• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why is the economy deteriorating? Rent seeking

94fe2ebfe63a4303c45486a4a149c188.png


Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

That's an interesting chart. I'm not at all sure what it shows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth
 
That when it comes to the basics, the US is actually a pretty mediocre economy.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

Right...
 
Thanks for that incredible insight.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

Sorry to disappoint.

https://blog.euromonitor.com/2017/10/consumer-expenditure-top-10-countries.html
<snip>
Consumer expenditure gauges the level of demand for goods and services in a country making it a key indicator of size and the potential of a country market.
<snip>
[h=2]Geography[/h][h=2]Unit[/h][h=2]2016[/h]
USAUSD million12,531,541.9
ChinaUSD million4,318,200.6
JapanUSD million2,706,160.0
GermanyUSD million1,737,205.2
IndiaUSD million1,335,378.7
United KingdomUSD million1,604,569.4
FranceUSD million1,315,873.6
BrazilUSD million1,109,650.7
ItalyUSD million1,131,689.4
<snip>


  • The USA features the highest levels of per household disposable income and expenditure. High income levels boost the capacity for discretionary spending of US households, although the country’s income gap remains large and continues to rise.
<snip>





 
Sorry to disappoint.

https://blog.euromonitor.com/2017/10/consumer-expenditure-top-10-countries.html
<snip>
Consumer expenditure gauges the level of demand for goods and services in a country making it a key indicator of size and the potential of a country market.
<snip>
[h=2]Geography[/h][h=2]Unit[/h][h=2]2016[/h]
USAUSD million12,531,541.9
ChinaUSD million4,318,200.6
JapanUSD million2,706,160.0
GermanyUSD million1,737,205.2
IndiaUSD million1,335,378.7
United KingdomUSD million1,604,569.4
FranceUSD million1,315,873.6
BrazilUSD million1,109,650.7
ItalyUSD million1,131,689.4
<snip>


  • The USA features the highest levels of per household disposable income and expenditure. High income levels boost the capacity for discretionary spending of US households, although the country’s income gap remains large and continues to rise.
<snip>






You're not even looking at averages, not to mention medians? What a joke.
 
You're not even looking at averages, not to mention medians? What a joke.

Only demonstrating that the US has a pretty dynamic number of dollars being spent per household.

Average personal income in the US is about $46,000, median is lower, while the average for Slovakia, your example of a pretty good economy, is less than $20,00 if my attempt at the conversion from Eros to dollars was accurate.

Your statistic of the above 90% home ownership (again, if I'm remembering correctly) was confusing to me especially confusing given that Slovakia is not known as a Dubai kind of an economy.

https://tradingeconomics.com/slovakia/wages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

https://www.ofx.com/en-us/send-mone...LQ&gclsrc=ds&dclid=CMXW4M-5zt0CFR3I4wcdPyoBow
 
We have a myth that the rich are rich because of hard work, or especially invaluable contributions. Largely today, however, that's not true. What makes the rich rich is rent seeking, unearned income. This is a problem because people are wealthy not because they're producing wealth and making everyone better off. Rather, they're extracting wealth and leaving less of it for laborers.

I'm going to leave a YouTube video that goes over this issue. Enjoy!



Make no mistake, this has a real effect, and people today are mostly making less than they were in the mid 1970's. Back then, a person could buy a home with just one income. Not anymore. Why would anyone apologize for a system that clearly isn't working?


You should read about tax systems like Georgism (aka. Geoism) - it taxes the basic value of the land, while sparing from taxation the value of whatever gets built on it.

Consider the effects of this. What happens is that it incentivizes building on the land you own, in order to build up the overall property value beyond the basic value of the land. It also means the higher the value of that land due to its size and location, then the more it gets taxed. This encourages people to buy cheaper, less preferably located land, and to build on it more.

That kind of thing can reduce rent-seeking. These types of approaches target the inelastic assets in the economy -- ie. the rent-seeking stuff.
 
Only demonstrating that the US has a pretty dynamic number of dollars being spent per household.

Average personal income in the US is about $46,000, median is lower, while the average for Slovakia, your example of a pretty good economy, is less than $20,00 if my attempt at the conversion from Eros to dollars was accurate.

Your statistic of the above 90% home ownership (again, if I'm remembering correctly) was confusing to me especially confusing given that Slovakia is not known as a Dubai kind of an economy.

https://tradingeconomics.com/slovakia/wages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

https://www.ofx.com/en-us/send-mone...LQ&gclsrc=ds&dclid=CMXW4M-5zt0CFR3I4wcdPyoBow
How is it that the typical male worker had a higher real income in the 1970s than today? How is it that the typical male worker has faced lower and lower incomes every decade since?

hamilton2.jpg


Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
You should read about tax systems like Georgism (aka. Geoism) - it taxes the basic value of the land, while sparing from taxation the value of whatever gets built on it.

Consider the effects of this. What happens is that it incentivizes building on the land you own, in order to build up the overall property value beyond the basic value of the land. It also means the higher the value of that land due to its size and location, then the more it gets taxed. This encourages people to buy cheaper, less preferably located land, and to build on it more.

That kind of thing can reduce rent-seeking. These types of approaches target the inelastic assets in the economy -- ie. the rent-seeking stuff.
I've becoming quite familiar with it. It's not a bad start, but it alone won't be enough. Finance owns the government, and is responsible for policies that undercut American labor while maximizing profits for the idle rich. This corrupt system hasn't been seriously attacked for decades, by either party.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
How is it that the typical male worker had a higher real income in the 1970s than today? How is it that the typical male worker has faced lower and lower incomes every decade since?

hamilton2.jpg


Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

The global economy has had an impact on the wages of American Workers. The Global Economy always has. As other economies were re-built following WW2, name plates on the cars around the world changed from just the big 3 American makers. They now include all the rest like Volkswagen, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda and more recently Kia and Hundai. All of these companies pay lower wages than the ridiculously high UAW negotiated levels for even unskilled jobs in the "old days".

Wages in China are increasing. Wages in the US were far less than Britain in the 1700's. the Global economy drives wages along with various other factors.

Emerging nations usually pay lower wages and, if the industrialized nations hope to compete, they need to figure out ways to compete with that cost factor.

It is a nice thing for the janitor at GM to be making $65,000 per year plus benefits, but the economics didn't make sense then and don't now.

Take heart, though! For the first time since the 70's, there are fewer people to fill the jobs in the US than there are jobs vacant. It's likely that automation will fill some of the gap. That has already been underway fo some time.

This phenomenon is not a global economy thing, but rather a local economy thing.

Robo telephone operators, ATM's, welders, painters, assemblers, robotic fork trucks in plants are becoming common. It's really quite amazing.

Inventory control and the universal product codes on everything is logistically key. Far more accurate, more efficient and more useful than the old human counting and hand written numbers.

Things change. That's the real world today. I work with a lot of clients who are complaining that it's hard to find people to fill jobs and they are paying bonuses for new folks to sign up.

This should impact wage rates. Right now, it is resulting in the mobility of the workers to jobs they desire and this, in my observation, is occurring at all levels of the work forces with which I deal.

When budgets for the new year are implemented, higher wages should be included at companies that hope to keep their key employees.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...a-raise/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.69d7c2fdace4
 
The global economy has had an impact on the wages of American Workers.

It sure has, but you know who hasn't been affected? Global capital. They're richer than they've ever been while American workers are languishing. That is what I take issue with.
 
It sure has, but you know who hasn't been affected? Global capital. They're richer than they've ever been while American workers are languishing. That is what I take issue with.

The ideas you present seem couched in envy and hate.

I work at a company owned by a guy who is pretty rich by my standards. I don't care how rich he is or how big a car he drives. He pays me and my paychecks don't bounce.

If ALL of his wealth was taken from him and given to all of his employees and he was promised that any work or thought he did in the future would not benefit him, then he'd be penniless and his employees would be out of jobs.

His risk and visionary striving is what is putting food on my table and a roof over my head.

Without the talented, risk taking visionaries getting rich in this world, the rest of us are unwashed peasants grubbing for food. With them, we're able to buy the bigger house, the faster car and the better education for our children.

Are you really missing the basic concept of capitalism? It is only with the genius elite striving that the rest of us are swept along. That skyscraper in Dubai didn't just grow like a tree.


Burj Khalifa is the tallest building in the world
 
The ideas you present seem couched in envy and hate.

I work at a company owned by a guy who is pretty rich by my standards. I don't care how rich he is or how big a car he drives. He pays me and my paychecks don't bounce.

If ALL of his wealth was taken from him and given to all of his employees and he was promised that any work or thought he did in the future would not benefit him, then he'd be penniless and his employees would be out of jobs.

His risk and visionary striving is what is putting food on my table and a roof over my head.

Without the talented, risk taking visionaries getting rich in this world, the rest of us are unwashed peasants grubbing for food. With them, we're able to buy the bigger house, the faster car and the better education for our children.

Are you really missing the basic concept of capitalism? It is only with the genius elite striving that the rest of us are swept along. That skyscraper in Dubai didn't just grow like a tree.


Burj Khalifa is the tallest building in the world

You could be the smartest, most ingenious, best worker ever. None of it justifies greed. Greed is never good.
 
You could be the smartest, most ingenious, best worker ever. None of it justifies greed. Greed is never good.

Greed is like any thing else. It is not its existence that is either good or evil. It is what the holder of it does with it.

Assume there are three people consumed with the need to achieve a particular, personal goal. They will push all else aside in their lives to achieve that goal.

Of the assumed three, one is named Bill Gates, another is named Tom Brady and another is named Sister Teresa. All achieve, arguably, the pinnacle of their pursuits due to the single minded dedication to their goal.

In all cases, pursuing their individual goal is the center of their existence and in all cases, this pursuit focused their life efforts and in all cases seems to have produced great self satisfaction.

Self interest manifests in many ways. Striving for personal gratification is greed. We all do it in varying ways and to varying degrees. Depending on people to be self interested is a pretty predictor of their next action.

Bill Gates and Sister Teresa and Tom Brady all chose their paths according to their own self interest and have/did spent their lives to achieve their goals. They are identical in that they were motivated by self interest.
 
Back
Top Bottom