tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post4237048987309062403..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Overheard on the IntertubesMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-84182842339369615732011-03-05T18:42:44.219-08:002011-03-05T18:42:44.219-08:00Which seems like an additional transfer of wealth ...<i>Which seems like an additional transfer of wealth to the wealthy.</i><br /><br />Yup, more of the <b>Hood Robin Principle</b>David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-32867000185085206562011-03-03T22:37:20.875-08:002011-03-03T22:37:20.875-08:00I still don't get it. What's the point?
A...I still don't get it. What's the point?<br /><br />Anyway, as has been pointed out here already, if rich people get the most benefit when taxes are cut, should they not pick up most of the burden when they are raised? <br /><br />I understood it that way from the beginning.<br /><br />But now that we have budget crises, we don't seem to be raising taxes, but rather cutting benefits. Which seems like an additional transfer of wealth to the wealthy.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-3282243088519348732011-03-03T21:52:12.500-08:002011-03-03T21:52:12.500-08:00Thanks, Greg. The sealed bid eluded me.
And no arg...Thanks, Greg. The sealed bid eluded me.<br />And no argument on the tax policy here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-82223143072257946772011-03-03T16:32:45.874-08:002011-03-03T16:32:45.874-08:00Rick H. --- Greg answered at length and well.<b>Rick H.</b> --- <b>Greg</b> answered at length and well.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-39077072319088901722011-03-03T11:25:14.074-08:002011-03-03T11:25:14.074-08:00Rick, all the bids are sealed and only the bartend...Rick, all the bids are sealed and only the bartender knows them, even after each round of bidding. Or, "It's just an analogy, and not a particularly good one".<br /><br />Someone pointed out that when taxes are cut in a progressive income tax system, of course the richest, who were paying the most taxes, benefit most. So when taxes need to be raised, the opposite should be true. And that's what's broken down. Obviously taxes should have been raised in 2003 if not a little sooner. Eventually we have to pay the bill, and it's going to have to come from those most able to pay.<br /><br />As for the justification for a progressive income tax in the first place, consider the comments above regarding (a) the benefits to the wealthy provided by society such as educating all their workers, providing roads to carry their goods... and (b) why the wealthy wouldn't want to run off to places of such minimal regulation and taxation as Bosnia or Somalia. A very simple model is close to the truth: Every person's stake in the society in which they live is pretty closely proportional to their net worth. That would argue for a wealth tax, but (a) it's easier to hide wealth than income, and (b) we don't want to discourage thrift among the majority for whom thrift is the primary means of wealth-building. So one looks at the correlation between income and wealth, and creates a progressive income tax as a reasonable proxy for a wealth tax.<br /><br />If we really set income taxes in that way, the relative rates (i.e. the steepness of the progression) would automatically adjust in response to increasing or decreasing inequality.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07116646136992710754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-90543156103836903752011-03-02T20:41:45.508-08:002011-03-02T20:41:45.508-08:00I'm still wondering why the tenth man didn'...I'm still wondering why the tenth man didn't bid $19.<br /><br />(@Benson March 1, 2011 5:41 PM)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-51227874627293429962011-03-02T20:38:57.244-08:002011-03-02T20:38:57.244-08:00I'm still wondering why the tenth man didn'...I'm still wondering why the tenth man didn't bid $19.<br /><br />(@ Benson - March 1, 2011 5:41 PM)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-49858271122405744652011-03-02T11:53:02.111-08:002011-03-02T11:53:02.111-08:00ah, Guthrie, you'd think that would be an easy...ah, Guthrie, you'd think that would be an easy question...Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-54781815119848305792011-03-02T11:46:16.627-08:002011-03-02T11:46:16.627-08:00I'm not arguing against capitalism either. I,...I'm not arguing against capitalism either. I, unlike Marxists, believe it is controllable through collective means (and there are many). My main argument, much like yours, is that capitalism, as it exists, is off balance, tilted heavily against the middle class, and the only way to fix that is to assemble. And the same group that benefits from class division, stokes it through political means. <br /><br />Where you and I diverge, I think, is on the solution. I think unions, as much as I think they are pathetic and wrong headed throughout history by usurping top down power they caused there own demise, are still the best way to gain the power and organization necessary. I don't have any foresight to know if that is correct or not, just being practical, I guess. I'm unsure what your solution would be. You might not have thought that far yet. Perhaps you think it is necessary to bring down the unions and reassemble. Perhaps something else altogether. Grassroots is ideal, but weak against the opposition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-24151952173732307642011-03-02T11:43:01.499-08:002011-03-02T11:43:01.499-08:00Being a foreigner and all that, what are the goals...Being a foreigner and all that, what are the goals of the tea party? How do these goals fit in with the already admitted inequalities of power, capital and wealth present in the USA today?guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-22586827666873443382011-03-02T11:01:02.044-08:002011-03-02T11:01:02.044-08:00grypo, that strikes me as missing the point. We al...grypo, that strikes me as missing the point. We already know that without creative use of real capital we cannot support the present population. Also, we would not have made the progress we have.<br /><br />The ethics of the situation are complicated and fraught, as anyone who has ever had even one employee (myself included) understands far better than the employees do. <br /><br />I don't want to trivialize the prospect of bad employers, e.g., locking emergency exits so people can't sneak outside for a smoke break. There are real criminal actions that some bosses sometimes do, and the tedious regulations the rest of them have to grudgingly put up with have their purposes.<br /><br />Still, the ethical grey zone doesn't extend to buying up the media and the congresses and parliaments.<br /><br />For myself, I am absolutely not arguing against capital or capitalism. I am arguing, you might say, against backing into a twisted quasi-Stalinism (a hereditary oligarchy enforced by law dressed up in hollow populist slogans, and pretty much dregs for everybody else) all the while waving a capitalist flag and calling the result "freedom".Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-76152368709301694262011-03-02T10:19:32.594-08:002011-03-02T10:19:32.594-08:00Probably, without realizing it, King is highlighti...Probably, without realizing it, King is highlighting the problem in his argument. You see, he knows some people who are "lower class" and "Some work, many don't" and they are doing fine. This is exactly the kind of division that is at the root of the issue in the joke. The union guys -- look what they make. Do you make $68 an hour? The actual issue is that there is an immense difference between those who own capital and those who do not. The supply v the demand side. Those who own and control production and those who produce. It is not up to those who own capital to determine how much is good enough for those who do not. He has not touched that part of the argument and is still rolling out the same arguments as 'welfare queen'. He is still focusing on the comparably tiny differences between the lower classes. <br /><br />It doesn't surprise that, although he is not a tea partier, he is sympathetic to their arguments. They are both falling prey to same fallacy. Perhaps asking oneself questions. Is it in the best interests of all workers from the lower classes to collectively decide their fate, or allow the upper class to collectively decide their fate? Then ask who benefits from the division.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-47654940203282786042011-03-02T08:57:24.755-08:002011-03-02T08:57:24.755-08:00Responding with respect to those I described above...Responding with respect to those I described above:<br />As to education, frankly, I don't see the parents driving it which is where, in my opinion, it must originate. Mostly I see the providing of video games and the watching of reality TV as the priorities. While there are exceptions with a small percentage of highly motivated children, no school will remediate the abandonment of interest in education on the part of parents.<br /><br />The typical access to medical care is through emergency rooms. I will state that, to the best of my knowledge, all the children were born in hospitals and all injuries and illnesses have been treated. Typically nothing is paid as the patient simply doesn't pay or has moved with no forwarding address. I can tell you that I never hear "damn, why does health care cost so much?"<br /><br />It's a lifestyle of which I wasn't really aware. Probably one step up the "social ladder" may be where the crux of the problem is most keenly felt. I'm not contending that there is no problem.<br /><br />I'll need more time to consider your other questions.King of the Roadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-26163655356216568762011-03-02T08:17:06.245-08:002011-03-02T08:17:06.245-08:00Well, I don't make $38 an hour. I only wish.
...Well, I don't make $38 an hour. I only wish. <br /><br />Unfortunately a union wouldn't do me very much good (see "philosophers' strike" in Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy). <br /><br />And I can see that in your case these guys really are in competition with each other (and with you). <br /><br />And, in fact, with me. Scientist pay is surprisingly small compared to our draws from the grant, because institutions with generous employment packages and lots of ancillary staff have to be supported largely from "grant overhead". It costs the taxpayer almost three dollars to give me a dollar's worth of salary.<br /><br />So I am not trying to defend the unions. What I am saying is that I am increasingly impressed by the extent to which a few very rich people are able to subvert government to their own ends. A couple of months ago I would have dismissed the argument. I would have thought, with Naomi Oreskes, that climate science is being attacked for confused but ideological reasons. I dismissed the "oil company conspiracy" stuff out of hand.<br /><br />But it's stunning to find that the perfectly irresponsible governor of Wisconsin is in thrall to the very same interests that are systematically and effectively smearing the reputation of climate science. Then to read Frank's book, which explains how ideology has served as a convenient brand for a system which extracts wealth from the public and sends it to an affiliated private elite. And then to see the graphs of how wealth has become concentrated. <br /><br />Put together, it all tells a story that I myself would not have believed a couple of months ago, despite the fact that my core interest is directly involved.<br /><br />Could everybody be making $38 an hour? That's an interesting piece of arithmetic. Unions also are inflexible and reduce competitiveness in a fast moving world. This is why they mostly survive in government and monopoly circumstances. I am not a great fan. I am sure if I were in your position I be even less disposed in their favor.<br /><br />But it is the public sector unions of Wisconsin, and the old line blue collar democrats, that finally stood up to the plunder that is going on; that's a far bigger problem in the grand scheme of things.<br /><br />As to TVs and cell phones and old beater cars, yeah, that's modern life. How about health care, or a semblance of an education, or a social safety net? It turns out that these are more expensive than glowing slabs of twinkling lights. <br /><br />And as to "confused", I am sure that is easily perceived as insulting, but remember I am a climate scientist. <br /><br />Hell yes, many people are confused, and a few well funded interests are deliberately doing the confusing. I don't know how to put that gently. From where I sit, that's just a plain fact.<br /><br />So, please consider Thomas Frank's question. Why is the DC area suddenly a center of immense wealth, when thirty years ago it was not? What economic activity supports this? What has changed? <br /><br />It's an important clue.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-66596571488114410802011-03-02T06:25:03.548-08:002011-03-02T06:25:03.548-08:00By the way, the original joke in this column and a...By the way, the original joke in this column and a lot of the sentiment thereafter and elsewhere is quite condescending toward many of those who identify with the Tea Party (which, by the way, I most assuredly do not). Regardless of whether the Kochs or others have funded and stoked the Tea Party, many "working class" people understand fully what the Tea Party stands for and support it. I know this as some work for our firm and I discuss these things (and argue them) with these people. I can assure you that they understand the issues at stake and that they are not morons who will be led down the primrose path by a "rich capitalist" whispering in their ear. "If only they understood the issues as well as I do" is not a constructive attitude. To take toward these people.King of the Roadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-86148000828030653112011-03-02T05:51:48.191-08:002011-03-02T05:51:48.191-08:00As it happens, my second marriage is into a family...As it happens, my second marriage is into a family with very strong "lower class" connections and ethics. I mean this literally - tangential connections to the Long Beach Crip factions, etc. Some work, many don't, living by various government inputs, their wits, and input from those relatives and friends who do work (though years ago I contributed to this support, I no longer do as it doesn't ever end). I will categorically state that most have children, all eat well, all have good clothes, all have flat screen TV's, all have broadband internet connections at home, all have smart phones, all have cars (though not necessarily the latest and none with insurance and many without driver licenses), places to live, etc. Their situations are less stable than mine in that they may have a different vehicle every couple of months, they may move more frequently, etc. and their cars and living quarters may be less "nice" but they don't walk, sleep on the street, etc. None, as far as I know, are Union members.<br /><br />Thus, the argument over the extent to which working class incomes have increased seems a bit misplaced. One might argue that the above represents something other an the working class. Fair enough. We have something on the order of 275 employees, some of whom make a bit above what the City of Santa Monica determines to be a "living wage." A very few take the bus (these are almost universally those who have many children) but, again, they have the niceties listed above - and this is in Southern California, where the cost of living is not low and unemployment is quite high. Approximately 130 of these are represented by Local 12 of the International Union of Operating Engineers. These have hourly wage and benefit packages of about $56/hour with wages representing about $38/hour. The efficiency of the Union's benefit packages is strongly argued but we pay it by the hour.<br /><br />All this is not meant to claim that there aren't people living in poverty but rather to point out that the evidence I see on the ground indicates that the oft cited statistics are misleading.King of the Roadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-74643591644469543292011-03-01T23:34:09.552-08:002011-03-01T23:34:09.552-08:00"Medieval theologians debated how many angels..."Medieval theologians debated how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. Modern economists debate whether American median income has risen or fallen since the early 1970s. What’s really telling is the fact that we’re even having this debate. America is a far more productive and hence far richer country than it was a generation ago. The value of the output an average worker produces in an hour, even after you adjust for inflation, has risen almost 50 percent since 1973. Yet the growing concentration of income in the hands of a small minority has proceeded so rapidly that we’re not sure whether the typical American has gained anything from rising productivity."<br /><br />-- Paul Krugman, The Conscience of a Liberal, p 124.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-12738658857003826892011-03-01T19:08:02.320-08:002011-03-01T19:08:02.320-08:00Up there with all those tax breaks is that cancer ...Up there with all those tax breaks is that cancer on the body politic, the Department of Defense [as it is named].David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-64935647552925087182011-03-01T18:55:28.382-08:002011-03-01T18:55:28.382-08:00This seems about right.<a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/tax_breaks_infographic.html" rel="nofollow">This</a> seems about right.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-40650800657901403962011-03-01T18:43:18.540-08:002011-03-01T18:43:18.540-08:00Capitalism is not only utilitarian, it is essentia...Capitalism is not only utilitarian, it is essential at bringing about what Moe and MT are saying. It is an important step in economic development. Unfortunately, over time, capital tends to gather small areas without a regulatory body to prevent it. If Marxian analysis is correct, this leads to those who do not have equal access to the means of production to revolt, rebel, etc. <br /><br />All this talk makes me look like a dedicated Marxist, I see. I'm not, although I am a collectivist and believe the concepts of class war and relationships to capital are apt. But time, the stock market, the growth of the professional class, etc. has made those relationships very messy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-52141444078465670452011-03-01T18:01:37.418-08:002011-03-01T18:01:37.418-08:00Michael Tobis --- I had to make it tapped beer so ...<b>Michael Tobis</b> --- I had to make it tapped beer so that the bartender is willing to give away the last (somewhat flat & warm) four pints.<br /><br />I just used the previously given figures as I certainly have no firm idea of how to translate dollars possessed into utils possessed.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-40155777634102069242011-03-01T17:52:59.070-08:002011-03-01T17:52:59.070-08:00David, sorry, it is cryptic.
It relates, I think,...David, sorry, it is cryptic.<br /><br />It relates, I think, to some stuff I've thought about and not written about. <br /><br />But it seems to me that five or six pints get sold and four or five guys go thirsty, depending on whether the bartender is willing to let a pint go for a dollar. Or do some guys bid something for the second beer?Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-90359951562045568312011-03-01T17:41:34.418-08:002011-03-01T17:41:34.418-08:00The bartender actons off ten pints of beer, alread...The bartender actons off ten pints of beer, already tapped, to the highest bidder. For the first pint<br />the first four men (the poorest) bid nothing;<br />the fifth bid $1;<br />the sixth bid $3;<br />the seventh bid $7;<br />the eighth bid $12;<br />the ninth bid $18;<br />the tenth man (the richest) bid $59.<br />This establishes the utility of the first pint of beer. For the second pint, the tenth man doesn't bid as he already has his beer; the bids for the first nine are the same as before. Repeat until all ten tapped pints are being enjoyed.<br /><br />[Hope that message isn't cryptic; its about utility value of marginal dollars.]David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-56644647660678856832011-03-01T16:26:24.636-08:002011-03-01T16:26:24.636-08:00quoting MT: "I think the only defensible ethi...quoting MT: "I think the only defensible ethical arguments for capitalism are utilitarian, they are always limited, and they become somewhat weaker as the world gets full, but remain cogent except in the most extreme emergencies."<br /><br />Hear, hear. Capitalism and liberal markets are wonderful tools for the hardest problems of resource allocation, but they are not, in themselves, human values proper.<br /><br />I am always envious of the quality of lines that MT considers merely to be throw-away lines.manuel moe ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04878149837118503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-64312143399922880362011-03-01T15:54:48.755-08:002011-03-01T15:54:48.755-08:00King, the total tax paid by the richest is larger ...King, the total tax paid by the richest is larger because the <b>total wealth</b> of the richest is larger. There were no more than <a href="http://mydd.com/2010/8/23/stubborn" rel="nofollow">10 billionaires</a> in the US in 1980: there are now <a href="http://www.rferl.org/content/Forbes_Rich_List_Number_Of_New_Billionaires_Reflects_Global_Recovery/1980413.html" rel="nofollow">403</a>. We went from 500,000 millionaires to over five and a half million in the same time period. And their taxes were cut from a top marginal rate of 50% in 1980 to 35% today.<br /><br />Are the very rich garnering so much less value from the public infrastructure (schools to train their workers, roads to transport their goods, etc.) than they were in 1980? Were they being soaked in the Reagan years?<br /><br />If a "rising tide lifted all boats," in the common vulgar praise, then I could see an argument for lessening the tax burden on the rich as their numbers grew. Instead, what we've seen is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt" rel="nofollow">plundering of the public fisc</a> in sync with reduction in tax rates. Debt more than tripled in the Reagan-Bush years, then doubled again under Bush the Younger. <br /><br />And yes, the poor keep getting poorer.<br /><br />So in sum, I'm not sure that you've effectively made the case that the plutocrats going John Galt would of necessity be a <b>bad</b> thing. But you know and I know that they won't. They've got too good a deal here to run off to some place like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe" rel="nofollow">Bosnia and Herzegovina</a>.Paul Daniel Ashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17633446166342778475noreply@blogger.com