Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kalaratiri]

Meh, I wanted to link that article. 

* kalaratiri steals thunder

[Borza]

To be blunt, ask the Turks how integrated they feel into German society.

Why would I do that? I'm not talking about integration.

Germany isn't exactly a homogeneous country you know, there are still massive East/West disparities even 20+ years post-reunification...

Agreed, but Germany (and most European countries individually) is (are) significantly more homogeneous than the United States.

A poor reason to dismiss the comparison imo - particularly when the comparison is about equality.
Just after reunification the difference between the poorest East German and richest West German was far greater than anything found between different parts of the US. The fact that this disparity has been greatly reduced only reinforces the suggestion that their economic system is not promoting inequality to the extent that the American one is.

No, I do not dismiss the comparison, I think the comparison is unfair given the size of the US population and disparities in various economic environments.    Different States have different laws (potentially extremely different) with regards to labor, business, etc.  I have provided examples elsewhere in this thread where businesses are moving production to what is traditionally less well-off parts of the nation in order to take advantage of local laws (free to work, ie do not have to join an union) and conditions (cheaper labor).

You can say any comparison between different nations is unfair. No two countries have identical demographics or economies. One can pick apart any attempts to draw parallels if one were so inclined.
The comparison does not need to be perfect in order to contrast the levels of economic inequality between different counties as the difference is quite pronounced - just as glaring as the difference between the US in 1983 and the US of 2007 which was illustrated in the same graphic.

Do you disagree with some part of the suggestion that the US features noticeably greater economic disparity than several other developed countries and that wealth is even more highly concentrated there now than it was several decades ago?

... If not I don't understand your nit-picking. If so please address the point.

[Z.Sinraali]

Dex: Your original argument was that a capitalistic system will tend to break up or lessen the market power of monopolies, so while your point that government does not universally prosecute anti-competitive practices is valid, ULA doesn't help the original argument because it hasn't been broken up. You could try to tell me that it hasn't been broken up because the government has interfered with the natural process of the markets, but how do you intend to prove that counterfactual? Microsoft's anti-competitive activities, your other example, were stopped, but government action played a significant role in that case. (As did technological progress, but again that's not an intrinsic feature of capitalism.)

To support my original point, ULA's market monopoly (in my opinion) is in the process of being broken despite a lack of government action and even support for the monopoly.  Market forces (cost of launching stuff) has driven someone (SpaceX) to develop an alternative within the market.

Ah, I see what you're getting at now. Quite true, although my objection would be that the fact that the monopoly exists because of government action means that government action is going to be the what breaks it. It's like a drug patent: Just because generics flood the market as soon as the patent expires does not mean that it's a natural consequence of the market structure. (Of course, it's totally fair to object to government-granted monopolies in their own right.)

[Ulphus]

I think we are in agreement that capital gains tax would slow investment and slow overall economic growth.  Which is why I was confused by the statement that it was/is bull.

A capital gains tax is being promoted here as a way to encourage investment in productive assets and businesses, instead of the over-investment in non-productive rental property which pays barely enough to cover the mortgage, but really returns with the capital gains.

So the argument here (In NZ) is that a capital gains tax will actually boost our economy, and reduce housing costs at the same time.

[Vikarion]

I think we are in agreement that capital gains tax would slow investment and slow overall economic growth.  Which is why I was confused by the statement that it was/is bull.

A capital gains tax is being promoted here as a way to encourage investment in productive assets and businesses, instead of the over-investment in non-productive rental property which pays barely enough to cover the mortgage, but really returns with the capital gains.

So the argument here (In NZ) is that a capital gains tax will actually boost our economy, and reduce housing costs at the same time.

Are they going to be making adjustments in the code for investment in businesses? Because, typically, the reason you invest in property and similar investment vehicles is to avoid risk while achieving steady, if limited, growth. Businesses are typically a high risk investment. Even large businesses have historically been seen as risky propositions in comparison to property investments, and rightly so.

Moreover, if you make investment in housing more expensive for the holder of that investment, why on earth would you presume that the consequence would be cheaper housing? The most likely result of such a tax would be the aggregation of such properties into the hands of those who can operate such in volume in order to maintain profits, as those who can no longer make a living off of small property units sell to those whose living is made off of groups of property units.

When government acts to increase unit costs, the result is operation/sale of larger aggregations of units by fewer operators in order to maintain profit via multiplying the small margin per unit.

[orange]

You can say any comparison between different nations is unfair. No two countries have identical demographics or economies. One can pick apart any attempts to draw parallels if one were so inclined.
The comparison does not need to be perfect in order to contrast the levels of economic inequality between different counties as the difference is quite pronounced - just as glaring as the difference between the US in 1983 and the US of 2007 which was illustrated in the same graphic.

Do you disagree with some part of the suggestion that the US features noticeably greater economic disparity than several other developed countries and that wealth is even more highly concentrated there now than it was several decades ago?

... If not I don't understand your nit-picking. If so please address the point.

I do not disagree.

The United States of America has noticeably greater economic disparity than other developed countries with smaller economies, smaller populations, lower population diversity, and different cultural attitudes.

My nit-picking is that comparing the United States of America to any single European country does not take into account the scale and diversity of the United States.   Americans make the same mistake and point at nations like Denmark or Iceland and say "Why can't we be more like them?"  The best response in my opinion is that "there are 300 million of us and only 6 million/600 thousand of them."   The comparison fails to appreciate the scale of the United States.   Percentages eliminate scale and its associated causes.

I would rather live in a system where success is congratulated and emulated than a system that berates and looks down upon it.

 Z.Sinraali: I am contemplating my non-ideological reasons for being ok with some risk-socialization, but not others.  A lot of my current thinking is about appropriate scales at which to implement risk-socialization.

[Borza]

That isn't the kind of comparison that was being made imo, it was more for a frame of reference for Spiegel's German readership.



Good article here too about some of the myths surrounding the "1%".

[Ulphus]

Are they going to be making adjustments in the code for investment in businesses? Because, typically, the reason you invest in property and similar investment vehicles is to avoid risk while achieving steady, if limited, growth. Businesses are typically a high risk investment. Even large businesses have historically been seen as risky propositions in comparison to property investments, and rightly so.

Moreover, if you make investment in housing more expensive for the holder of that investment, why on earth would you presume that the consequence would be cheaper housing? The most likely result of such a tax would be the aggregation of such properties into the hands of those who can operate such in volume in order to maintain profits, as those who can no longer make a living off of small property units sell to those whose living is made off of groups of property units.

When government acts to increase unit costs, the result is operation/sale of larger aggregations of units by fewer operators in order to maintain profit via multiplying the small margin per unit.

Our government has generally been fairly low in the interference stakes for about 20 years. "We have leveled the playing field of international trade, but we're the only team playing without a box" was a quote from the mid eighties. Our problem negotiating free trade deals is that we have nearly no tariffs or import restrictions so we have nothing to negotiate with.

I'm pretty sure the current (right wing) government removed the incentives for R&D because they didn't see it as important.

The reasoning behind the capital gains tax, as I understand it, is that there are a bunch of people making isk off investments in property who don't pay any tax on that income. (this also applies to people making money by investing in ponzi schemes shares who get no dividends (which they would pay tax on) but make money by having the price go up because more people are investing in it.) and that this means that if investors have a choice between investing in productive capital (which returns a dividend) and investing in unproductive residential housing, they're choosing the housing.

Combined with the memories of the 1987 sharemarket crash which saw a lot of people take a bath on their share investments, this has made it very difficult for NZ business to raise investment funds inside NZ, since nobody wants to move away from safe as houses property. That has a side-effect of meaning that they do a lot of sourcing of their investment money from overseas, so most successful businesses get bought out and all the profits head overseas...

Various right wing people (including the head of the NZX stock market) are trying to get the government to sell more of it's profitable monopolies to try to get more shares on the stockmarket that are worth having, since a lot of the existing shares are crap at the moment (highly paid executives do not seem to be able to make businesses that are worth investing in in NZ, at least compared to property currently)

A side effect of everyone wanting to invest in property is that there is more money chasing the same number of houses, which drives the price up. This not only puts houses out of reach of people entering the market, but means that tax-free capital gains encourages more people to invest their spare money in the property market. This combines with a lot of city council rules about trying to keep green belts that limit the available properties for new building, which also drives the prices up (more capital gains!).

If there's a captial gains tax, then buying a house and waiting for it to get more expensive is not going to make you as much money as putting it in the bank or buying govt bonds. Which means fewer people will bother buying a second house as a rental, which means less money chasing the same number of houses, which means it gets harder to sell them, and the price comes down. That's the theory anyway.

A lot of quite respectable economists from both the left and the right have agreed that a CGT would remove a particularly distorting affect on our countries economy. It's also a way of pissing off all the upper middle class people who's idea of investment is to buy a second house, rent it out to cover the mortgage, and wait for it to double in price, which is why politicians are often reluctant to consider it.

[Wanoah]

That isn't the kind of comparison that was being made imo, it was more for a frame of reference for Spiegel's German readership.



Good article here too about some of the myths surrounding the "1%".

Linkfail corrected :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers

Is your boss possessed of judgment, vision and management skills superior to those of anyone else in the firm, or did he or she get there through bluff, bullshit and bullying?

I think we can all answer that one quite readily.

[Akrasjel Lanate]

Linkfail corrected :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers

This   

[Mizhara]

Jefferson said it well...

[Senn Typhos]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-16-2011/occupy-wall-street-divided

Sometimes, I love this country so much it hurts.

[Mizhara]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-16-2011/occupy-wall-street-divided

Sometimes, I love this country so much it hurts.

Can't say I'm quite as enamored.

Especially when it turns out the authorities are blocking press coverage of the events through harassment and arresting legitimate journalists.

[Senn Typhos]

I try not to respond to cases of "police brutality" during protests. It's simply too irritating of an issue to discuss, and there's rarely room for a stasis issue to discuss in the first place.

No, the reason I love this country is that even when protesters gather up and complain about class structure, they just make their own.

Humans don't operate without leaders and castes. It just doesn't happen. I don't want to say these folks wasted their time, but, it certainly wasn't well-spent.

[Misan]

Humans don't operate without leaders and castes. It just doesn't happen. I don't want to say these folks wasted their time, but, it certainly wasn't well-spent.

I really don't think that is the case. There is plenty of evidence of various human groups operating in highly egalitarian manners, both more current and throughout history. I'd dig up specific anthropological stuff, but since I ran across this paper earlier and it happens to touch on just this I'll link it instead: http://www.journalofplay.org/sites/www.journalofplay.org/files/pdf-articles/1-4-article-hunter-gatherer-social-existence.pdf . Incidentally while reading it I couldn't help but think about how all of that article ties in with RP and social game-playing (MMO or otherwise) so its worth a look for everyone here.

I'm really not feeling like making a big post, but I'd say that it comes more down to social upbringing and the existing structure of our societies that leads to the formation of hierarchies and stratification even in groups like the OWS protesters.