Here's another way of looking at it: liquidate Walmart, Target, Kmart, Walgreens, Home Depot, Lowe's, etc., etc., and use the money to finance small business startups everywhere small businesses got wiped out by predatory business practices. Use what's left to teach everyone science-based economics. All problems solved -- mostly.

Where's the Picard facepalm when you need it?

While we are it, let's go back to hunter gathering but full equalitarian. Because small is beautfiul and division of labor does not increase overall productivity. Or something...

But does it make sense for people to work full-time, while not even making enough to pay for decent housing and healthy food?

Mom and pop businesses continue to dwindle in America anyways, as the mega-corps like Walmart drive them out. They really don't even exist anymore in the larger ciites like where I live, except as specialty type businesses. I don't think the needs of a small and dwindling group of our businesses should drive our economic policies (though I would hate to see them die off completely and would love to see a comeback).

I do agree that simply raising the minimum wage isn't the answer. We need to think much, much bigger picture than that, when it comes to the economic realities of a future where less grunt-work, and even perhaps less "work" overall, is required.

Like healthcare, the burden of providing decent wages should be removed from the employer. And, like healthcare, it must become something provided by the society as a whole, for all citizens. Which means in the end, yes, the government would be responsible for implementing these things - single-payer healthcare and some sort of guaranteed basic wage.

But how would we ever pay for all that?? Quite simply, actually. It's just a matter of choices our society makes and political will. How about we simply tax all corporate earnings and income of the wealthiest (i.e., all the money going to the people at the top) at 50%, with no loopholes? Add that to the current tax base the rest of us are contributing and we're just about there. And if we come up a little short, perhaps we need to cut the pentagon's budget or find and trim other areas of excessive spending and/or waste to make up the difference. Or make that upper tax rate 60%. In any case, that kind of tax revenue that I'm talking about at least gets us in the ballpark, without having to significantly increase taxes on us "normal" middle/working class types.

And the increased economic activity from lots more people spending lots more money, once nobody is truly "poor" anymore, simply makes our corporate revenues, and therefore tax base, even yet higher. And everybody is happier and healthier to boot.

And who loses then, under this plan? Well the wealthiest folks take a serious pay cut. A 50% one in fact, because they pay close to zero in taxes, in general, currently. But thats it, they're the only ones that get hit. I think they can handle it - hell after all, 50% of a fortune is still a fortune, last I checked.... And we're just talking about future income here, not some true "redistributing" - this isnt hardline Marxist-Lenninist stuff I'm proposing.

This is the wealthiest country in the world, and we can use that wealth to do whatever we want. That's why its such a disgrace that we have poverty and so many "working poor" in our country. Because it doesn't have to be that way, its simply a consequence of the choices we make about how we spend our nation's wealth.

The problem is, under the current system, we "spend" most of our national wealth endlessly padding the bank accounts of the wealthiest.

There's a reason Bernie Sanders' ideas speak to so many of us. As we transition more and more away from the "grunt work economy", we are more and more going to need "Bernie-ish" ideas, or eventually we're going to regress completely to a feudal-like economy where a tiny elite class has everything and everybody else next to nothing. We're FAR closer to that now then when I was a kid in the 80s - our wealth distribution is already far more feudal-ish than even 30 years ago, and we will continue to go more and more in that direction as long as the current conditions continue. And we need to start thinking bigger picture than "Oh but this will hurt business xyz if we do this". That is paralyzing. We need to think about the greater good first and foremost, in order to adjust to the changes happening with tech, automation, and globalization, without it being a horribly painful and unhappy process..

What is that dollar amount, then? I ask in all seriousness, while looking at my nephew. 23 years old, working a low-skill job at some $14-$17 an hour the past 4-5 years. Just bought a house last month - our old house. Had 20% down, and it's not some tiny ramshackle cracker box. Granted, he's not a single mom, but he's no financial genius, either, except maybe he is in that he managed to save that money. So what's the correct amount? I have no idea, and I also have no idea what formula we're supposed to use to decide what's "right" and who gets it. The formula I won't support is 0 work = guaranteed $alary.

Mom and pop make a living and employ people if we continue to shop there. Nobody forced people to stop frequenting their store. See, we're cheap-asses until it's someone else's money.

As for taxing all corporate earnings at 50%, well, there are a million+ small businesses that would be hit at that rate, then. My business, too, where the profit is basically my income. Dollar-for-dollar, we'd have the highest tax burden in the country while putting in the most hours and taking the biggest risks for some pretty modest payoffs. We're not talking millionaires here. I see what you mean, but this needs to be considered very carefully so the little guy isn't lumped in with multinationals.


Frankly, none of what y'all want happens without the transparency of a flat tax.

The only reason we have an income tax is thanks to the creation of the Federal Reserve. Kill it and there's no reason at all to tax income or small businesses.

C'mon, man, stand up and liberate yourself while you still can.

Wow, I saw this thread and instantly thought ... "Hmm, is this thread intended for employees of Hello Games?"

That was what I would have put all my money on anyway. :)

Define "that"? How important do you think I think productivity is? :P
You clearly dislike quanitification so much, it's no wonder you have issues with economic reasoning...

I think productivity is how those poor become richer.

98% of people used to be in farms, starving if the season was bad, with child mortality through the roof, abysmal hygiene, low life expectations, etc, etc... then "productivity" happened and now it's much smaller percentage (despite population growth in parallel) - I think that's a "good thing". Same thing with Industrial Revolutions, etc, etc...

So I think productivity is important enough that we should permit Ricardian comparative advantage to work without trying to tip the scales in anyone's favor.

Basically, "it" does not "have to" expand. But if it does, that's good. And productivity expands it.

The real question is, why don't you think productivity is good? You know and I know that the financial monetary expansion might show higher numbers a la Clicker Heroes but is not actually productivity as brought by innovation, trade and improvement. Growing the pie as it were.

Do you even think growing the pie is good? Or will you not answer this, just like you did not answer so much before.

Yeah, I know the answer(s). You don't even know the questions...

"That" is defined as, important enough that you think it justifies the division of labor, whereas I think productivity isn't nearly important enough to justify an economic arrangement that rewards wealth to a FAR greater degree than labor: which is a blatantly obvious example of the scale being tipped in favor of those who already have the most.

If 2 quarters of negative economic growth equals recession, it is quite fair to say that this is an economic model that can only be deemed sucessful if it is consistently expanding, and it is the volume of monetery exchange that determines negative or positive growth, with debt -- not productivity -- being the primary economic driver, and indebtedness, far and away, being the primary economic output.

If you have a nation with a graying population, economic contraction is perfectly normal. Economies are systems comprised of people, and just as people have a life span, so too do economies, and the two corellate fairly closely. So a healthy and sustainable economy isn't measured by how much it grows, but rather, by whether or not it satisfies the needs of the people who comprise it.

Tell me again why I should pay attention? What are you trying to say or disprove? You are incoherent...

Divison of labor =/= "economic arrangement that rewards wealth to a FAR greater degree than labor"
Especially since I made it explicit I was referring to Ricardian comparative advantage. And by the way, although the positive results of division of labor justify it from a consequentialist moral angle (the one you brought to the table via your rhetoric about poverty). One can also justify division of labor from a virtue angle as derived directly from freedom of association - which would be the moral angle I find more important actually.

So you are arguing against a strawman and making a number of non sequiturs.

A few examples:

- A good economy is not defined through fullfilling needs like love, affection, respect. Your generalization is overbroad and invalid.
- Even if you change it to material needs your argument about contractions being normal says exactly zero in regards to proving or disproving if economic growth is good or bad.
- You insist on arguing as if I am saying that monetary / nominal economic growth is equivalent to productivity / trade economic growth. Which means you are not really paying attention again.

To be clear, here are some of the things I posted in my previous:
Basically, "it" does not "have to" expand. The "it" was the economy, per your earlier quote. This is basically me making (subtly, something you have trouble with?) the exact point you thought you needed to make about how economies contract, and that such is natural.
... and I know that the financial monetary expansion might show higher numbers ... but is not actually productivity as brought by innovation, trade and improvement. This is me making the exact point about current macroeconomic indicators being bullshit that you then made as if you were disproving anything I said.

Which means a full two paragraphs of yours were completely irrelevant in terms of continuing the conversation, especially as you seemed to think you needed to make them as pointing out disagreements with me.

So apart from the incoherent first paragraph, you only managed to again avoid answering if you consider actual "growing the pie" economic growth a good thing or not. I'll give you credit for knowing that answering honestly would not serve you well. In that sense, please do continue your little guerilla trolling.

However, it is amusing and puzzling to see just how many wrong assumptions you keep making regarding what I believe, so I can't fully rule out you actually think you are adding value... which would be tragic...

Do you like Macbeth? full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Ergo: Your emotions blind you. Be it hatred, fear, pity, or whatever...

Well I don't know exactly either. But that's pretty good for your nephew - I know a lot of people working low-skill jobs make quite a bit less than that. But there's been this "fight for $15" movement, right? Where people figure $15/hr is a livable wage, right about at what your nephew is making. So according to many, that is roughly the amount somebody needs to be able to afford decent housing and food. Sounds about right to me.

But the exact amount of these things is something we would need to calculate as we go, and adjust as needed. The bigger deal is people in our country agreeing that we should have this kind of reasonable, livable minimum to begin with.

Well on the last sentence, I would suggest you will need to rethink that in the future, if/when we do get fully into the situation that is the overall topic of this thread. If one day there isn't enough work for everybody to have a job, we will need to have something like this unless we want people to starve. Admittedly, we're not there just yet, but I think we're getting closer every day.

I'm all in favor of mom n pop stores and I think its a shame they're dying off. But it is reality: wherever the big corps can compete on a level playing field, they tend to drive the little guy out through their natural advantages of economies of scale.

No no, I agree with you on this completely. My thought is taxing the huge earnings at that rate - people/companies taking in billions or multi-millions. Small biz should be taxed far less, to allow them to compete better with the big guys, and because their earnings make a smaller impact to the tax base as compared to the big boys. Same as with individuals who arent making big money, small biz should not get hit with this high rate at all.

Basically, my thought is that anywhere someone is making an outright killing, i.e. the oil big companies, pharmaceuticals - half of those massive profits should be taxed and used to implement universal healthcare and bump up low wages. That's where the big money is and that's where people are making amounts beyond what they could ever spend and are more or less hoarding wealth.

Well what I'm talking about could never happen without a much simpler tax code, that's for sure, which would help prevent all the dodges and shelters and offshoring of profits, etc, that people use to avoid paying taxes on these massive amounts currently. However it couldn't be flat - again the big guys making a killing should pay 50%, I think, but small biz and non-wealthy individuals should pay far, far less than that. If we can get enough additional revenue from taxing the huge profits at 50%, ideally we could reduce or even eliminate taxes on the little guys - we'd have to see how the numbers play out.

Of course not. The economic arrangement I'm referring to is fractional reserve banking. And since you insist on being a shite-talking smartarse, I'm going to let YOU explain to the good GOG folk what would happen if all of the outstanding debt in the US was paid back tomorrow.

Now, I really hope you don't do any of the things you like to accuse me of doing and do your damndest to provide a direct and succinct answer to my hypothetical. Surprise me! lol

I would say that mom and pop need to operate on the fringes (you alluded to this earlier). If you can't play their game, play your own game. That's what my sister did with her business, that's what I'm doing with mine. Well, mine is a different circumstance since I'm not dealing in retail, but instead offering products and services for <drumroll> automation. So my viewpoint is different / skewed twice over. ; )

----

I will give automation credit for one big thing: it has given decent jobs to people who aren't particularly skilled. By this, I mean that it allows those with a modicum of education but without any special skills to be able to build things that might otherwise be accessible only to higher-skilled craftswomen. And there has always been a marketplace for the skilled craftsmen to create higher-quality hand-produced custom items, so there is room for both. I say this as someone who sees both high-volume production factories employing a bunch of clock-punchers, and also the small custom shops that use automation as a tool that supports their efforts instead of replacing the craft. Automation has its place in both, and the custom shops have little to fear from the volume shops.

So automation is a double-edged sword and I think which edge you're staring down varies by industry and even specific markets within a single industry. In my industry automation is an access tool, allowing mom and pop to compete and allowing for higher product consistency, and also giving jobs to those who have no particular skills to offer. In others, it supplants human labor - but still gives higher consistency.

Well now, did I touch a nerve again? At least I'm a subtle smartarse. Do you rem when you doubted I was an abrasive charpit?

First - what the heck does fractional reserve banking have to do with divison of labor? Either you lost the plot (again) or you are really struggling to communicate. When you referred to returns on capital being imorally higher than returns on labor (paraphrasing you) I thought you were just back to your pseudo-communist / redistributionist argumentation - a la Piketty. Still a non sequitur, but less than this jumping of the shark.

Second - to give you the benefit of the doubt again. What would happen can be best shortened as: loss of credibility and power of the US government. To elaborate, the hypothetical you are asking about is illogical. As you well know, the whole concept of what is being done relies on longer time horizons. I'm not saying that's good or bad (I think it's bad - it hides the truth) but you basically have the government issuing IOUs to itself via the banking system, ergo, payment of the debt would mean the government paying itself. The result would be a quite big PUFF. Note fractional reserve banking credit / debt is irrelevant to this for the most part. The majority of debt in the US is government, kicking the can down the road and banking on (pun intended) some kind of miracle that saves their asses.




I hope the above was direct and succint enough, because I'm going to go on as usual and call you out some more. I am no expert on the US specifics (they're convoluted by design) and I will admit easily I don't much appreciate contemplating the situation - read, contemplating the abyss.

Much as I believe the economic contraction caused by adjusting to reality would be temporary and positive on the long term, the short term would be extremely painful, particularly for those less fortunate and less independent. Therefore I rather advocate approaches that empower the weak. Both as risk mitigation and because I consider them the moral best.

I refer of course to the kind of free trade / classic liberal policies of laissez-faire and deregulation that include what you called "slavery". Which is another example of your evil - I'm quite sure your rhetoric is intended to remove choice from the less fortunate, and deny them the path to prosperity that we took earlier - you lie of course and say that what you want is for them to earn more.

How inhumane that they earn only 1, they should earn 5. Says the rich lind. But you and I both know that no one is willing to actually pay 5 for their labor - including us both. They can only earn 5 if we (by which I mean our governments) create obligations (debt) out of thin hair and expand the money supply even harder. And then the PUFF keeps growing.

Oh wait, maybe you wanted to focus (again) only on the rather irrelevant private actors / entities, which you probably imagine are all jewish bankers of the zionist variety, and do your best to ignore the abyss of public debt?

Who is it that sees no evil, hears no evil, and speaks no evil here richlind?

So you know almost nothing about how the monetary system functions, which means someone else is going to have to surprise me. : (

I'm not terribly interested in the division of labor. You brought it up in conjunction with productivity, both of which have only marginal impact compared to the monetary system.

Anyway, the answer to my hypothetical is this: if all of the outstanding debt in the US was paid back tomorrow, there would no longer be any money. Roughly 97% of money is created by issuing debt, i.e., loans, which in turn become deposits. So what we have is debt money, and Federal law forces us to use it. But what's really interesting is that each debt dollar is loaned over and over again, and each time this happens a new revenue stream is created for the lender. So each debt dollar generates multiple revenue streams for the banks that comprise the Federal Reserve System, which makes them very, very happy. But there's a problem: the banks only create the principal, so as interest accrues over time, an exponentially increasing number of people will be forced into default when the tail end of the business cycle rolls around, and lose most, or even all, of their assets.

That's a pretty sweet deal for these banks, and some might wonder just what it was that they did to earn such a fantabulous amount of loot, and the answer is: type the number of keystrokes required to make the requisite number of entries in their computer systems.

I probably shouldn't but I'm going to assume that you know what would happen if you or I were to try this. So, is this a crazy world, or wot? o.O