apples from Chile or New Zealand (bullet holes and all) are sometimes the same price as apples sold at the local farmers market or Washington state. They can't be making much in Chile or New Zealand.
I don't really feel like going into it right now but certainly, it's far, far, far less to resolve all poverty in America than just stealing all the .1% wealth. Such extremes aren't necessary, people just wrongly believe poverty is a character flaw and that redistribution isn't even fair but I believe things will change, eventually. It is more of a cultural problem than a logistical problem though.
The US currently has 11 million millionaires according to this article. https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/life/features/2018/03/24/heres-how-many-millionaires-there-are-in-the-us/33205747/
Suppose we go to each millionaire in the US and we tax them a flat one million dollars. Some of them, like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, won't even notice. Most of them probably only have a million or a little bit more, and those we'll strip down to the clothes on their back if we have to. If you have a net worth of a million or more we take a million. That's basically the life savings of all the middle-class couples from the heartland. They own a house, he's a teacher and she sells real estate, they put a couple of kids through college. We'll strip them bare, take the house and throw the kids out of school if they haven't finished yet.
How long could we run the government of that? Well the government spends about $4 trillion a year. Eleven million people times one million dollars is 11 trillion dollars.
So we can run the government for a little less than three years. Not bad, perhaps. But there aren't that many Bezos's and Gates's. You just wiped out the wealth of a lifetime for most of those 11 million people. And in three years when the government was broke again? All those people would be gone. You'd strip the country bare and be back to zero in three years.
That's the baseline for the discussion. There aren't enough millionaires to even strip naked to run the country for more than three years. And after that, there's no more money.
Billionaires? There are 540 of them in the US. Take a billion dollars from every billionaire. Again, Bezos and Gates won't be troubled much. But most billionaires only have that one billion. We'll strip them down to the clothes on their back.
That's 540 billion dollars. Enough money to run the country for about six weeks.
Moral of the story: There are not enough rich people to pay the government's $4T annual tab. The poor have no money. It's the working class, those people working hard all their lives to accumulate whatever they've got, who fund the government. After you soak the millionaires and billionaires you are into the everyday working stiffs. The guy who fixes your car and the guy who drives a bus.
Any redistributionist scheme to "soak the rich" must INEVITABLY, as a matter of simple arithmetic, very soon cut into you and your neighbor and everyone else who works for a living but hasn't accumulated much wealth. That's pretty much everyone.
I agree. The whole of economics is like that, pretty dubious. Its one of those phantoms of society that everyone plays along with because at this point people wouldnt really know what to do without it.
Working should be reserved only for the most productive...which, these days, would most often be machines.
No one should have to "work for a living"...the necessities of life should be guaranteed for all. Work should be for the excesses (luxuries) of life...and jobs should be reserved only for people willing to do them at peak efficiency.
Food, clothing, shelter, transportation, communication, healthcare, education...and a modicum of recreation should be guaranteed for all.
Whatever it takes to achieve that end should be what we do. That does not mean that the rich should no longer be rich...or that they alone should bear the burden of providing.
Fact is, we have more than enough for everyone to have all those necessities. If we were to increase our productivity by limiting jobs only to people and machines that are highly productive...we would have even more.
The problem is distribution.
We can work that out...and we insult ourselves by not having already done so.
Some countries have a guaranteed minimum income, provided by the government whether or not the person works. The case has been made that it would be a good idea in the US, but it's a hard sale to make. It just rubs people the wrong way to give people money for doing nothing. I must admit I have some of those feelings myself.
On the other hand, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. The case has been made that providing everyone with a guaranteed minimum income would actually be cheaper than the current welfare system. It would certainly be less complicated. If that's true, I would consider supporting the idea.
Yeah, it would be a very hard sell.
BUT...I think it is doable.
Fact is, the people "not working" and "doing nothing"...would actually be doing something important,...namely, staying the hell out of the way.
Reluctant workers...lazy workers...inefficient workers...
...have a negative impact on productivity.
I've written on this extensively...and will probably write more here.
It is gonna be a tough sell!
I guess I don't see productivity as a major social goal. Society is not a machine, it's a community. Productivity is a means to an end, but it's not that important itself.
So, the government's requirements would be quite significantly reduced. The other major factor is that the trillions of dollars transferred to the 99% of the population would be in circulation and, and from the resulting massive stimulus, the government would have more than enough revenue from reduced taxes to operate.
But NEVER MIND. It isn't going to happen anyway.
What the mental exercise of redistribution of the top 1%'s wealth shows is that the poor get poorer BECAUSE the rich get richer. Extreme concentration of wealth impoverishes the nation.
Which part of my arithmetic do you dispute?
If you take a billion dollars from every billionaire in the country you can run the government for six weeks. Do you disagree with that analysis?
If you take a million dollars from every millionaire, you can run the country for a little less than three years ... after which you've wiped out the entire middle class. Do you dispute my numbers?
You say I missed something but you didn't say what I missed.
Also abolish physical cash, all electronic transactions through a central government department.
That would negate the unfair system we have suffered, We low value citizens have no hope and no chance to have an affordable life as we are being punished under the currant system.
It has to change, but wont. The powerful control the system and like it just the way it is, as it benefits them.
So unless you can can see a way to remove the obscenely wealthy and powerful. Things will carry on just the way they are.
Governments are looking into this with the realisation that we will have more unemployment.
We have way too many people! Need to cull out a significant number so the remainder can enjoy the spoils. Yes its the wealthy getting top spots again. Watch out ( Poor ) people, your days are numbered.
Quoting fishfry
Ah, well... I was going to take a good deal more than 1 billion and 1 million from the B and M aires. I was going to take the lion's share -- that is, all of it. The B and M aires would get the same share that everybody else has. Secondly, I wouldn't just hand it to the government to cover their expenses. Giving the gov 94 trillion dollars would be a bad idea. The gov should earn their money the old fashioned way, by reasoned tax systems and even more reasoned spending systems. Giving 94 trillion to a bunch of corrupt politicians to allocate... well, you might as well burn it.
After paying off the national debt (20+ trillion) and setting aside a slug of money for climate change spending (14 trillion), 60 trillion would remain to be divided up among the 300 million people in the country. Each individual would have, in one form or another, a couple hundred thousand dollars to help take care of themselves.
Presumably people would keep on working (200,000 would be great in a bank or invested; as spending money, it wouldn't last all that long. I know people who could chew through a couple hundred thousand in quite short order. The GDP would be taxed progressively to prevent social-warping by extreme maldistribution of assets.
I assume you live in the UK? Based on "bone idle" and "redundant". True? False.
When the lion and the lamb lay down together, we can be assured that the lion will sleep a lot better than the lamb. I was planning on the many poor people ganging up on the few uber rich people and financially skinning them alive--leaving them with the same share of wealth that everybody else gets. Back to lambs and lions. The few lions will be supervised by sharp horned ungulates with bad attitudes. The lambs will sleep well. The lions will sleep OK if they do what they are told. Otherwise, they will get gored by the sharp horned cud chewers.
I would just like to see someone show me some numbers. So many dollars from this many people with such and so net worth and/or income.
The game is to feed the four trillion dollar annual expenditure of the government.
Bear in mind that we don't actually even collect the $4T in revenue now. We collect three and spend four. I hope nobody thinks that's sustainable.
But just show me some numbers. Bezos and Buffet and Gates have what, around $250B among them? An obscene amount of wealth, I might grant you that. But it's a quarter of a trillion; and you have to fund FOUR trillion per YEAR. So if you strip Bezos and Buffet and Gates to the clothes on their back, you can run the government for 1/8 of a year ... about six and a half weeks. After that, those three are dead broke and you still need a lot more revenue, every single year.
So just show me some numbers. Make some estimates. Show me a Wiki link that says there are X people with Y amount of money, and you are going to take it all, and tell me how long that runs a four trillion dollar a year government.
It's a simple exercise for anyone serious about confiscating wealth.
My point is that the question is not about the morality of "clawing back" money. The problem is that the rich literally don't have enough money. In the end you will soon be "clawing back" a coffee house waitress's tips.
Show me some numbers.
I am I think sensible, I only spend what I have. I do not borrow, and have never had a credit card ( yes never ) I am on the low side of the equation and as thus have to budget very very carefully.
If I can not afford it I go without, Why do governments waist so much money on irrelevant stuff they can not afford?
Why are the Tax payers buying the politicians lunch. They can afford to buy there own. Cut out the waisted expenditure, tighten the belts and save.
All they need do is be sensible, yet No, they are greedy, and award obscene contracts to the connected families so the riches keep coming there way.
You can debate this till the cows come home, and it will not change.
Action is needed, and that needs to come from the younger generation.
Make Presidents accountable, and not let them hide, protected from blame.
@Bitter Crank has your last disposible nickel in his sights. He (and others sharing his opinion) claim he'll only soak the rich. But there aren't enough rich to soak. If someone lays out some numbers that refute my point I'll stand corrected.
Quoting Nort Fragrant
Cutting government spending is never on the agenda of the wealth confiscators. Have you noticed that?
I did, but here are some more:
"Wealth" is not the same as income. A man who outright owns a house worth $100,000, has no debts, no savings, and has an income of $30,000 per year is "worth" $100,000. If he had debts of $10,000, he would be worth $90,000. If he had paid off his debts and had $10,000 in savings, he'd be worth $110,000. His yearly income doesn't count as "wealth" unless part of it is saved.
That's how worth is calculated.
When we talk about the "wealth" of the USA or any country, we are taking about assets, not income. So, the net worth of the USA is $124 Trillion. No income is figured into that number.
What is all that debt? It's mortgages, credit card debt, student loans, business debt, and government debt (bonds--federal, state, county, city) and so on.
What are all those assets? It's houses, farms, urban land (often worth a very very great deal of $$$), its cars, boats, jewels, factories, stock in businesses, airplanes (one 747 is worth around 380,000,000), ships, railroads, warehouses, stores, cash, port facilities, airports, buses, subways, food in warehouses, your stash of weed, forests--just about everything that can be bought and sold.
As I mentioned, "income" is not counted as an asset. The personal income received in the United states per year is currently about $16 Trillion. The median income (half of the people make more, half of the people make less) is 31,100 (2016) per year. 10% of earners had incomes exceeding $100,000 a year. 10% is about 20,755,000 wage earners. This 10% earns about $2 Trillion a year. wikipedia
But this is where it gets complicated. A "wage" is earned, based on hours worked at a certain rate. There are other forms of income that are not wages. If Jack has $1,000,000 in investments that yield 5%, he receives $50,000 in unearned income. Jack's $50k isn't counted in the $2 Trillion of wage income. This is where the major income disparity comes in. The wealthiest 1% of the population may be employed, and may collect a paycheck. It is probably a big paycheck. But the 1%'s real source of income is "unearned" -- that is, it derives from the wealth they have accumulated.
It is from unearned income that the rich get richer, not by getting raises from the boss. They, after all, usually ARE the boss.
When we say that the richest .1%, 1%, 5%, or 10% own more wealth than everybody else, we are saying that they own most of the fixed assets--not that they receive 80% or 90% of the earned income. What they receive is UNEARNED income, which is derived from assets, not from work performed.
Why isn't income counted as wealth? One reason is that it is, for most people, in their possession for a very short period of time. Most people do, and must, spend most of their income to support whatever lifestyle they maintain. It just doesn't stay around long enough to be counted as an asset.
So, Brother Fishfry, you are as capable as I am of Googling income and wealth stats. Have at it.
A technical issue: If you want to put a participant in blue, you have to do it this way: @ " bitter Crank " (but with no spaces around the @ or the ")
I commend you for your financial prudence. Keep it up.
I do not have your last nickel in my expropriating sights. It is not necessary for you to glue it to the gun you keep under your pillow to protect it from socialists. What I have been trying to get through Fishfry's highly resistant and pre-cast concrete skull is that there are enough rich to soak, and that the rich I plan on soaking have more than enough money to solve our problems.
The reason why economists are disturbed about highly uneven distributions of wealth is that the rich have under their control such a large share of resources that funds for productive investment and public and social infrastructure is not available. The rich don't build schools with their wealth. They don't build bridges, subways, hospitals, and the like. (They might make a donation here and there to a school or a hospital, if they can get their name on the building.)
It's not just in the United States. The same disproportion of wealth distribution exists in many countries and globally as well. Oxfam International estimates that the richest people in the world (most of whom are not American) have more wealth than half of the world's population of 3 billion.
It didn't happen over night, and by and large the rich are not "criminals" in the ordinary sense of the word. They just followed the money, and the rich tend to get richer. That's because they started with a lot of money to invest, and they could hire experts to help them. People like you and me tend to get poorer as time goes on. We are lucky to have a pot to piss in; we don't have much money at all to invest, and if we wanted to invest $2,000, we wouldn't be able to afford professional advice on how to turn that $2,000 into $6,000 in a day or two of clever manipulation.
One of the reasons we have a deficit is that a few years ago (and 3 decades ago) we lowered the tax on the wealthiest Americans. Lower taxes on the wealthiest people is one of the reasons income distribution is so disproportionate.
The largest area of the Federal Budget is Mandated Spending--entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the like. that's $2.841 trillion in FY 2020. Is this money wasted?
Hardly. Every dollar of mandated spending is injected back into the economy in the form of social security checks, and payments to care providers at various levels. Social security checks are mostly spent at the neighborhood or county level. People use it to buy what they need. Medicare and medicaid dollars are spent at local medical facilities. (Pharmaceutical companies are ripping the government off, because of Republic sponsored legislation which prevents medicare from negotiating the price of drugs!)
A secondary benefit of Medicaid, especially, is that it maintains the health of the poorest population. From a public health standpoint, this is highly desirable. Better to nip communicable disease in the bud.
Another area of "mandatory spending", not quite mandated, is payments on the debt. This year the payment on the national debt is 389 billion in fiscal year 2019. In 2028 the interest on the debt will be $914 billion.
The national debt has been risen and fallen for our entire history, but it is at a historical high. However, I don't know whether the chart represents constant dollars. It's worth noting that we eventually paid off WWII debt around the middle of the 1960s, thanks to the post WWII boom. Our present high debt is a result of the class war, not a hot war. It's the tax laws passed to please the rich at the expense of the poor that causes the current high level of debt.
Ah, thank you.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Surely nothing I said could have given the impression I'm unclear on that distinction. After all I did give the example of confiscating the entire net worth of Bezos, Gates, and Buffet, which I gave as $250B. Bezos has about $140B but he's going to lose half of it to his soon-to-be ex-wife. Gates and Buffet are around $60B or so each. So I'm in the ballpark.
So it's clear that I know the difference between net worth and income; and that my examples are all relative to net worth. A million from each millionaire, a billion from each billionaire. Everything they own from Bezos, Buffet, and Gates. By the way my earlier estimate was wrong. $250B is 1/4 trillion, hence only 1/16 of the $4T it takes to run the government for a year. We could strip those three guys down to their shorts and run the government for three and a half weeks. Not that it wouldn't be fun anyway.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yeah yeah. I'll perfectly well stipulate to everything you say. But you are not answering my question. Tomorrow morning you are declared Grand Commissar of the New American People's Republic. You have to make a decree. We will take X dollars from each person with Y net worth. I want to know your numbers. I showed that a million from each millionaire runs the government for less than three years. A billion from each billionaire, about six and a half weeks.
Show me your numbers. I claim that if you say explicitly which people you're going to take money from, and exactly how much, you will find that within a few years you'll be completely out of money to run the government without digging deeply into the pockets of the working class. That is my claim. Go ahead and prove me wrong with hard numbers. How much are you taking, and from whom?
Quoting Bitter Crank
I'm perfectly civil to everyone I interact with on this site. I request the same from you. Nor would your remark be warranted even if put politely. I know the numbers AND the narrative. You could recite the World Almanac and you would still be avoiding my simple and direct question. How much, and from whom?
I already told you: all of it. The multi-millionaires and billionaires will be financially cleaned out. You can find your own list of very wealthy people.
It isn't necessary to make me Grand Commissar of the New American People's Republic. Commissar is sufficient. And it won't be a republic any more, it will be an industrial democracy. The workers will be in charge of the means of production and distribution (and of course they will also be the consumers). It will be up to them to decide what to do.
Since you are getting testy about my civility in referencing your cranium... What have you got against pre-cast concrete? It's splendid material. If I had really meant to impugn your intelligence, I would have said something cruder and crueler. But I wasn't impugning your intelligence or knowledge, and I didn't wish to do so. So I beg pardon for my fault, for my most grievous fault.
I've cited the amount of wealth that the richest portion of the United States owns. Several million people compose that class. I don't plan on looking for a list of them all. Neither do you. I told you what I would do with it -- distribute it to The People.
This is all fantasy anyway. I even pointed out that we have no idea what the upshot of distributing $94 trillion dollars to the 124 million households would be. My guess is that it would be economically catastrophic. It would be catastrophic NOT because it had been taken away from the rich. It would be ruinous if 124 million households started spending it all at once (or even somewhat slowly). The tri$$ions would have to be IV dripped very slowly. Just as you can't restore a starving person by feeding them a huge meal, you can't undo poverty and economic insufficiency by dumping tons of money on the economy all at once.
Oh, look: There's my exit ramp.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Are you an authentic old-time Marxist? Karl, I mean, not Groucho.
Workers of the world unite. You have a world to gain and nothing to lose but your chains.
Yes.
We are not talking all of the riche's cash. We are talking crumbs from their table.
We are talking of systems used by the rich to impose poverty onto our population.
We are talking a fair taxing system instead of the one we now have that favors the rich at the expense of the poor.
Regards
DL
I agree and that is why billionaires should create a lot more millionaires.
It is immoral to subject a population to poverty when the country and it's people are so rich.
Regards
DL
I agree.
Look at the resistance that even suggesting a new way of thinking brings.
Regards
DL
I am all in for that.
Regards
DL
I like that we have rich people.
I dislike that we are letting them impose poverty on our rich nations.
Regards
DL
Thank you.
And I agree with what you were suggesting in your subsequent post. Nothing wrong with havng rich people at all.
But it makes no sense for a nation with as much as we have...to have people who are poor. Fact is, in a world with as much wealth as we now have on planet Earth...is makes no sense for ANYONE to be poor.
Everyone should have sufficient for a reasonable, comfortable life.
I agree. The world is getting more moral but we still have a ways to go.
Regards
DL
I do think there needs to be a celling, a cut of point to stop people getting to extravagant. Plus a low floor that all of us working people can stay above, so we can at least have some semblance of a comfortable life.
When I see the obscene waist by those wealthy waist of time humans I get sick to the stomach.
Perhaps we could swop places at 40, then see how they like having nothing.
If we carry on as we have, this Earth will run dry. Then the wealthy will zip off to some space station and laugh them selfs silly.
By regulating income, and waist, We can significantly reduce the ware on the Earth. Then we need to reduce our population, else we are not going to do very well.
Or we carry on regardless, and enjoy the good old days. As that is what now is.
What the heck, lets go racing our big fast cars, have larger houses, more planes. Lets burn off all the oil, pile up the plastic, and chop down the last tree. What smart people we are!
A friend of mine gave me a idea on how to make bartering work almost as well as the use of money. It involves using servers and possibly thin clients where a person would be registered in the system just like many websites, and then the user would offer a good or service. The program or website would use data mining to find a scale from 1 to 100 for conservative and liberal estimates (respectivelly) of what that good or service is worth in monetary terms and then the user would say what good or service they want to exchange for (that would also have a scale value in monetary terms). The user would decide what value on the scale she wants. The user would be rewarded by the algorithm and the website by a quicker response if she chooses a conservative value on the scale. Since 99% of users would be able to get the swap they want by only swapping with up to 200 users that would be sufficient. In most cases a user could get what they want by less than 5 people swapping goods and services. The users who respond the quickest by agree to the all the transactions that would have to take place would be rewarded with a very small amount of money (similar to youtube's reward system).
The switching algorithm that decides between all the people involved in the huge "trade off" would borrow heavliy from a router or ARP packet switching system (computer network communication). It would also have some elements that are not used in ARP packet switching. ARP white papers can be found online.
At the end of the process using computer processing and many trades among users all users will have traded their goods and services for other people's goods and services.
Feel free to use my friend's idea to start your business or expand your business. My friend wants to see this get accomplished again sooner rather than later.
I agree that we are short sighted and not too bright in how we carry on business and look to the poor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpkGvk1rQBI
Regards
DL
Barter is what we do now with cash.
It would be impossible for most who produce a product to have to carry their product with them when shopping.
Our trade is too complex for barter and that is likely why so little bartering is done these days.
Regards
DL
You do not have to as it is easily visualized.
Have a look at this and just imagine the benefits if a brick or two, a really small amount of cash, was moved from the extreme right side of the graph to the extreme left.
https://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2
Regards
DL
"Gnostic Christian Bishop"
I don't expect you to believe this bartering website would work just based off of a short description but one of the things this site does is between 5 to 200 people trying to get what they want each person would only have to ship one item or a set of item to one other person (or provide a service to one other person). The software would coordinate everything so that even though what you are providing isn't directly applied to who you are recieving your good or service, every on in fact would be getting their good or service for their desired good or service and all this is coordinated through the algorithm on the server. Modern society has certailnly designed much more complex software but i've been wrong before.
It will be Ai that exits this world, and colonises the universe not us. We are to vulnerable, too expensive to run, and we squabble too much!
Best we stay in our soon to be Zoo, and have Ai visitors come and watch us scratch about on the surface.
So prepare for the soon to arrive change in what you think you are, I doubt most will like it !
In comparison we humans are the single cell ameba at the beginning of the next evolutionary step.
And this evolutionary step will be running a whole lot faster than we ever could.
Buy Buy Kansas.
I have no doubt that a barter system will always have some few people who will have things to trade. Kajijjy does that.
If I am a farmer, what could a car salesman possibly have that I would want when I already have a truck?
If a barter system worked for anything like the masjority, your food would be delivered by a farmer and not some store, I have been in sales all my life and would thumbs down bartering systems.
Regards
DL
I look forward to having stupid people given information from a logic and reason machine as they presently ignore their smarter brethren.
Do you think it better to be ruled by liars like Trump and Pope Francis or by a computer that cannot and will not lie.
I can take the truth. Can you?
Regards
DL
i'll have to rewrite that article on electronically assisted bartering so that it is more elaborate. My hope was that someone would understand what i was getting at. In my understanding of modern algorithms is that they can be very complex. I do find it unlikely that i would be able to write the software by my self which is why i was hoping mulitple organizations or groups other than myself would write it.
Only time will tell.
And as far as our lie masters are concerned, there time will also soon come to an end. ( We know they lie, yet still we put them in power) who’s the stupid one’s?
The truth is what you want it to be, not what some else says it is. so we can at the moment make our own minds on that matter.
Soon!!!
Let us pray. Not that that is worth anything.
What change do you see happening that will get the masses to stop putting up with the outright fraud that we presently allow from lying religions and politicians.
Regards
DL
No need. It is easy to understand but nearly impossible to implement. That is why we use cash value instead of good and services value.
Take your own case, if you are working.
If you are in a home factory making widget A, what good is it to those you wish to trade with if they have no need for widget A or your skill in making them?
Finding a buyer with something he has that you want becomes nearly impossible.
That is why factories sell to various outlets known to all customers/traders who just use cash to barter with instead of goods and services. Your idea is ok for local, but not for global.
Economy of scale comes into play and that takes central distribution and not individual local distribution.
Regards
DL
With the advancement of computing power, the introduction of robots, and now the Ai factor . We have started something we can not stop.
All ready the thinking and problem solving is well and truly entrenched, this will only proceed faster and faster, as the rich see the benefits for them in the short term. What they will not be-able to do is stop the ingress of Ai in and through the internet.
Then with the ability to think, solve, produce what ever Ai needs to take control It will. And not you or i, and indeed more so the rice can do is to stop it from happening.
We will become a side show to the sudden advancement of this new entity.
The learning curve For Ai is almost vertical, So when it get’s traction. It will be out of our control.
Enjoy your time now, we are to be replaced.
I think you overestimate the progress we will collectively allow.
I hope I am wrong, but based on the collective intelligence, logic and reason produced by the U.N. on climate change in their reports, --- which the world is ignoring, --- I think an A I telling us the right thing to do, just as the U.N. did, will also be ignored.
What you envisage, I think, will not come even close to happening until we move to a one world government. That is when the leader will rule by demographics and A I or just plain old human intelligence.
Regards
DL
Money, Has it’s eval grip on us all, That too needs to go.
Democracy is a sham, just look at England at the moment, So called intelligent people put in power to put things right!
We need a world governing Friendly Dictator ( if there is such a thing )
So then insteps the Ai factor again, programmed to be fair, honest, and in the interest of everyone.
Will this happen voluntarily? No.
Too many fat cats will throw a tantrum, so don’t hold your breath waiting for utopia.
The other option is to wait for a magnitude1 catastrophe, then we all, who ever is left alive, go about our local commune singing songs and waving our arms in the air.
In conclusion: Nothings going to change until we are forced to do so.
This may at first seem not that relevant!
Now the ice-cream came in a cardboard wrapping, and was when unwrapped square. This permitted the ceremony to commence.
My farther made slight indentation’s in the top of the ice-cream with a knife to mark 5 equal portions. Then all 5 of us had to agree that each was the same size. If not, the knife smoothed over the indentations and re marked the top.
Now this could take a while for us all to agree, But then the ice-cream would begin to melt and a decision had to be made.
If a friendly fair family struggle to agree, what chance is there for greedy people to agree?
The reason most who are in power, is that they are greedy and want more for them selves and don’t care about others.
Clearly an unfair system.
We humans are are notorious for being greedy, so we are not the ones to govern us.
Ai is.
I admit cash will always be more straight forward than bartering but i believe through a sophisticated piece of software bartering could become tremendously easier. I guess i did a poor job describing the software idea in the 5 paragraph essay.
Those in power have it because the masses have given it to them and those masses will not let the minority rule.
Quoting Nort Fragrant
We have basically always lived slaved to our oligarch owners.
Changes have happened for the good as well as the evil so to say that only force and not intelligence will create change would not be accurate.
Regards
DL
Yet it is our selfish gene that has gotten us this far.
We have no idea how an A I would rule so to say that it would do better than us is pre-mature.
I do not mind trusting data that an A I would produce but do not yet know if it would know of the honor and duty that man owes society.
For instance. An A I would have us all have equal rights, while ignoring the logic behind the unequal rights that mankind decided on when writing the law of the sea that rightly put's women and children above men, where they belong.
Regards
DL
The software is not the problem. That would actually be the easy part.
The problem is getting the goods ands services to the one who might want them as he might be quite far away.
Take Canada's asbestos. We now ship it to India while outlawing it's sale here.
Your idea is sound but you fail to recognize that we have substituted actually bartering with individuals to just dumping all into a massive (warehouse), taking the cash value and just buying what we need or want. We are already, in that sense, doing what you think we should do. Just not individual to individual directly but by dealing directly with distributors and middle men.
That does add value to goods and services but do not forget that we live in a make work/jobs economy. many would starve to death if we were as efficient as we could be.
Regards
DL
I have no idea what the total cost would be, and what the total disposable income of the 0.1% comes out to nowadays.
Moreover, I'm not sure it's enough to go after disposable income. In addition to a progressive income tax, I'd recommend a robust wealth tax and strict limits on inheritance. Let's add to that a universal income and a core economy maintained or strictly regulated by a global government for the sake of the general welfare of the people of Earth.
Alas, I'm not sure that program's any less likely to be realized than the one you've proposed.
I agree. Neither of us will get our wish list until universal government becomes a reality. That applies to the whole world but u see no reason why individual countries could not target their own oligarch and super rich.
Sure, some of thoase people might threaten to move their assets elsewhere, but then a government could just help those bastards get out of their countries so as to allow a more worthy oligarch to take over the markets left.
We can play hard ball with those sons of bitches that do not want to p[lay fair and share.
Regards
DL
Of course it's an ideal that can and should be pursued at the national level. At every level, but I suppose at the national level first and foremost, since the nation-state is still the primary political unit.
as was said in the essay. This system would not completely get rid of the use of money and probably this bartering system would still be a small fraction of the economy but it would be a much larger part than it is now.
True, but ours can be manipulated by the U.N., for instance, if the majority of other countries and their coalitions are powerful enough.
There is also the U.N. court that has teeth. Little one. yes, but they can still bite.
Regards
DL
I hear and agree with all your points but think the cons outweigh the pros.
If we lived in a world where our wealth was in our labor alone, it might work, but we live in a world where our labor and it's value is mostly augmented by machines and we now mostly live in cities instead of a rural world where barter is more workable.
Regards
DL
i appreciate your grace. We'll see. have a good week.
The catch is that given ecological footprint vs. biocapacity there aren't enough material resources and energy worldwide to provide increasing goods and services.
??
I have not read anything that proves this to be a fact. What peer reviewed report have you found to bolster your view?
I do agree with your assessment of the minute adjustment to our socio economic demography that would be required to do the right thing.
Regards
DL
"Is Global Collapse Imminent?"
123[/b]
I doubt it.
BUT if we wanted to end poverty...we could easily do it. We could end poverty all across the planet.
Every person could have adequate food, clothing, shelter, educational opportunities, medical care...and even communication and entertainment devises....like phones and televisions.
I have no idea of why we are not doing it...but it is to our shame that we allow it to exist.
I do not think so.
I think things will get a lot worse and that that will trigger the globalization in us as we will recognize that without a global political and religious system, we will suffer a hell of a lot more.
If spaceship earth is to not go into a deep depression, it will have to elect a captain to run it.
Most of this hardship and change could be averted if our oligarch owners would cooperate more and compete less. That might take globalization.
Regards
DL
I agree with all you put.
We are not doing it because we have too many voices/leaders competing for crumbs while ignoring that the main meal is rotting from lack of consumption by the masses.
Our leaders have forgotten that they are to lead by duty and for honor. They are not honorable people as can be seen in Trump and pope Francis. I name those as undeserving leaders of many.
Regards
DL
We should now make a commitment to insure that every human on the planet should have adequate food, clothing, shelter, educational opportunities, medical care...and even communication and entertainment devises....like phones and televisions.
NOW!!!
You mean you think so. That's what I gathered from the rest of your post.
Not necessarily. We might wind up simply with government employees buying islands, buying homes made of diamonds, etc.
We as a world, yes. The U.S. doing so would be irrelevant to the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, Yanks misname what you propose socialism. Americans are not as bright as most when it comes to labels.
Regards
DL
Eh, a transparent system connected to the tax system. Statistics would show any corruption.
Regards
DL
Quoting YuZhonglu
Your last contradicts your first.
Regards
DL
No. Nature changes. It never collapses. That does not mean that mankind can live in whatever the environment changes to, although I think we will.
Insects are currently suffering a massive extinction event, as well as other species. Life and the earth will always be here but most of us might not be as much of our food is reliant on insects.
We are shooting ourselves in the foot but it is a toss up as to whether we will let it fester and rot and kill us by slow poison or fix it.
Regards
DL
And you think the rich who let us use their table scraps will allow that do you?
Regards
DL
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
"We as a world" is what I am talking about.
No it wouldn't. If we achieved it...it would be significant throughout the world. If China or Russia achieved it...it would be significant throughout the world.
I any country achieved it...it would be significant throughout the world.
Your letting your negative feelings about the US fracture your logic.
Whatever.
It already exists in the Northern European countries.
Regards
DL
Actually...it does not...but they are getting very, very close.
And it is significantly impacting on the rest of the world. We have people here in the US attempting to make the Northern European model be a model for us.
Right now...it is not working, because our country has moved so far to the right, the distance is too far.
But the time will come...and when a large country finally makes the move to what those smaller countries have...all countries will be forced in that direction.
Doubtful.
Politics is done for local consumption and all politicians want their brand on legislation and that is why they do not copy better systems in other countries.
Even Obama, whom I respect, wanted Obama care.
Not an --- Obama's copy of the best system on earth care.
Regards
DL
I was not referring to nature.
Don't leave me hanging with a bare denial.
I obviously got it wrong but if correcting is not in you.
Regards
DL
You requested for a peer-reviewed report, and I presented it to you. You did not read it because if you did, then you would see that I'm not referring to nature.
Please read the report.
I just took a look above and do not see what you are referring to.
Regards
DL
Go to this post:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/281473
The link to the report is embedded in it.
They are asking the question and giving the facts that they know.
Fact is, with the chaos we have in the environment at present, we do not know anything for certain.
We do know for a fact that the earth will look after itself as it has for billions of years and will not collapse. That does not mean that mankind will fare as well. If we are too slow to adapt to the new environment, we might go extinct but the world will just shrug that off and replace the ecosystem we dies in by a form of life that will thrive.
Do you like George Carlin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Miv4NHsDo&feature=related
Regards
DL
The report is not referring to planetary collapse.
We don't know that the earth will take care of itself. Evidence seems to point to the contrary. The solar system will inevitably fizzle out, and the only way we'll survive it is by manipulating ourselves and our environment in precisely the correct manner without any idea as to what that manner is.
Informative. Thanks.
Regards
DL
We know that it will eventually die just as all things die by entropy but it sure looks like it will outlive most species that are here now just as it has done for millions upon millions of years. Any thing we do to not go extinct is only good for us as the earth will outlast us by eons. At least on this planet.
I think it a joke that we look to terraforming another planet while we cannot even terraform ours to a better condition for us.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Regards
DL
Why are you talking about a ball of rock as if it has a soul? And how is it "stupid" that a parasitic species would move on after destroying its host? It requires a host. If its present host is about to die, wouldn't it be "smart" to find a new one?
I do not speak of the earth as having a soul.
Historically, we have personified the earth as Gaia of Mother earth.
You are rather intolerant of common practice of just had nothing better to say about the issue, which was terraforming.
I think that if more people thought of the earth in a personified way, we might not be passing it to our children a lot worse off that what we began with. No?
If you think man can destroy the earth, and terraform a dead worlds when we cannot even terraform this one, then, tell me what polite thing can I say of your thinking?
Technologically, we are decades, if not centuries, away from being able to terraform a dead planet as we do not even have the teck to terraform our 99% live planet. Mars will always be a satellite or way station for earth. It will never be a home.
Regards
DL
The problem is that the welfare of the world population is based essentially on material resources and energy, and those are limited by diminishing returns and physical limitations of the biosphere, not to mention affected by pollution and the effects of global warming. And that population continues to rise even with lower birth rates due to momentum.
I think we will level at 9.5 billion. The earth can handle it and with such a rich world, we can afford it.
It will be hell though if we do not get better organized in how we deal with the changes in where populations are as global climate changes our environment.
You are correct in your view of trickle up and also on the actual pittance that is required to end poverty.
Regards
DL
If you take the wealth of the richest 2000, 200, or 20 and distributed it evenly to the poor, they would be much better off, but not for long. First, inserting a few billion dollars into the economy of Kenya or Laos would cause an immediate inflationary surge (too much money pursuing too few goods). One could slowly infuse the poor Kenyan's or Laotians share into the economy, which would be better. But however it was distributed, when it was gone, it would be back to business as usual.
The really difficult task of redistribution of wealth is to use the proceeds to develop the economy of Kenya or Laos such that they would produce more of the goods (housing, food, health care... whatever) that they wanted. Further, the proceeds should be plowed back into the Kenyan or Laotian economy to further benefit the people there, rather than already rich people.
One can imagine this happening, but making it happen is quite difficult, especially if the end is to eliminate disparities of wealth.
I have no sympathy with the rich who would be dispossessed; that's fine by me. But actually changing peasants' and slum dwellers' lives takes time and expertise and a great deal of care (lest it blow up in everybody's face).
The development problem is the inverse of getting the American, European, and Asian industrial economies to stop producing and consuming so much so that the global climate won't be totally ruined for human habitation. It's damned difficult to get people to change, EVEN when changing means a better life in the future (or life at all).
That's not a flaw. Rather, there is a need to plan carefully.
The flaw is found in the second paragraph of my post.
Right, I wasn't saying your thinking was flawed. What is flawed is the idea that a simple redistribution of wealth (a check arrives in 3 billion mailboxes) would fix everything.
I agree that a limited supply of material resources (exploitable metals, good soil, fresh water, stable climate) is a fatal limitation on both population and development.
That's not a flaw in my idea but in execution.
https://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2
If you can visualize at all, just imagine how few bricks, so to speak, we would have to move from the extreme right of this graph to the extreme left before the ideal would be reached.
Just a few. Right?
Regards
DL
It seems reasonable to expect the trend toward multinational and global organization will continue, given the persistence of technological culture along something like its current trajectory.
I suppose the nation-state for now remains the primary political unit, at least in its role as primary administrative district; while the authority and power to administer these districts moves along supra- and super-national, as well as government and nongovernment, axes.
I agree and doubt that it can be stopped even though the right wing nationalists are putting up a good fight.
Regards
DL
I wonder if that fight isn't just another circus sideshow, albeit an especially repugnant and dangerous one. It seems to me those nationalists are by and large just so many more unwitting pawns of the oligarchs. The trend of globalization continues as the powerful few marshal discord among the people of Earth, even promoting antiglobalist rhetoric as cover for their self-serving operations. The current rise of right-wing nationalism does not put that trend in check, but only helps ensure that wealth and power remain in the hands of the few.
Of course it is all a show. It is all done for entertainment and to distract us from the reality that we will continue to be slaved to our oligarch masters until we finally take control of our various governing bodies from their control.
Only good tax laws can reverse our slave status but the oligarchs are controlling that like they control everything else.
Regards
DL
Less than 30 individuals own and control more than half the wealth in the whole world. If governments confiscated this wealth, and they used it to combat poverty, the there would be less poverty. Maybe even an end to poverty, if the wealth proved sufficient.
What no one is talking about is that in today’s world most families require two incomes to get same lifestyle as one income did 50 years ago.
That’s inflation in itself. How can this be rectified? Start off by incentivizing a 30 hour work week. Which by the way Obama somewhat was attempting to do with Obamacare.
What’s also interesting is, if our politicians were so concerned about the income gap, why not start out reducing or eliminating the poor’s and middle classes taxes first?
Nothing can or will change anyway until our fiat money system goes away. As money is being created the very people that control it take their cut of the money first. Then, each group thereafter takes their cut until the rest of the money gets distributed to the masses.
From looking at the stats, I note how little it would actually take to reverse the trend of the rich stealing from the poor.
Crumbs from the rich table is all that is required to put our socio economic demographic pyramid into a moral state or shape.
Regards
DL
It would certainly help
You put nothing that I agree with and speculate on so many issues that I would not know where to start my critique.
You have already taken the defeated's position and are kowtowing to our oligarch owners.
Regards
DL
I agree and think so by a long shot.
Regards
DL
Just taxation won't solve the problem. There are areas where revolutoinary reforms are required rather than just pumping money into the government bureaucracy, leaving things in such a sorry state as now.
That is a very sobering thought, and what you recommended will probably never happen as well, not for a very long time at least. Or perhaps some unforeseen factor in the coming decades will change things, who knows.
Yes, we'd all like that. But the current system seem to be failing miserably in this regard.
Also, "Worthwhile work with decent pay. Affordable, safe, clean housing. Affordable medical care. Affordable education. Protection from emergencies. A decent life in old age. " These are all subjective things. What do you mean safe and clean housing? How safe and how clean? Affordable education? How much is affordable education? Decent life in old age? What does that mean? And how much is it going to cost? If life were as simple as that, this world would've been a whole new ball game. But sadly, it isn't. You'll have to be a very rich to have anything close to what you aspire to here. Most people don't have one or more of those things, and that often is in direct co-relation with their income level.
So we'd all just LOVE to have the simple "Worthwhile work with decent pay. Affordable, safe, clean housing. Affordable medical care. Affordable education. Protection from emergencies. A decent life in old age. ", but our current system has assured that, as can be observed, almost nobody gets them. Not before you hit 60 anyway, mate. Not get your ass back to work! :rofl:
Stealing is a harsh term. More like taking what's really yours.
The problem aren't the millionaires perse, but the multimillionaires. I mean, it's hard not to be a millionaire household when your house alone costs three quarter of that, and with the inflation a million isn't as much money as it used to be. But there are just way too many multimillionaires and hundred millionaires and billionaires and multibillionaires. The top 0.1% have as much money as the majority of the population. This is a very sobering fact, and one that is definitely very very bad. Redistributing their wealth for a much more equal society is absolutely necessary, whether it be through reformed taxation or something else.
Oh, the pitiable rich people! How hard it must be for them! And imagine if someone (needy) takes away some of their money! They wouldn't even need the gulags to be such miserable!
Depends on what you mean "giving". Most of the wealth is not liquid. It would take many years (in the hypothetical situation that such redistribution is actually initiated). What that would do to growth is a matter of speculation, but growth isn't everything, it's quality over quantity. More people would live more comfortable lives. In the end that's all that really counts. The stock market can go hang!
"A question for which I do not have an answer: Is it possible for a few billion people to live well (per your aspirations) without a substantial number (a few billion, give or take) being forced to provide cheap goods and services? Like, I have numerous pieces of clothing, utensils, and so forth that are affordable because somebody else lives a meager existence."
I believe it is certainly possible. We have great machines now. But the reason this isn't already the case is, profits. Corporations care about nothing but profits. So if labour is cheap, they'll ditch the machine and use labor, its all the same for them. So instead of drastically increased income we should've seen as our technological progress suggests, we're observing increased work hours, stagnated income levels, and even lower quality goods and services. This is because that is the best way for corporations to maximize profits. The well-being of the workers and the utility of the products is redundant as long as it doesn't directly interfere with profitability. That is why mobile phone technology advanced in the manner it did, so it might seem that every component in your device is kept there because if might somehow help you, but in reality it's kept there because it sold more that way. It's a sort of economic evolution. Whatever sells, survives, regardless of it's importance or usefulness. And that is why clothes and housing are so expensive while huge corporations run the world by making fancy and intrusive gadgetry. If they cared about the people at all, everyone could live comfortably without many having to suffer for it. We are certainly technologically advanced enough for this. But like this it won't work, where managers and shareholders not only take away all the money but always demand for more, and use various dubious ways to quench their hunger. With the current technology, almost every nation in the world is capable of being self-sufficient. But you don't even have to do that. If trade and globalization was anything close to being fair, all countries could specialize and everyone would be better off. But inequality and unfettered capitalism has seized most of the world, and this only means that some people will always gluttonize on the expense of others.
Agreed.
Well that's the goal. But from where things are going, it seems unlikely. If anything, inequality and unfettered capitalism is only headed to be even more stronger and even more destructive.
It's easy to if your country is a few small towns of people living over a hotbed of readymade natural resources.
Can't agree more with this post.
"If you take a billion dollars from every billionaire in the country you can run the government for six weeks. "
The financial position of the United States includes assets of at least $269.6 trillion (1576% of GDP) and debts of $145.8 trillion (852% of GDP) to produce a net worth of at least $123.8 trillion (723% of GDP) as of Q1 2014.
Divide the 123 trillion dollars among all Americans.
So, if you divided the money correctly, every household in America would be millionaire. But even if you didn't divide it exactly equally, if there was a ceiling to wealth accumulation, say at one million dollars, then everybody would still be well off.
And let me tell you something, the government too would run much better than before. Because you see, the super rich have a rather hateful relationship with taxes, and they also seem to need to spend many hundreds of billions of dollars every year on protecting their money from other forms of what they think is thievery.
But the rest of us? Well, we're much more accomodating. We don't fetter too much about having to pay taxes, and don't find the need to devise elaborate plans on not paying them. Society doesn't run without taxes, and everybody benefits from them. We understand that. We're also not very enthusiastic about all the wars and the lethal gadgets, especially not when at 598.5 billion dollars it costs more than half of ALL of the budget passed by congress. (54% to be precise, so more than all other discretory government expenditure combined). So, without the super rich, both tax collection and government spending would increase, making everything better off. The reality of now however is, unfortunately, very much the opposite.
5%??
But I also think it's dangerous to be hasty and drastic in the (hypothetical) event of wealth redistrubution, as that can cause many unforeseen problems on the economy. There is much to learn from the failures at similar experiments of the past.
Yes, it did seem plausible to estimate that more and more jobs will be replaced by machines, and unemployment will increase as a consequence as the years go by. But the reality is otherwise. Unemployment is at an all time low. So the question now isn't about the rates of employment, but rather the QUALITY of employment. More benefits, shorter working hours, paid leaves, increased wages, job security and better pensions are just as important as just flat employment rates. The United States has just a 3.5% umployment rate now, but that doesn't at all mean that economy-wise things are just handy dandy and tip top over there.
That is why most government spending is military defense and policing.
You have your figures and estimates all wrong. And that's just two billionaires.
I'm not so optimistic as that.
This is something from a while back, I no longer remember exactly what I might have said and I didn't manage to find my earlier quote. I didn't follow your chart regardless. It shows discretionary spending of $1.1T. That doesn't include the other $2.7T, going by the 2015 total spending of $3.8T. Nondiscretionary spending includes all the social programs mandated by law., Social Security and Medicare and so forth, plus the interest on the debt (side question: Why do you think the Fed is doing everything it can for the past ten years to keep interest rates extremely low? Could it have anything to do with the disastrous effect on the federal budget if interest rates were allowed to rise in a free market?)
So even if you're trying to demonstrate that stripping billionaires naked would run the government for some nontrivial amount of time; showing a chart that represents less than 1/3 of government spending doesn't make your point. And the problem is that even if you could fund the government for a year or two by stripping the billionaires, what would you do in year three? There wouldn't be any billionaires. So you'd have to come after the millionaires, And after a couple more years, you'd be into the middle class. The middle class pays virtually ALL taxes no matter WHAT you do. The rich write the laws and the poor don't have any money. That leaves you and me to pay the bills.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo
Regards
DL
I think it is.
Poverty is not an objectively established value of assets and income for a person. It is subjective. Someone or some government body or think-tank says "poverty line in the United States is X dollars income per annum per person and Y dollars assets per person." This is how it's done.
How do you eliminate poverty? By decreasing X and Y to sufficiently low amounts so no person qualifies.
Poverty declarations, theories, etc. are one of the biggest economic / mathematical poofs of our age.
Quoting god must be atheist
I agree with this for the most part. On a different note, there is no shortage of land in this world. The queen of england is the largest land owner in the world and if you investigate how much that is you'll see what i'm getting at. A lot of the world's problems can be solved by reducing globalism, changing zoning laws, making practical laws to help with people getting a day off (some people work months at a time with out a day off)(see maryland legislature), and most of all having general concern for those who work for us would greatly improve the lives of the "poor".