Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Bic_Cherry, Oct 8, 2019.

  1. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you somehow think that I oppose adjudication between individuals?
    So are you conceding that only individual people value things? As was my original point?
     
    squidward likes this.
  2. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have no understanding of MMT, I accept that.....but more significantly, we have different value sets.

    (so eg, you think investing in the stock market and watching your investment treble in 'value' over the following decade without doing anything more at all with that investment over that decade is an example of "risk-taking").

    Re 'value sets':

    1. I value universal above poverty participation in the economy (which is a resource management problem, as explained by MMT, not a money scarcity problem)

    2. You value the freedom of individuals to maximise their own access available resources (final goods and services) supplied by the economy.

    Therefore, you will not want to understand MMT, because our value sets are different.

    But a majority of people will value universal above poverty participation (at a minimum) in the economy, if they understand the Fed can fund this goal directly, without needing to raise taxes or borrow money.

    For those interested in engaging their brain:
    in this era of fiat currencies, (ie long after the era of fixed exchange rates and the gold standard), the treasury can authorise the Fed to fund poverty alleviation directly, by issuing its own free-floating convertible exchange rate currency.

    In fact you are the one who supports great power and wealth eg Bezos, while 500,000 are homeless, and half the population can't find $1000 from savings in an emergency.

    The "government edict" you speak of is the above poverty Job Guarantee, or the single payer health care, or the non-debt creating tertiary education for those with the ability etc.

    That is NOT "exploit ...for great personal power and wealth", obviously. None of those things result in" great personal power and wealth", but they do guarantee above poverty participation in the economy, when the private sector does NOT, cannot, - and should not be expected to - guarantee those things. The private sector exists to make profits for individuals, not to promote the general welfare of the population.

    MMT describes how the public sector CAN achieve that last goal, without taxing or borrowing (from the private sector).
     
  3. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The decisions of households - whether to save or spend - ARE separate from aggregate spending in markets (ie in the economy); eg we have Keynes' famous paradox of thrift....if everyone wants to save at the same time (eg, in a credit crunch, or unemployment crises), the economy will collapse

    Addressed above. Macro and micro economics ARE different.
     
  4. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One is a summation of the other
     
  5. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Er, ..uh,...I think you said that

    In fairy tales
     
  6. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  7. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, get your facts straight:
    You said the 300% gain on stocks post GFC was risky. I pointed out that it wasn't, since the asset inflation was a deliberate monetary policy of the Fed.

    No, in reality.
    Like I said, you don't want to understand, but others do want to understand and will take the time to learn, becasue (unlike you) they have a <public welfare> values set, which requires the institution of above poverty level participation in the economy.

    You have to prove there are insufficient resources to house, clothe, feed, transport, connect to the internet and employ everyone, before you can talk about "fairy tales".
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2020
  8. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can't support adjudication between individuals aka rule of law aka societal prohibition AND support "voluntary agreement" as the basis of relations individuals at the same time.
    In the concrete terms you expressed subjective value: namely, you prefer an an apple to a pear....yes, I agree - but I don't need to concede unless you can point to the actual words that prove otherwise*; but THAT has no relevance to price in either classical macroeconomics, or 'value' in MMT, which encompasses a "public welfare" value component.

    * and don't forget to explain how "societal prohibition" is not equivalent to "rule of law".
    Your confusion in this debate arises because the concept of "individuals" refers to two different categories:

    1. All individuals, in the plural sense, ie the public,
    2. All individuals in the singular sense, ie as an individual..
    [Hence Maggie's famous piece of nonsense:"there is no such thing as society...]"
     
  9. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never discussed the stock market with you.



    I have to prove? Now that's rich.
     
  10. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wrote:
    "One guy invested $10,000 in the Dow in 2009, he's now worth 30K.
    Bloomberg (or whoever) invested $15 billion, he's now worth $50 billion
    ( btw both unearned income)".

    Your response was:

    hint: the Dow is the most quoted measure of the US stock market.


    So you are content to say MMT is a fairy tail, without giving us the facts....

    Hint: there are sufficient resources to eradicate poverty, but meanwhile the real economy is being trashed by greedy speculators.

    https://ellenbrown.com/2020/01/10/the-fed-protects-gamblers-at-the-expense-of-the-economy/

    "Although the repo market is little known to most people, it is a $1-trillion-a-day credit machine, in which not just banks but hedge funds and other “shadow banks” borrow to finance their trades. Under the Federal Reserve Act, the central bank’s lending window is open only to licensed depository banks; but the Fed is now pouring billions of dollars into the repo (repurchase agreements) market, in effect making risk-free loans to speculators at less than 2%.

    This does not serve the real economy, in which products, services and jobs are created. However, the Fed is trapped into this speculative monetary expansion to avoid a cascade of defaults of the sort it was facing with the long-term capital management crisis in 1998 and the Lehman crisis in 2008."

    The article concludes with

    "Solutions (including MMT) are available, but Congress itself has been captured by the financial markets, and it may take another economic collapse to motivate Congress to act. The current repo crisis could be the fuse that triggers that collapse."
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2020
  11. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, you have to prove it's not.
    You have no evidence that it results in the things you claim.
    The government is constitutionally forbidden to create currency. It can coin money however

    Equities are not wealth until someone buys them from you
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2020
  12. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My assertion was that only individuals are able to value things. Unless you can show something other than an individual that is able to value things, then my assertion stands.
     
  13. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's what you quoted me as saying: "I am arguing for societal prohibitions against the initiation of violence against my neighbour". (in the problem of capitalism thread).

    I didn't say that there can't be some method of adjudication.
     
  14. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And your example of this is: "I prefer apples to pears".

    Like I said, nothing to do with value theory (in macroeconomics) in either classical economics or Marx, and even less to do with my concept of "intrinsic" (life enhancing) value, (in which both apples and pears have intrinsic value, cf cigs, grog, and sugar drinks which have negative intrinsic value...

    Addressed above.

    ...and you haven't said what that method of adjudication might be (consistent with "voluntary agreement"?....)
     
  15. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That evidence is being gathered in academia, as new students are learning new concepts, and the old paradigm is unable to compete.

    The rules for Fed operations can be changed, of course.

    Speaking of "constitutionality", see Ellen Brown's warning in post # 560 above

    "Although the repo market is little known to most people, it is a $1-trillion-a-day credit machine, in which not just banks but hedge funds and other “shadow banks” borrow to finance their trades. Under the Federal Reserve Act, the central bank’s lending window is open only to licensed depository banks; but the Fed is now pouring billions of dollars into the repo (repurchase agreements) market, in effect making risk-free loans to speculators at less than 2%.

    This does not serve the real economy, in which products, services and jobs are created. However, the Fed is trapped into this speculative monetary expansion to avoid a cascade of defaults of the sort it was facing with the long-term capital management crisis in 1998 and the Lehman crisis in 2008."...…...Solutions (including MMT) are available, but Congress itself has been captured by the financial markets, and it may take another economic collapse to motivate Congress to act. The current repo crisis could be the fuse that triggers that collapse."

    A Fed-induced asset bubble, mostly benefitting those who can afford equities in the first place, is hardly 'risky' ….that is, until the bubble bursts…
     
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because their UTILITY to YOU is NOT equal. UTILITY is subjective. Not VALUE. GET IT???
    You're better off if you like pears better than apples. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
     
  17. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right. Which is why value is not subjective. Supply and demand are both needed.
     
  18. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which has more intrinsic value, a package of beef jerky or a bag of peanuts?

    Which has more intrinsic value, a five gallon jug of potable water or the Mona Lisa?
    You are correct.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2020
  19. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So are you saying utility is subjective and nothing has inherent utility? That seems to be the exact opposite of what @a better world is saying. Have you guys compared notes?
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2020
  20. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Equivocation fallacy. How much you value something is its utility, not its value in the relevant -- i.e., economic -- sense. The relevant sense of value is what a thing would trade for.
    Somethings would have more utility to you than others. But none would have value in the economic sense.
    Economists don't say that. Only Austrian-school non-economists do, because they want to prevent people from understanding economics.
     
  21. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so the sum of subjective decisions is not subjective? Interesting.
     
  22. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    evidence gathered in academia. Excuse me while I laugh.



    the FED is not the government



    Have you read my many of posts calling for the abolishment of the FED, and the many posts calling for the liquidation of the big banks in 2008?
     
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obvious. By definition, what is subjective is ONE person's view. Any time more than one person's view is included, the result is no longer subjective. You don't seem to be clear on why the results of an opinion survey are not subjective even though each opinion given is subjective.
     
  24. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which has more intrinsic value, a five gallon jug of potable water or the Mona Lisa?
     
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct. Also, nothing has inherent value, because value is always a function of a market context.
    I haven't, but he seems to be confused.
     

Share This Page