• 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!

Criticism of billionairism

ttwtt78640 said:
What I have described takes less land. In a trailer or RV park there are more housing units per acre than in a typical subdivision.
Click to expand...

But where are you going to do that in LA? All of the land is currently used. Changing this would require expropriation, and I'm not at all into that.
 
phattonez said:
But where are you going to do that in LA? All of the land is currently used. Changing this would require expropriation, and I'm not at all into that.
Click to expand...

Nope, simply have the LLC buy a lot with a house in need of serious repair on it, demo that house and move multiple mobile homes, tiny houses an/or RVs onto that lot - tying into the existing utility feeds. What prevents that are zoning laws.
 
phattonez said:
Life is a game where we should get as many people winning as possible. Unnecessary competition ought to be avoided. The point of life isn't material wealth.
Click to expand...

Not all persons are capable of playing this game, and a constantly growing number are unwilling to try. No one should be forced to compete, but then they should not feel entitled to share in the winnings. I'm unaware of any universally accepted definition of a "point of life".
 
Individual said:
Yes, there's no simple answer or acceptable solution.
Click to expand...

It's been done before, and it works. Raise the upper-tier tax rate. Every time this has been done, the effective tax rate goes up. It needs to be raised to about 50%. Clinton balanced the budget by cutting spending, and raising the rate to 40%. Trouble is, now there is so much interest on the debt that it needs to be raised higher. Year after year of Republican deficit building, during their presidencies, has the US in a pickle.
 
Media_Truth said:
It's been done before, and it works. Raise the upper-tier tax rate. Every time this has been done, the effective tax rate goes up. It needs to be raised to about 50%. Clinton balanced the budget by cutting spending, and raising the rate to 40%. Trouble is, now there is so much interest on the debt that it needs to be raised higher. Year after year of Republican deficit building, during their presidencies, has the US in a pickle.
Click to expand...

It's time we found a better solution than 'kick the can'.
 
Individual said:
It's time we found a better solution than 'kick the can'.
Click to expand...

"Kick the can" is the only viable option. The wealthy have seen their spending power go up-up-up, while the rest of America's spending power is down. The money has to come from somewhere - do you think it's going to come from the group on the left, in the below graph?
Income_1percenters_poor_etc.JPG
 
phattonez said:
We have a strong middle class that's shrinking and in record debt? Please explain.
Click to expand...

OK, I will explain. Thank you for your question.

I only concern myself with my own personal situation.
I do not concern myself with national debt because i did not cause it.
If the nation goes into debt, i have a safety net, because I caused it the be so.

The same reason i do not worry about the plight of cabbage pickers in Peru.
It does not mean I am insensitive to the plight of others. It means I only concern myself with things under my direct control.
I have no control of "national middle-class debt".
I DO have control over PleasantVally's personal debt.
....and there is where i put my efforts.

ie...sometimes I spend too much buying on-line late at night. I have had to put a stop to this when I almost pee'd myself after looking at a summery of my on-line orders.
Just tonight i was thinking about getting 500 125 grain lead .38 bullets for reloading, but slapped myself up-side the head when i knew i still have 500 .44 caliber bullets and a 20 year old box of 200 grain .45 caliber bullets i still have yet to reload for.

Yet the siren song of that beautiful long barreled .38 target revolver keeps whispering in my ear. I have the cases, I have the powder, I have the primers, but no bullets. I need to put wax in my ears like Ulysses did when he rowed past their island. Yet that Midway USA website keeps telling me..." Here we are....come spend more money....we are just a few clicks away and we will be at your door in a few days".

So, you see, it is crap like this i need to concern myself with. Not debt that does not affect me in any way....if you are smart, it won't.
...but spending the money on 500 .38 bullets DOES affect me directly.

Again...thank you for your question. I hope you consider my answer as respectful and informative as your question was.

PV
 
phattonez said:
Lol. Sick leave? Paid vacations? Pensions? Those are all WORSE today.

Further, the necessities of life, like health care and housing, have risen in price faster than inflation. So we're not even keeping up with inflation! Quality of life has regressed!
Click to expand...

Living in Los Angeles, I can not even imagine your pain in those areas.
I am sure you have your reasons for staying.

Here in East Texas you can get a nice 3/2 on a little bit of land or a large lot for about $120K.
Your biggest concern would be your waistline with all the excellent BBQ, Mexican, traditional Southern, and seafood.
...and if you want your ice tea with no sugar you have to specifically say so.
It is also ice tea....no "D".
 
Media_Truth said:
"Kick the can" is the only viable option. The wealthy have seen their spending power go up-up-up, while the rest of America's spending power is down. The money has to come from somewhere - do you think it's going to come from the group on the left, in the below graph?
View attachment 67248127
Click to expand...

Your graph would be more meaningful if it showed only those who make up the bottom 90%, who are your "average household". Comparing them with your "above average" and "well above average" households is meaningless.
I agree, the wealthy have seen their spending power increase, and raising their taxes will not change that. If you really wish to see their wealth accumulation ebb, produce things which will result in their consumptive spending rather than income increasing investing or maintaining their investment profits as a result of redistribution of some of their taxes to maintain product prices.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, simply have the LLC buy a lot with a house in need of serious repair on it, demo that house and move multiple mobile homes, tiny houses an/or RVs onto that lot - tying into the existing utility feeds. What prevents that are zoning laws.
Click to expand...

Another issue with this proposal will be infrastructure. Increased density will require more transportation and upgrades to electrical, etc. How are we paying for that?
 
Individual said:
Not all persons are capable of playing this game, and a constantly growing number are unwilling to try. No one should be forced to compete, but then they should not feel entitled to share in the winnings.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that those who are indolent ought to expect any kind of living standards. I'm saying that those who do work ought to be able to afford subsistence.

I'm unaware of any universally accepted definition of a "point of life".
Click to expand...

This doesn't mean that the default position is get as much money as possible.
 
PleasantValley said:
Living in Los Angeles, I can not even imagine your pain in those areas.
I am sure you have your reasons for staying.

Here in East Texas you can get a nice 3/2 on a little bit of land or a large lot for about $120K.
Your biggest concern would be your waistline with all the excellent BBQ, Mexican, traditional Southern, and seafood.
...and if you want your ice tea with no sugar you have to specifically say so.
It is also ice tea....no "D".
Click to expand...
These are problems that you can run away from for only so long. No place has an infinite amount of land. Los Angeles was once like a Texas city. Lots of land, cheap home prices. Eventually these problems caught up, and now look where we are. With the same unfettered housing market, Texas will eventually become like this. Look at downtown Houston. It's not exactly cheap. Given enough time, it'll happen.
 
phattonez said:
I'm not saying that those who are indolent ought to expect any kind of living standards. I'm saying that those who do work ought to be able to afford subsistence.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a second job would accomplish that.

phattonez said:
This doesn't mean that the default position is get as much money as possible.
Click to expand...

It doesn't appear to be the "default position" either.
 
Individual said:
Perhaps a second job would accomplish that.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously arguing that people should work 60-80 hours per week just to survive? Our GDP per capita is nearly $60k. This is an incredibly prosperous economy. How is it that our median personal income is only about $31k, not even accounting for the massive number of working age men who aren't working?

We have a real income problem in this country. Real median wages have only gone down since the 1970s. How do we fix that?
 
phattonez said:
Are you seriously arguing that people should work 60-80 hours per week just to survive? Our GDP per capita is nearly $60k. This is an incredibly prosperous economy. How is it that our median personal income is only about $31k, not even accounting for the massive number of working age men who aren't working?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, assuming one wants to survive. GDP and median personal income have grown greatly over the last century as a result of inflation and debt both private and public.


phattonez said:
We have a real income problem in this country. Real median wages have only gone down since the 1970s. How do we fix that?
Click to expand...
When you ask "How do we fix that?" the only way to answer such a question in a rational way would require acceptance of a great deal of suffering by a great many.

Government debt in 1913 with a population of 97,225,000 was $2,916,204,913.66 or about $29.99 per person.
The Federal government spent $970,000,000 44% or $427,000,000 of which was spent on defense, a cost of about $9.98 per person.
Federal welfare spending was $7,000,000 or about 0.24% of the Federal spending.

Government debt today with a population of about 328,000,000 is $21,960,411,284,948.15 or about $66,952.47 per person.
The Federal government in 2018 spent $4,094,500,000,000 about 22% or $885,900,000,000 of which was spent on defense, a cost of about $12,483.23 per person.
Federal welfare spending was $353,470,000,000 or about 8.63% of the Federal spending.

The above figures are taken from the budget categories shown as defense and welfare, and may not include all spending as a result.
 
Individual said:
Absolutely, assuming one wants to survive. GDP and median personal income have grown greatly over the last century as a result of inflation and debt both private and public.



When you ask "How do we fix that?" the only way to answer such a question in a rational way would require acceptance of a great deal of suffering by a great many.

Government debt in 1913 with a population of 97,225,000 was $2,916,204,913.66 or about $29.99 per person.
The Federal government spent $970,000,000 44% or $427,000,000 of which was spent on defense, a cost of about $9.98 per person.
Federal welfare spending was $7,000,000 or about 0.24% of the Federal spending.

Government debt today with a population of about 328,000,000 is $21,960,411,284,948.15 or about $66,952.47 per person.
The Federal government in 2018 spent $4,094,500,000,000 about 22% or $885,900,000,000 of which was spent on defense, a cost of about $12,483.23 per person.
Federal welfare spending was $353,470,000,000 or about 8.63% of the Federal spending.

The above figures are taken from the budget categories shown as defense and welfare, and may not include all spending as a result.
Click to expand...

What in the world does this have to do with government debt? Real personal income is far lower than it was in the 1970s despite real GDP per capita being higher. Why are we accepting that as okay?
 
phattonez said:
What in the world does this have to do with government debt? Real personal income is far lower than it was in the 1970s despite real GDP per capita being higher. Why are we accepting that as okay?
Click to expand...

It's all related.
 
grainbelt said:
I hypothesize that supporting, subsidizing, or protecting the creation or sustenance of billionaires is antithetical to supporting a strong middle class and in turn a strong consumer capitalist economy.

If you get the idea that removing a middle man from a supply chain could lower cost and enrich the whole thing, you should also get that removing the billionaire at the top could do something similar. By not having to appease the billionaires big ROI, income instead is dispersed at lower levels amongst more people and spent much more efficiently in the economy. To this end, progressive taxation, enforcement of tax and other white collar laws, anti trust laws, all need to be strengthened and enforced. Competition needs to be restored as a necessary pillar of our form of capitalism. Worker and consumer rights need to be elevated. Small businesses should be incentivized further. And the various governments need to stop pandering to mega conglomerates. This kills competition!

Theres no leeway for more corporatist judicial decisions or laws. They are middle class killers that suck the wealth and opportunity out and away from the working class.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Most all the billionaires are actually liberals.
 
Individual said:
Absolutely, assuming one wants to survive. GDP and median personal income have grown greatly over the last century as a result of inflation and debt both private and public.



When you ask "How do we fix that?" the only way to answer such a question in a rational way would require acceptance of a great deal of suffering by a great many.

Government debt in 1913 with a population of 97,225,000 was $2,916,204,913.66 or about $29.99 per person.
The Federal government spent $970,000,000 44% or $427,000,000 of which was spent on defense, a cost of about $9.98 per person.
Federal welfare spending was $7,000,000 or about 0.24% of the Federal spending.

Government debt today with a population of about 328,000,000 is $21,960,411,284,948.15 or about $66,952.47 per person.
The Federal government in 2018 spent $4,094,500,000,000 about 22% or $885,900,000,000 of which was spent on defense, a cost of about $12,483.23 per person.
Federal welfare spending was $353,470,000,000 or about 8.63% of the Federal spending.

The above figures are taken from the budget categories shown as defense and welfare, and may not include all spending as a result.
Click to expand...

phattonez said:
What in the world does this have to do with government debt? Real personal income is far lower than it was in the 1970s despite real GDP per capita being higher. Why are we accepting that as okay?
Click to expand...

Individual said:
It's all related.
Click to expand...

phattonez said:
How. You can't state this without any evidence.
Click to expand...

1. Who is liable for the debt of our government?

2. From a quick google search of "real personal income":
Real income refers to the income of an individual or group after taking into consideration the effects of inflation on purchasing power. For example, if you receive a 2% salary increase over the previous year and inflation for the year is 1%, then your real income only increases by 1%.Jan 24, 2018 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/realincome.asp
Do you agree/disagree?

3. What is the inevitable result of increasing the supply of a fiat currency? If government were to double the money supply or employers were to double the wages they pay would prices of goods/services remain unchanged? Would prices of everything more likely double or would some thing remain constant, others maybe even decrease, and then others rise more or much more?

What kind of evidence are you looking for that hasn't presented itself abundantly year after year?
 
Individual said:
1. Who is liable for the debt of our government?

2. From a quick google search of "real personal income":
Real income refers to the income of an individual or group after taking into consideration the effects of inflation on purchasing power. For example, if you receive a 2% salary increase over the previous year and inflation for the year is 1%, then your real income only increases by 1%.Jan 24, 2018 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/realincome.asp
Do you agree/disagree?

3. What is the inevitable result of increasing the supply of a fiat currency? If government were to double the money supply or employers were to double the wages they pay would prices of goods/services remain unchanged? Would prices of everything more likely double or would some thing remain constant, others maybe even decrease, and then others rise more or much more?

What kind of evidence are you looking for that hasn't presented itself abundantly year after year?
Click to expand...

How does government debt explain why the labor share is at an unprecedented low?

I think you're rightfully figuring out that it has something to do with finance, but you're looking at the wrong institution. Commercial bank assets as a percentage of GDP have soared since 2000. Guess when the labor share started falling.
 
phattonez said:
How does government debt explain why the labor share is at an unprecedented low?

I think you're rightfully figuring out that it has something to do with finance, but you're looking at the wrong institution. Commercial bank assets as a percentage of GDP have soared since 2000. Guess when the labor share started falling.
Click to expand...

You've answered none of MY questions yet.


1. Who is liable for the debt of our government?

2. From a quick google search of "real personal income":
Real income refers to the income of an individual or group after taking into consideration the effects of inflation on purchasing power. For example, if you receive a 2% salary increase over the previous year and inflation for the year is 1%, then your real income only increases by 1%.Jan 24, 2018 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/realincome.asp
Do you agree/disagree?

3. What is the inevitable result of increasing the supply of a fiat currency? If government were to double the money supply or employers were to double the wages they pay would prices of goods/services remain unchanged? Would prices of everything more likely double or would some thing remain constant, others maybe even decrease, and then others rise more or much more?

What kind of evidence are you looking for that hasn't presented itself abundantly year after year?
 
Individual said:
You've answered none of MY questions yet.


1. Who is liable for the debt of our government?
Click to expand...

We are, of course. Government debt is a claim on our future production.

2. From a quick google search of "real personal income":
Real income refers to the income of an individual or group after taking into consideration the effects of inflation on purchasing power. For example, if you receive a 2% salary increase over the previous year and inflation for the year is 1%, then your real income only increases by 1%.Jan 24, 2018 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/realincome.asp
Do you agree/disagree?
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. The real median wage for men is down significantly since the 70s.

3. What is the inevitable result of increasing the supply of a fiat currency? If government were to double the money supply or employers were to double the wages they pay would prices of goods/services remain unchanged? Would prices of everything more likely double or would some thing remain constant, others maybe even decrease, and then others rise more or much more?

What kind of evidence are you looking for that hasn't presented itself abundantly year after year?
Click to expand...

If production remains constant, then it's a loss of purchasing power.

However, what you're neglecting to consider here is distribution. Our newly printed money goes to bankers and rentiers. They get all the benefit of the money printing and we, who get it last, suffer the loss. If that were reversed, then we would get the gain. A national dividend would be a far more equitable system and would tend to more production since we consume goods. Our current system only creates asset price inflation.

But if you want a complete overhaul of our monetary system which is completely debt based, I'm right there with you.
 
phattonez said:
We are, of course. Government debt is a claim on our future production.



Absolutely agree. The real median wage for men is down significantly since the 70s.
Click to expand...

From census.gov
the median household income in 1977 was $13,570 or $56229.74 in 2018 dollars
and, the median household income in the United States rose from $61,858 in May 2018 to $62,175 in June 2018


phattonez said:
If production remains constant, then it's a loss of purchasing power.

However, what you're neglecting to consider here is distribution. Our newly printed money goes to bankers and rentiers. They get all the benefit of the money printing and we, who get it last, suffer the loss. If that were reversed, then we would get the gain. A national dividend would be a far more equitable system and would tend to more production since we consume goods. Our current system only creates asset price inflation.

But if you want a complete overhaul of our monetary system which is completely debt based, I'm right there with you.
Click to expand...

Newly created money is provided to the banks at a cost, who then provide to the public at a cost.

IMO, we have allowed our government(s) collectively to live beyond our means, including the means of our wealthiest who have been made necessary as THE primary source from which government can acquire needed revenue. As such their ability to pay must be maintained and grow.
When you speak of a "complete overhaul of our monetary system", I have no idea of HOW such could be accomplished in any way which would eliminate or even reduce debt. I was raised when there were not a great many material things to spend your money on, and although the cost of living was much less than today earning enough to provide the basic necessities took a great deal of effort. As such I was taught to live within my means and put aside something in case of worse times in the future even if you had to do without something in order to do so.

As I see it, the wealthiest are content to pay higher taxes on income, and will remain so as long as it does not diminish growth of their wealth, making our currency insignificant in their lives. The dollar could collapse and become totally worthless with little impact on them, as it is the property they possess which is the basis of their wealth regardless of the currency it can be exchanged for.
 
Individual said:
From census.gov
the median household income in 1977 was $13,570 or $56229.74 in 2018 dollars
and, the median household income in the United States rose from $61,858 in May 2018 to $62,175 in June 2018
Click to expand...

Because there are more women working! Look at the situation for men.

earnings_men_large.png



Newly created money is provided to the banks at a cost, who then provide to the public at a cost.
Click to expand...

You're smarter than this.

Banks create money out of thin air. That's how fractional reserve banking works. Then they collect interest for lending money that they didn't have! The money isn't real. It's an accounting entry. It's all a scam.

IMO, we have allowed our government(s) collectively to live beyond our means, including the means of our wealthiest who have been made necessary as THE primary source from which government can acquire needed revenue. As such their ability to pay must be maintained and grow.
Click to expand...

Ability to repay?

Think this through. Money is created by the Fed. They then lend it to the treasury at interest. So if every dollar is created this way, and we can only get money from the Fed, and they demand interest on top of what they lent, then where are we supposed to get the money to pay the interest?

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom