Market politics

[Unpilot]

How to distribute money throughout the economy? That is a vexing problem no?
So if we continue in the US on our present course is it sustainable? Can the 1% continue to accrue larger and larger shares of the country's wealth? ( The top 1% have more than 40% of the country's wealth) Can they have 50%,60% is there a limit to the wealth inequality?

It seems to me the must be. Of course as long as the bottom 99% have basic needs met....perhaps not.
I am certainly not in the top 1 or 10 percent...yet I live well. Maybe we have entered a new age were the "common" man is happy as he/she has more than they need. Certainly in the US we have more than we need at most level's of income.

The "fix" for income equality is not known. I think the law of untended consequences is always in play.

 

[Brando]

How to distribute money throughout the economy? That is a vexing problem no?
So if we continue in the US on our present course is it sustainable? Can the 1% continue to accrue larger and larger shares of the country's wealth? ( The top 1% have more than 40% of the country's wealth) Can they have 50%,60% is there a limit to the wealth inequality?

It seems to me the must be. Of course as long as the bottom 99% have basic needs met....perhaps not.
I am certainly not in the top 1 or 10 percent...yet I live well. Maybe we have entered a new age were the "common" man is happy as he/she has more than they need. Certainly in the US we have more than we need at most level's of income.

The "fix" for income equality is not known. I think the law of untended consequences is always in play.

Income Percentile Calculator for the United States. What Percent Are You?

Net Worth by Age Percentile Calculator (United States) - DQYDJ

People are sometimes surprised to see where they stand. Have a look.

Countries debt.? why should I care? except as used by politicians to cut programs.
Personal debt.? Seems you should keep that to a min. Most seem not to care.

As US government debt goes up, so goes up the stock market. Color me confused.

 

[dmunjal]

How to distribute money throughout the economy? That is a vexing problem no?
So if we continue in the US on our present course is it sustainable? Can the 1% continue to accrue larger and larger shares of the country's wealth? ( The top 1% have more than 40% of the country's wealth) Can they have 50%,60% is there a limit to the wealth inequality?

It seems to me the must be. Of course as long as the bottom 99% have basic needs met....perhaps not.
I am certainly not in the top 1 or 10 percent...yet I live well. Maybe we have entered a new age were the "common" man is happy as he/she has more than they need. Certainly in the US we have more than we need at most level's of income.

The "fix" for income equality is not known. I think the law of untended consequences is always in play.

The fix is known. Look at historical wealth inequality charts.

The middle class continues a slow decline over the last few decades as globalization hurts wages and inflation eats at purchasing power.

However, the 1% grow wealth in fits and spurts and actually decline sometimes. All correlated to the stock and real estate markets. This is a direct result of the central bank's inflationary policies.

The only way to cure the inequality now is for a massive credit bubble crash WITHOUT bailing out the 1% this time with another new bubble. Unfortunately, there will be lots of collateral damage, too.

 

[RobStark]

I thought some people might find it funny in here.

Toilet paper sold in Mexico. A portion of the profits goes to aid Mexican undocumented immigrants in the USA. Legal aid and such.

The tag line is "softness without borders."

 

[bhtooefr]

If you're going to say that a cradle to grave welfare state isn't socialism, you literally don't know what socialism is. The "socialist program" of the Labor Party in the UK from day one has been a cradle to grave welfare state funded by expropriating the property of the rich through taxation... and that's Scandanavian socialism.


Perhaps you are thinking of communism, not socialism? It was communism which claimed that it was necessary to "seize the means of production", not socialism.

Socialism is seizing the means of production, communism was meant as using socialism to institute a classless society.

(I'd argue that communism is an impossibility, as hierarchy and therefore class naturally forms in societies, and removing them artificially removes a lot of positive motivations. The harm of class comes when you have a heavily disenfranchised lower class, especially one that's struggling to even survive.)

The Scandinavian model is social democracy. The means of production isn't seized, so it's not socialism.

(Note that you can have small forms of socialism even within a fully capitalist system - for instance, cooperatives are socialist, as they move the ownership of the means of production to workers or consumers. Class structure is fully maintained, so it's not communism.)

 

[wdolson]

The problem is socialism is one of those words that has been so politicized that it's difficult to talk about because everyone has a different definition. @bhtooefr is correct in the original meaning, but socialism today can mean anything from full blown communism all the way to the fairly light social safety net the US has depending on who you talk to. Some people will conflate the two extremes above into one claiming things like unemployment insurance is communism, which it isn't.

The concept of communism is dying in the American meme-space, but what Americans think socailism means or look like is a great divide between American generations. During the Cold War, the term communism and socialism was virtually interchangeable in the US, though Europeans made the distinction between the two because they were building a more substantial social safety net for their people.

It didn't help the confusion that the official name of the Soviet state for 70 years including "Socialist" in the title. The official name of the Nazi party also included "Socialist". The underlying theory between the two were opposite ends of the spectrum (communism is an extreme liberal ideology and fascism comes out of extreme conservatism).

Someone upthread pointed out that Bernie Sanders' positions are in line with fairly moderate left-center politicians in Europe, but he's considered an extreme liberal in the US. Even though he has claimed to be a socialist, he isn't a classic socialist in that he wants to nationalize all industry (even though some critics paint him that way). He just wants to incorporate more of the Western European safety net into the US system along with a bit more regulation of industry to prevent disasters as much as possible.

Among those who actually think about how things should be (vs those who simply react to the slogan of the day), most people want to see some degree of this unless they have so much money their chances of ever ending up on the street due to illness or some other life event are complete nil. How much people want to see varies and is open to debate.

The social programs the US does have are extremely popular, even among those who have no clue they are social democratic institutions. Consistently when Americans are polled on the specific changes the ACA made to the healthcare system, they are very popular. 70%+ approval, but when the same people are asked if they like the ACA (aka Obamacare), the disapproval goes way up. The GOP has done a very good job of convincing their voters to vote against their best interests and even what they want.

Not that the ACA is all that socialist. It's more insurance reform than anything else.

 

[lolachampcar]

There was no way out of the 2008 financial crisis without some pain. The point is who should feel that pain. The bankers got bailed out and really weren't effected at all. The taxpayers took the hit and the Fed was forced to print $4T and lower interest rates to zero for 8 years to save the economy from depression as you said. But the side effects of that decision, IMO, are worse. The result was an asset bubble which only benefited the 1% and raised prices for the 99%. Of course, wages never recovered either.

In hindsight, I would have taken the depression and a purge of the banking sector. The nation would be better off today and might not have ever elected someone like Trump.

I get where you are coming from but anyone that would advocate for a depression just to punish the 1% likely does not know what a depression would do to everyone. Sure, the 1% would get theirs but then ordinary people and their children would starve.

As for electing Thump, we really do get the government we deserve. It has been at least a thirty year march to where we are and we continue to accelerate down the path.

Preventing the consequences of bad decisions from hitting the voting public surely has enabled the ability to make these mistakes. I just can not bring myself to wish for the type of carnage it is going to take to shake people back to reality.

 

[lolachampcar]

5.1 million lost homes - pain in the housing market - very funny, yes?

suggest Nomi Prins books - you can decide which ones to read.

I'm afraid you are going to have to be a bit more accurate in your comments if you want to engage me.

I do not think pain is funny so I'm not really sure I understand where you were going with that one.

As for reading, I'd start with Ayn Rand myself. It's a bit thuggish on getting the point across but accurate from her background.

 

[lolachampcar]

The correct solution is actually well known.
(1) REALLY print money. Not this Fed nonsense, which is all "loans". US Notes.
(2) Transfer that money directly to the general population: bail out the homeowners, the renters, the people in general. Not to the banks.
(3) Have a "bank holiday", figure out which banks are solvent, reopen the solvent ones and liquidate the others; this gets the payments system up and running. FDR did this.
(4) Pay off retail deposit holders up to the FDIC limits -- and you probably have to do it for money market funds, given the situation -- and burn anyone with larger deposits, and burn anyone holding bank bonds.

It's point 2 which is crucial. All the printed money was mailed to bankers to enrich the 0.1%. This was incorrect.

Weirdly, *George W Bush* actually proposed something more sensible when he mailed $300 checks to everyone in the country. Doing something like that on a much larger scale would have been the *correct* solution.

I'm not so sure printing money and sending it to people directly is such a good idea. Unjust enrichment teaches no good lessons. That goes for the 1% or the 99%. It is normally best if ALL money is earned by creating value.

 

[JRP3]

I'm not so sure printing money and sending it to people directly is such a good idea. Unjust enrichment teaches no good lessons.

People struggling at low paying jobs don't need lessons, they need reasonable compensation. Much of the 1% are getting unreasonable compensation and hoarding it, that's the problem.

 

[lolachampcar]

No arguments from me on that point.

The question for me is, if we are going to make a change, what should the change be?

We could just say "F'it" and elect a monster for president.
We could just let it go the way its going and have history solve it for us. If we are lucky, those that think will be politely asked to leave ala Cuba. If not, the Khmer Rouge solution.
OR, we could all band together and change our ways. I'd like to start by eliminating what I see as the root of the issue.

Start of old rant......................................

People go into politics for three reasons.
Public Service (should be a noble calling)
Power (its what we put them in so its part of the deal)
Money

Money amplifies the voice of the 1%. If you want equity, make money in politics illegal.
Do not tell me it can not be done. It most certainly can. The Vote still works.
That said, it is unlikely to be done because we all want from Government and thus are susceptible to manipulation.

End of old rant ....................................

 

[JRP3]

I don't know how we get politicians to change the rules which benefit them, because that's what needs to happen. The vote doesn't work if only the same types of people run for office.

 

[lolachampcar]

If every voter woke up tomorrow and decided all public buildings must be painted yellow, all public buildings would be painted yellow.

If 80% of us decided we would only vote for candidates that (1) did not take money and (2) made the illegalization of money in politics their top priority, we would get candidates aligned with those requirements. Other candidates could spend as much as they like and yell and scream all they want but it would only be for 20% of the vote. It would take four years at most to flush the house and president along with six to flush the senate.

For some reason, we have lost the ability to talk to each other and to vote our common interests. No money is not a left or right position; it really should be an American position taken by all but those dumping money into politics to get their way.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

If every voter woke up tomorrow and decided all public buildings must be painted yellow, all public buildings would be painted yellow.

If 80% of us decided we would only vote for candidates that (1) did not take money and (2) made the illegalization of money in politics their top priority, we would get candidates aligned with those requirements. Other candidates could spend as much as they like and yell and scream all they want but it would only be for 20% of the vote. It would take four years at most to flush the house and president along with six to flush the senate.

For some reason, we have lost the ability to talk to each other and to vote our common interests. No money is not a left or right position; it really should be an American position taken by all but those dumping money into politics to get their way.

This is a fantasy, as evidenced by the last election. Voters aren't convinced that the candidates they get to choose from are actually good candidates. Also, just because the voters can vote for all the buildings to be painted yellow, they might not vote for the funding to paint the buildings yellow. That's a symptom of the problem with our current democracy.

 

[lolachampcar]

What I wrote is accurate.

It ever happening is a fantasy. The question is are we going to work to make that fantasy a reality?

Right now, about 35% are stupid left, 35% stupid right which leaves 30% in the middle to "swing" elections. You can not fix problems you can not discuss and neither right nor left wants to discuss anything; they just want to make the other side the villain.

 

[Brando]

We don't have a democracy.
We have a representative government.
AND it is the best money can buy.

Painting builds yellow? Seems like a Policy. When did you ever get to vote on a Policy?
Neither did I. I can't even find a Peace candidate to vote for in either party - so I look out side those parties. Hasn't helped much.

 

[K_Dizzle]

Income Percentile Calculator for the United States. What Percent Are You?

Net Worth by Age Percentile Calculator (United States) - DQYDJ

People are sometimes surprised to see where they stand. Have a look.

Countries debt.? why should I care? except as used by politicians to cut programs.
Personal debt.? Seems you should keep that to a min. Most seem not to care.

As US government debt goes up, so goes up the stock market. Color me confused.

Who cares about income inequality, if you’re making enough to be comfortable, afford healthcare etc the 1% can continue to acculate extra commas on their net worth statement. They’re not getting any happier from it.

 

[JRP3]

If 80% of us decided

There's your problem.

 

[JRP3]

Who cares about income inequality, if you’re making enough to be comfortable, afford healthcare etc the 1% can continue to acculate extra commas on their net worth statement.

Hoarding wealth is the same as hoarding resources. If the 1% keep tying up money how are the rest supposed to make enough to be comfortable and afford healthcare etc.?

 

[S'toon]

Who cares about income inequality, if you’re making enough to be comfortable, afford healthcare etc the 1% can continue to acculate extra commas on their net worth statement. They’re not getting any happier from it.

...and what about those who can't? Other countries don't have the problem of people not being able to afford health care.

Just because you're comfortable, doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. Doesn't mean a huge swath of the US population aren't struggling.