1. #1921
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Straw man: I never said "equal distribution".
    Nor did you suggest redistributing "all means". Just an appropriate portion of it.

    @ILFSTE

    It's a bit sad that some people here seem to be so narrow minded, they immediately argue against what people like Endus say as if he was Marx himself.

    That's not what any of these guys are about. The main angle Endus has is reducing (sic! REDUCING not ELIMINATING) the wealth imbalance that is close to unbearable for a modern society.

    He's not stealing from people. He's not trying ot make the rich poor. He's not trying to make the poor rich. He's not trying to sneak communist-socialism in through the back door. It's not a clever trick, you don't need to try and be clever yourself. It's literally what you see is what you get. Reducing the imbalance to a degree that hopefully eases the pressure society is suffering from right now. Yes, that means the rich have to give up some, and yes the poor get some. And that's basically the core of the idea. It's not outrageously complicated, so how about you show some respect and pay attention to what people like Endus are saying.
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  2. #1922
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    1> I don't know why you're bringing up liquidity, since it's irrelevant to my point.
    2> If Bezos had $144 billion in cash, he'd have a net worth of $144 billion. By definition.



    You realize you're describing the problem, right? Not actually making a counter-argument? Yes, Bezos would find it difficult if not impossible to liquidate his wealth. And? That's indicative of the problem.



    Again, why are you imagining a need to liquidate all one's assets? You only need to liquidate enough to cover the proposed tax. For billionaires, Warren and Sanders' proposal was a 3% tax, which for Bezos would mean about $4.3b. Bezos bought MGM for $8.5b, so clearly he can liquidate that much at a time.



    You're the one bringing up the money supply, not the rest of us.

    And a big reason for opposing wealth is because the wealthy are black holes for wealth; they contribute poorly to the velocity of money. Hell, forcing the wealthy to liquidate assets to pay wealth taxes directly contributes to said velocity.
    From an artificial source. If he’s selling these inherently worthless chits then someone else is buying them and the government is pocketing 20% of that transaction on top of what they are asking him to pay. This tax does not suddenly create the money need to liquidate his assets. You’re imagining pulling piles of money from a pot that doesn’t exist.

    If your concern is limiting the amount he can leverage then write that into law but the tax proposal is ludicrous.
    Last edited by D3thray; 2021-06-13 at 03:03 PM.

  3. #1923
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    Nor did you suggest redistributing "all means". Just an appropriate portion of it.

    @ILFSTE

    It's a bit sad that some people here seem to be so narrow minded, they immediately argue against what people like Endus say as if he was Marx himself.

    That's not what any of these guys are about. The main angle Endus has is reducing (sic! REDUCING not ELIMINATING) the wealth imbalance that is close to unbearable for a modern society.

    He's not stealing from people. He's not trying ot make the rich poor. He's not trying to make the poor rich. He's not trying to sneak communist-socialism in through the back door. It's not a clever trick, you don't need to try and be clever yourself. It's literally what you see is what you get. Reducing the imbalance to a degree that hopefully eases the pressure society is suffering from right now. Yes, that means the rich have to give up some, and yes the poor get some. And that's basically the core of the idea. It's not outrageously complicated, so hope about you show some respect and pay attention to what people like Endus are saying.
    It's always fascinating when they think I "hate the rich", or am a communist.

    Like, I wouldn't have a problem with a rich magnate like Jeff Bezos being worth $50m. My problem is that he's worth $190 billion, while so many of his staff are working for shitty pay in terrible conditions. He's extracting that wealth from their labor, and they see no return on that. And no, wages and salary don't count, as they don't incorporate any profit-sharing, generally; the idea of a set wage or salary is how that wealth is extracted. You labor and make $100k in value for the company, and your boss gives you $30k. If you bust your ass and boost that to $150k produced, your boss gives you $30k and maybe, if they're a "good boss", throws you and your team a pizza party (limit 2 slices each).

    The system's highly attenuated. The poor are many. The rich are stupidly rich. The middle class is collapsing as the middle is pulled apart by those extremes (and almost entirely falling into the "poor" category). I'm just proposing we stop stretching and find a system that works for everyone, that encourages business and profit-seeking while getting workers to share in that profit generation they're an integral part of.

    It really shouldn't be that complex. It's closer to a reinterpretation of what Adam Smith was talking about in Wealth of Nations, scraping off the bits he got wrong about human nature, than it is to anything written by Marx.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    From an artificial source. If he’s selling these inherently worthless chits then someone else is buying them and the government is pocketing 20% of that transaction on top of what they are asking him to pay. This tax does not suddenly create the money need to liquidate his assets. You’re imagining pulling piles of money from a pot that doesn’t exist.
    I can't even tell what, specifically, you're responding to, here.

    Are you claiming currency is "inherently worthless chits"? Because that's just false on its face. And if you're not saying that, I have no idea what you're talking about, because I never suggested anything like that.

    And while the tax doesn't "create the money to liquidate his assets", that money absolutely does exist, in the scale of the wealth taxes we're talking about. If it didn't, then there's no way Bezos could've bought MGM for $8.5b a few months ago. If you can liquidate assets for that kind of purchase, you can liquidate assets to pay your taxes.


  4. #1924
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I can't even tell what, specifically, you're responding to, here.

    Are you claiming currency is "inherently worthless chits"? Because that's just false on its face. And if you're not saying that, I have no idea what you're talking about, because I never suggested anything like that.

    And while the tax doesn't "create the money to liquidate his assets", that money absolutely does exist, in the scale of the wealth taxes we're talking about. If it didn't, then there's no way Bezos could've bought MGM for $8.5b a few months ago. If you can liquidate assets for that kind of purchase, you can liquidate assets to pay your taxes.
    I’m talking about his Amazon shares or other non-physical assets. I don’t know the details of the MGM purchase but I’d bet a significant portion of that was leveraged as well. This tax being proposed wouldn’t. You don’t take out loans to pay your taxes. If you don’t have the cash you just have to sell. As I’ve said earlier, stocks are not real money and you can’t treat them as such.

    Besides didn’t you agree it would be nigh impossible for him to liquidate his fortune?

  5. #1925
    Yes...Jeff Bezos has no money and is destitute and deserves all the charity and lucky breaks in the world. /s

  6. #1926
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,850
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    I’m talking about his Amazon shares or other non-physical assets. I don’t know the details of the MGM purchase but I’d bet a significant portion of that was leveraged as well. This tax being proposed wouldn’t. You don’t take out loans to pay your taxes. If you don’t have the cash you just have to sell. As I’ve said earlier, stocks are not real money and you can’t treat them as such.
    I'm baffled as to why you think selling stock isn't an option, here. Or other assets.

    Besides didn’t you agree it would be nigh impossible for him to liquidate his fortune?
    His entire fortune, all at once, immediately. But nobody's asking that.


  7. #1927
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I'm baffled as to why you think selling stock isn't an option, here. Or other assets.



    His entire fortune, all at once, immediately. But nobody's asking that.
    I’d point out that stocks represent ownership of a company and that you’re essentially saying he owns too much of his own company but I already know you don’t think anyone should own their company, so I don’t even know why I’m belaboring the point.

    But I will point out every corporation I’ve ever worked for offers an employee stock purchase plan that usually lets employees buy shares at a 20% discount. Maybe not exactly what you mean by ownership of the means of production but it counts in my book. The tools are there but you can’t force people to use them. It may sound blasé but you can only help people so much.

  8. #1928
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,850
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    I’d point out that stocks represent ownership of a company and that you’re essentially saying he owns too much of his own company but I already know you don’t think anyone should own their company, so I don’t even know why I’m belaboring the point.
    I mean, your argument there is begging the question. You've assumed that it being "his company" is a natural or desirable circumstance to begin with; that's the conclusion you're trying to arrive at.

    It fails due to basic logical structure, not just because I disagree with the premises (though I do).

    But I will point out every corporation I’ve ever worked for offers an employee stock purchase plan that usually lets employees buy shares at a 20% discount. Maybe not exactly what you mean by ownership of the means of production but it counts in my book. The tools are there but you can’t force people to use them. It may sound blasé but you can only help people so much.
    Stock purchase plans are not even remotely close to what I'm talking about. They are not tied to labor, at all. And those who most need it can't afford to buy those stocks in the first place, even with a discount.

    It's like telling a prisoner he can have maggot-filled gruel, or he can buy a meal from a five-star Michelin chef who's on staff. The proper meal just costs more than the prisoner makes in a month doing work throughout the prison. Pointing to the chef option and claiming your prisoners are well-fed is just a lie, at that point.


  9. #1929
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    I’d point out that stocks represent ownership of a company and that you’re essentially saying he owns too much of his own company
    Did he build all his warehouses? Write all the software his website uses? Manage and work in all those warehouses? Deliver all those parcels? Do all the metric crapton of other things that a company that size needs to do?

    You seem to think that because he "started" this company that every penny it makes from the hard work of thousands upon thousands of people should automatically belong to him. And to suggest that he share it with the workers in that company (or the society that the company operates in) is tantamount to stealing.

    No. Just fucking no. Nobody operates in a vacuum. His billions have come from the hard work of all those Amazon employees, and from tax payers who are paying to subsidise the shitty wages he pays them. He doesn't deserve those billions, and if karma were a thing he would have suffered withering in the genital region by now. Tax them, take the money back from billionaires and put it in the pockets of ordinary people. Nobody should have that much money, because as well as indicating a severe flaw in the way society is functioning, it also CAUSES more problems in that society.
    When challenging a Kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap.
    Quote Originally Posted by George Carlin
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Adams
    It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

  10. #1930
    Quote Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl View Post
    from tax payers who are paying to subsidise the shitty wages he pays them.
    This is neat.
    https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst...rent/amazoncom
    $3.3B state Subsidies

    They’re relatively benign on the violation front. Walmart? Not so much:
    https://violationtracker.goodjobsfir...parent=walmart
    $2B Fines

  11. #1931
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,947
    I'm not sure this has been brought up beforehand, but even the wealthiest members of society have a compelling economic interest in ensuring a fair and efficient distribution of wealth. A more egalitarian distribution means higher rates of return on ALL asset classes, lower incidences of criminal activity, higher overall happiness, more social mobility, which all creates a better society to live in.

    The issue is that the wealthy are just as irrational and prone to heuristical information, meaning we cannot rely on their goodwill nor potential change in their behavior to make sure the global economic system is running at top efficiency.

    We live in a time of advanced AI algorithms that would be able to quantify the ideal distribution to maximize returns at higher rates than currently reality and also increasing the QOL of all persons.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  12. #1932
    Historians generally view the underlying causes of the French Revolution as the result of the Ancien Régime's failure to manage social and economic inequality. Rapid population growth and the inability to adequately finance government debt resulted in economic depression, unemployment and high food prices. These combined with a regressive tax system and resistance to reform by the ruling elite to produce a crisis Louis XVI proved unable to manage.

    Just a matter of time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

  13. #1933
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    I'm not sure this has been brought up beforehand, but even the wealthiest members of society have a compelling economic interest in ensuring a fair and efficient distribution of wealth. A more egalitarian distribution means higher rates of return on ALL asset classes, lower incidences of criminal activity, higher overall happiness, more social mobility, which all creates a better society to live in.

    The issue is that the wealthy are just as irrational and prone to heuristical information, meaning we cannot rely on their goodwill nor potential change in their behavior to make sure the global economic system is running at top efficiency.

    We live in a time of advanced AI algorithms that would be able to quantify the ideal distribution to maximize returns at higher rates than currently reality and also increasing the QOL of all persons.
    The big problem is that, generally, those with the compassion, self-awareness, and ethical sense to contribute back to their workers and community in concrete ways, those people never become wealthy. They're the Mom & Pops that everyone loves and which cannot possibly compete with Wal-Mart, because Wal-Mart doesn't give a shit and will nickel and dime their staff to save $0.02 on the price point of Kraft Dinner, because they know it'll drive sales to their stores and away from that Mom & Pop.

    You find a few exceptions. The folks behind Costco are apparently pretty decent, and I haven't heard nightmare stories from Costco staff. There's Dan Price, the guy who decided to pay all his staff at least $70k/year at his payment company. But in general, particularly at the lower end where pennies matter, the big boys use economies of scale to flatten anyone less cutthroat than they are.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Historians generally view the underlying causes of the French Revolution as the result of the Ancien Régime's failure to manage social and economic inequality. Rapid population growth and the inability to adequately finance government debt resulted in economic depression, unemployment and high food prices. These combined with a regressive tax system and resistance to reform by the ruling elite to produce a crisis Louis XVI proved unable to manage.

    Just a matter of time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
    And to make the point; wealth inequality today is worse than at the point that the French Revolution kicked off, largely over that issue.

    Some of us argue this strenuously about political change by adjusting policy approaches because we're well aware that there's a looming alternative correction pattern; one that centrally relies upon the guillotine. Maybe we should correct course before people start recalling why that thing was invented.


  14. #1934
    The Unstoppable Force PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Historians generally view the underlying causes of the French Revolution as the result of the Ancien Régime's failure to manage social and economic inequality. Rapid population growth and the inability to adequately finance government debt resulted in economic depression, unemployment and high food prices. These combined with a regressive tax system and resistance to reform by the ruling elite to produce a crisis Louis XVI proved unable to manage.

    Just a matter of time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
    Nah inequality didn't cause that. That was caused by violent and coercive people on both sides. It was a result of choice.

    It's not an issue in modern times in the West because life is so good that people won't want to throw their life away just to be a failed revolutionary.
    Last edited by PC2; 2021-06-13 at 05:59 PM.
    Let's spread optimism and defeat pessimism! (HumanProgress.org)

  15. #1935
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The folks behind Costco are apparently pretty decent, and I haven't heard nightmare stories from Costco staff.
    If you're Costco staff, you're generally treated well. They do sub-contract out certain things like the food samples and they're paid much worse.

  16. #1936
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    Nah inequality didn't cause that. That was caused by violent and coercive people on both sides. It was a result of choice.

    It's not an issue in modern times in the West because life is so good that people won't want to throw it away just to be a failed revolutionary.
    Inequality was the fuel, and it was ignited by people (aka the "Bourgeois" as they wanted to take the place of the Nobles as leading class), as it will be in our era. You do not want that ? Reduce inequality, offer better wealth redistribution, share more ressources, etc..

  17. #1937
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    18,330
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    Nah inequality didn't cause that. That was caused by violent and coercive people on both sides. It was a result of choice.

    It's not an issue in modern times in the West because life is so good that people won't want to throw it away just to be a failed revolutionary.
    Yes of course. "Let them eat cake" wasnt referring to starving peasants with no bread but rather Marie Antoinette was just on her rag. Could you be any more ignorant of history?
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  18. #1938
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    Nah inequality didn't cause that. That was caused by violent and coercive people on both sides. It was a result of choice.
    It's not an issue in modern times in the West because life is so good that people won't want to throw their life away just to be a failed revolutionary.
    Well, we always knew you were ignorant of history. But I personally believed it was lack of study. It turns out it's because you attempt to rewrite it.
    And you think they failed? omg..

  19. #1939
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorious Leader View Post
    Yes of course. "Let them eat cake" wasnt referring to starving peasants with no bread but rather Marie Antoinette was just on her rag. Could you be any more ignorant of history?
    I mean, the claim comes from a book written around 1765, when Antoinette would've been all of 9 years old, and only referenced it as coming from a "great princess", which she assuredly would not have been, at age 9. That book is also not considered to be entirely factual to begin with. And the claim flies in the face of Antoinette's compassion towards the plight of the poor elsewhere.

    Bringing up that non-quote as a condemnation of Marie Antoinette is not the angle you want to take if you're attacking people's grasp of history.


  20. #1940
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    18,330
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    I'm not sure this has been brought up beforehand, but even the wealthiest members of society have a compelling economic interest in ensuring a fair and efficient distribution of wealth. A more egalitarian distribution means higher rates of return on ALL asset classes, lower incidences of criminal activity, higher overall happiness, more social mobility, which all creates a better society to live in.

    The issue is that the wealthy are just as irrational and prone to heuristical information, meaning we cannot rely on their goodwill nor potential change in their behavior to make sure the global economic system is running at top efficiency.

    We live in a time of advanced AI algorithms that would be able to quantify the ideal distribution to maximize returns at higher rates than currently reality and also increasing the QOL of all persons.
    The problem with this reasoning is that greater economic equiality does in fact ultimately lead to greater freedom so for all the benefits you tout the ultimate end would result in less power for the wealthy and elite.
    Last edited by Glorious Leader; 2021-06-13 at 06:12 PM.
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •