The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Equality of opportunity, which is why I am for reparations. Because there is nothing that means opportunity like capital. Nothing matches it--not income levels, not education, not charity or largesse or welfare, but assets, capital. 

Freed slaves never got their forty acres and a mule promised by General Sherman. 

There was political freedom, political equality (for a few years until the US Army left and then 80 years of Jim Crow and segregation until JFK sent federal troops back in to end segregation by force). There is legal equality under the law today.

But there was not, is not, equality of opportunity among Americans, because assets--capital--wealth ownership--grubstake--that is the real measure of equality of opportunity. Families with assets = greater opportunity. Families without assets = limited opportunity.

The US--as an institution, as collective responsibility--still owes an unpaid check to the descendants of slaves. Because family wealth is not equal. There is not equality of opportunity. 

Martin Luther King, Jr. had a vision of reparations for the descendants of slaves which those descendants of slaves would then share out to all poor in America including poor whites. Talk about a healing of divides based upon race if that happened. No wonder he was cut down. 

The moral grounding for the unpaid check is told in Edward Baptist, The Half Has Never Been Told, and other studies estimating that ca. half of America's national wealth pre-1860 was produced by slaves. Concentration camps of captive wealth-producers. Built America's national wealth and greatness. Built America's capital formation. There were white indentured servants too. (That was part of MLK's logic in sharing out reparations to put assets into the hands of all poor of America.) But African slavery was the big one. 

Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity. Capital. Family wealth indices, the most important measure of equality of opportunity. 

Hi Greg,

I am for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome doctrines, as I think the latter makes things much worse. How do you propose that reparations will work? How much and who pays? 

As you've pointed out there white slaves/servants and if you look at history in its entirety, almost every race and culture has kept slaves. It's estimated that 12 million slaves crossed the Atlantic going west and that 18 million traveled east. It's just the ones that traveled east were castrated so they couldn't procreate. There are some academics who claim that there are more slaves in the world today than back then. If you work 10 hours per day for money that barely feeds you, doing debilitating work that reduces your life expectancy, is that not slavery? Do you think aside from the African slaves who helped build America that other groups should also receive reparations? What about anybody of native American heritage? Then let's look at the all of the countries abroad that have been exploited because of America, Britain etc, denying them a right to equality, because of economic policy. Do they deserve reparations, or because they were paid a pittance, is that ok? The point I am trying to make here is; how do you possibly begin to address this? And who pays? This is the story of human history. How do you get the point where everyone has an equal amount of capital and rebalance all of the injustices of the past? Also, do we think these El Salvadorian, Mexican or Guatemalan maids working in the houses of Democrats and Republican politicians have good self esteem, opportunities, wages, or do they feel like servants? Slaves? Did they choose that job, that life? Are past injustices responsible? 

For me, governments should have been doing all they can to raise the standard of living in impoverished areas, education, policing, recreational facilities, access to nutritious foods, opportunities etc. That should be addressed everywhere, not just in areas of ethnic minorities. Instead they've been convincing you guys that wars that make the rich richer, and a pandemic that amounted to a bad flu was the right thing to spend taxes on. All it did was pass money into the hands of the very wealthy. 

I forget who said it, but, someone notable said "slavery wasn't abolished, it was just made open to all races." Look at how much you are being taxed and where the money is going. The middle class is dissolving and merging into the poor. The window of opportunity have upward mobility is closing and you'll just end up with an elite and a poor. 

One the present trajectory, you could give the poor the same amount of capital, and within a short space of time, the elites would have robbed them of it. 

I am interested in solutions that work. 

[Greg Doudna]

36 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Hi Greg,

I am for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome doctrines, as I think the latter makes things much worse. How do you propose that reparations will work? How much and who pays? 

As you've pointed out there white slaves/servants and if you look at history in its entirety, almost every race and culture has kept slaves. It's estimated that 12 million slaves crossed the Atlantic going west and that 18 million traveled east. It's just the ones that traveled east were castrated so they couldn't procreate. There are some academics who claim that there are more slaves in the world today than back then. If you work 10 hours per day for money that barely feeds you, doing debilitating work that reduces your life expectancy, is that not slavery? Do you think aside from the African slaves who helped build America that other groups should also receive reparations? What about anybody of native American heritage? Then let's look at the all of the countries abroad that have been exploited because of America, Britain etc, denying them a right to equality, because of economic policy. Do they deserve reparations, or because they were paid a pittance, is that ok? The point I am trying to make here is; how do you possibly begin to address this? And who pays? This is the story of human history. How do you get the point where everyone has an equal amount of capital and rebalance all of the injustices of the past? Also, do we think these El Salvadorian, Mexican or Guatemalan maids working in the houses of Democrats and Republican politicians have good self esteem, opportunities, wages, or do they feel like servants? Slaves? Did they choose that job, that life? Are past injustices responsible? 

For me, governments should have been doing all they can to raise the standard of living in impoverished areas, education, policing, recreational facilities, access to nutritious foods, opportunities etc. That should be addressed everywhere, not just in areas of ethnic minorities. Instead they've been convincing you guys that wars that make the rich richer, and a pandemic that amounted to a bad flu was the right thing to spend taxes on. All it did was pass money into the hands of the very wealthy. 

I forget who said it, but, someone notable said "slavery wasn't abolished, it was just made open to all races." Look at how much you are being taxed and where the money is going. The middle class is dissolving and merging into the poor. The window of opportunity have upward mobility is closing and you'll just end up with an elite and a poor. 

One the present trajectory, you could give the poor the same amount of capital, and within a short space of time, the elites would have robbed them of it. 

I am interested in solutions that work. 

I believe MLK's vision was in the name of reparations and formal apology, a massive redistribution of wealth to all poor in America (non-race-based or even proof of ancestry or descent from a slave based). It would be like acknowledging a crime, and then as a memorial to the victims (who are dead and cannot be repaid) a hospital is set up dedicated to those crime victims, to help others today. That principle. So it would do an endrun around all the divisiveness of race and would heal poor whites vs. poor blacks divide. In the best case a majority of the superwealthy would support this (I actually think that is realistic that that could be so). 

On solutions that work, take a look at Piketty's Inheritance for All idea. A stiff inheritance tax starting on estates of over $10 million, graduated rates starting lower up to no higher than 65% top end (Piketty had an argument that top end tax rates should never be higher than 65%, I don't know his argument but he had one), this inheritance tax going not into government general revenue but pass-through to a dedicated fund which would pay out a lump sum to every citizen on their 21st birthday, the same one-time amount that year to every person who came of age that year, the amount recalibrated annually based on how much was in the fund. Something like that, I may not have remembered every detail right. 

Sure some people blow inherited money. But a majority do something productive with it. That is real equalization of opportunity. Capital. Inheritance for All. 

[Joe Bauer]

25 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Hi Greg,

I am for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome doctrines, as I think the latter makes things much worse. How do you propose that reparations will work? How much and who pays? 

As you've pointed out there white slaves/servants and if you look at history in its entirety, almost every race and culture has kept slaves. It's estimated that 12 million slaves crossed the Atlantic going west and that 18 million traveled east. It's just the ones that traveled east were castrated so they couldn't procreate. There are some academics who claim that there are more slaves in the world today than back then. If you work 10 hours per day for money that barely feeds you, doing debilitating work that reduces your life expectancy, is that not slavery? Do you think aside from the African slaves who helped build America that other groups should also receive reparations? What about anybody of native American heritage? Then let's look at the all of the countries abroad that have been exploited because of America, Britain etc, denying them a right to equality, because of economic policy. Do they deserve reparations, or because they were paid a pittance, is that ok? The point I am trying to make here is; how do you possibly begin to address this? And who pays? This is the story of human history. How do you get the point where everyone has an equal amount of capital and rebalance all of the injustices of the past? Also, do we think these El Salvadorian, Mexican or Guatemalan maids working in the houses of Democrats and Republican politicians have good self esteem, opportunities, wages, or do they feel like servants? Slaves? Did they choose that job, that life? Are past injustices responsible? 

For me, governments should have been doing all they can to raise the standard of living in impoverished areas, education, policing, recreational facilities, access to nutritious foods, opportunities etc. That should be addressed everywhere, not just in areas of ethnic minorities. Instead they've been convincing you guys that wars that make the rich richer, and a pandemic that amounted to a bad flu was the right thing to spend taxes on. All it did was pass money into the hands of the very wealthy. 

I forget who said it, but, someone notable said "slavery wasn't abolished, it was just made open to all races." Look at how much you are being taxed and where the money is going. The middle class is dissolving and merging into the poor. The window of opportunity have upward mobility is closing and you'll just end up with an elite and a poor. 

One the present trajectory, you could give the poor the same amount of capital, and within a short space of time, the elites would have robbed them of it. 

I am interested in solutions that work. 

Agree with almost all your points Chris.

I cannot articulate my observations and thoughts about the American world we live in as well as you and so many others here on the forum do. 

Hence, I read other's postulations about such things much more than I post. 

Still, when I am impassioned enough by others posting here, I will toss out some reactive blips myself now and then despite my literary skill shortcomings.

And I believe in my own rational thinking honesty, common man concern moral guide integrity and life experience wisdom just enough to trust that what I do share here is generally worthy to a fair degree.

The thing I have come to realize most about America and the lives of at least half its citizens since my birth in 1951 is how our collective common bond societal health, welfare and democratic, constitutional based government structure respect and appreciation is dependent upon our individual and family economic status.

The more Americans are under daily, monthly and yearly financial stress the more everything else in their lives ( and our society's cohesive well being ) tends to fall apart.

I haven't seen so many people in this country under this kind of stress anything  close to what we are seeing now.

Rents, food, gas, health care, health insurance costs and on and on ... are so inflated many are simply doing without these things.

Over half of this country's entire population will never be able to buy a home. Help their kids any more than themselves. Go on a simple vacation more than 100 miles from their residences. And anything and everything else we are told is the American good life.

Not to say everyone should have more than the basic necessities but even these needs are not being met ...for 10's of millions of Americans...every day...for years!

We have let our middle class and lower middle class go since the 1970's imo.

Yet, at the same time, we see our top 5% increase their 85% ownership of everything in this country to ever higher and growing levels.

And using 40% to 50% of our budget monies on our military for the last 70 years is also part of our great national middle class economic stress.                                                                                                                                                                 

IMO...when a nation allows their huge majority middle class to drop to lower middle class and even poorer standard of living levels, with never ending 24/7 financial neglect and stress ( for years ) they are begging for this old adage " a nation divided ( economically ) will not stand."

Massive unrest is ever more possible.

And half of our stressed are perversely constantly barraged with right wing radio and TV ( Fox News ) hate reporting, 24/7 nation wide.

Further dividing us. Turning us against each other.

Democrats and liberals are baby killing commie, queer and unpatriotic criminals or even demons.

How will this dangerous and ever increasing national stress ever start to resolve and reverse?

That's a question I certainly don't have an answer to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

In the best case a majority of the superwealthy would support this (I actually think that is realistic that that could be so). 

 

I respectfully disagree with that being realistic. That isn’t the way the super-wealthy think. They pay for positive publicity and make charitable donations to enhance their status and change public perception of them, not because they feel guilty or want a more equitable society. If they don’t do this, the masses turn on them. Very few of them care about the working class. You may be familiar with JD Rockefeller giving out dimes to children. 

 

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

On solutions that work, take a look at Piketty's Inheritance for All idea. A stiff inheritance tax starting on estates of over $10 million, graduated rates starting lower up to no higher than 65% top end (Piketty had an argument that top end tax rates should never be higher than 65%, I don't know his argument but he had one), this inheritance tax going not into government general revenue but pass-through to a dedicated fund which would pay out a lump sum to every citizen on their 21st birthday, the same one-time amount that year to every person who came of age that year, the amount recalibrated annually based on how much was in the fund. Something like that, I may not have remembered every detail right. 

Even if you could close all loopholes and eliminate all avenues for the super wealthy to avoid paying taxes, they’d just take their wealth with them to a country that provided more favourable terms to them. Some of these fatcats own massive businesses that employ thousands, they’d probably move their companies abroad also, and you’d lose the taxation of the employee’s and have an unemployment situation to remedy. 

 

At present, we face the reality of all wealth falling into the hands of very very few and the rest renting everything. Which actually is tantamount to a form of slavery or serfdom. This is a massive issue that needs resolving. 

[Greg Doudna]

1 minute ago, Chris Barnard said:

I respectfully disagree with that being realistic. That isn’t the way the super-wealthy think. They pay for positive publicity and make charitable donations to enhance their status and change public perception of them, not because they feel guilty or want a more equitable society. If they don’t do this, the masses turn on them. Very few of them care about the working class. You may be familiar with JD Rockefeller giving out dimes to children. 

 

Even if you could close all loopholes and eliminate all avenues for the super wealthy to avoid paying taxes, they’d just take their wealth with them to a country that provided more favourable terms to them. Some of these fatcats own massive businesses that employ thousands, they’d probably move their companies abroad also, and you’d lose the taxation of the employee’s and have an unemployment situation to remedy. 

 

At present, we face the reality of all wealth falling into the hands of very very few and the rest renting everything. Which actually is tantamount to a form of slavery or serfdom. This is a massive issue that needs resolving. 

So your assessment of Piketty's Inheritance for All argument--one of the leading and most respected economists in the world, and accompanied by serious and detailed policy argument--is that it "won't work", sight unseen, unread? Has it occurred to you that Piketty just might possibly have been aware of your kneejerk objection and substantively addressed the issue you raise?

Abolition of slavery? "Won't work". Women's suffrage? "Won't work". Civil rights legislation of the 1960's? "Won't work".

Inheritance for All? "Won't work", says Chris. 

Never mind, I'm out of this discussion.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

I cannot articulate my observations and thoughts about the American world we live in as well as you and so many others here on the forum do.

I actually think you articulate your thoughts very well. These is a purity or honestly to the way you do that. There are lots here who don’t communicate that way, they have axes to grind, which leads to the unpleasant exchanges. 

 

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

The thing I have come to realize most about America and the lives of at least half its citizens since my birth in 1951 is how our collective common bond societal health, welfare and democratic, constitutional based government structure respect and appreciation is dependent upon our individual and family economic status.

Very much so. People react instinctively in accord to what bothers them or serves them. It's the same in Britain, Brazil, etc the world over. One of the issues now is that government are not doing what they can to fix things or make peoples lives better, they are trying to stifle dissent and create more draconian laws and systems that consolidate power. Inevitably for those that recognise that, they’ll rebel of express tremendous discontent, and frown upon government. If our we judged our relationship with government like one between romantic partners, would it be a respectful one or a toxic one? I think the latter. I am not saying the past has ever been near perfect but, we seem at a stage where politicians don’t even recognise that they serve us. That’s essentially the dynamic to some degree in communism or feudalism. We should recognise that labour is paying these taxes, we should essentially be shareholders in the country we live, not subjects. 

 

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

The more Americans are under daily, monthly and yearly financial stress the more everything else in their lives ( and our society's cohesive well being ) tends to fall apart.

The tension is becoming enormous on both sides of the Atlantic. It’s very sad to see. It is exacerbated by the fact that community has been for a large part been eliminated by big tech and trends of recent decades, this is going to make people feel terribly alone and expand this mental heath epidemic that we’ve seen in recent years. Government wants us feeling alone, because without community and unity, we are isolated, which creates a greater dependency on big government. With unity we could reject decisions that were making us poorer, and we would have more leverage in public spending decisions and we could make politicians have greater accountability. I am not religious but, I recognise that if people still had church, local bars, and a strong social bond with their community, we‘d be better off and feeling less helpless. The worst thing about this is; crisis makes people think emotively, or more primitively, many abandon logical or rational thought, instead favouring to look for a parental figure (government) to solve the problems. We have multiple foxes in the government hen house. 

I am seeing thIs awful situation where citizens are choosing between heating and food. Fuel costs are destroying people and government could be doing things to solve this. Shell Oil and BP trebling profits because of war between Russia and Ukraine. Government lapping up fuel taxes. I listened to the NZ PM debating on radio, the reporter said, why don’t you cut fuel taxation? She (Arden) philibustered and deflected. The reporter pointed out that it's better for government if fuel prices are higher. The PM again avoids the question. 😕

 

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

We have let our middle class and lower middle class go since the 1970's IMO.

Because there was more money to be made using the cheapest labour abroad possible, and more growth does be achieved for the elites. They have no patriotism or care for America. This is directly at the cost of the citizens. I am not saying any country or empire can sustain wealth and economic prosperity indefinitely, but, America could have kept itself prosperous for a lot longer without these crooks asset stripping it.

There are even deeper questions; the FED knows that fractional reserve banking is unsustainable. That it must go pop at some stage. 

The system explained:

 

The long and the short of it is, in my opinion: is that they are controlling the collapse of the system that has generated tremendous wealth for the few. This collapse will be made to look like a series of unforeseeable crisis and our politicians will we swapped for some new ones who happen to have a long planned new system up their sleeves, and most people will praise them as saviours but, these politicians will be serving the same people who milked the system and created these crisis now. The cold reality will be that we’ll lose almost everything, and experience very desperate times. I know how unwelcome me it is to make comments like this, but, the only way it stops is to withdraw our consent and speak up. If we don’tc we’ll be in technocracy, embracing a world that Orwell and Huxley forewarned which is much less equitable. 

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Over half of this country's entire population will never be able to buy a home. Help their kids any more than themselves. Go on a simple vacation more than 100 miles from their residences. And anything and everything else we are told is the American good life.

Agree. That’s on the horizon. The way its going you’ll need permissions via and App so do the things which every free citizen once enjoyed.

 

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

IMO...when a nation allows their huge majority middle class to drop to lower middle class and even poorer standard of living levels, with never ending 24/7 financial neglect and stress ( for years ) they are begging for this old adage " a nation divided ( economically ) will not stand."

IMHO it doesn’t matter to these guys (elites) if the nation is reduced to states, or whether it just becomes wholly subservient. There wealth will be protected long before the very bad times. They needed a different America to rule the globe that was strong in culture, now IMHO they’ve been breaking that culture and eroding it for some time. You can’t survive as a nation without a culture. 

 

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

And half of our stressed are perversely constantly barraged with right wing radio and TV ( Fox News ) hate reporting, 24/7 nation wide.

Also remember, the same effect comes from the opposite side, they are counterparts to each other, one can't exist without the other. It's this that drives the biggest rift in the public consciousness. The British empire did this everywhere they went, they analysed the culture and sought ways to divide it as many ways as possible. How else could they hold 1/3 of the world?! They used divide and rule strategy, India is a great example. Your elites are using that internally. All of these topics that Dems and Reps argue about serve that purpose. It fragments society. If it's any consultation, it's going in in Europe everywhere too. 

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

How will this dangerous and ever increasing national stress ever start to Resolve and reverse?

I think it starts with switching off CNN, Fox and all of the others whipping up anger and hysteria. We have to detox from what us making us think irrationally or emotionally, and to build bridges. As RFK once said, we have much more in common than that which makes us different. 

[Douglas Caddy]

 

A new DOJ bombshell suggests Trump's inner circle was a meddling pit of vipers (msn.com)

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

So your assessment of Piketty's Inheritance for All argument--one of the leading and most respected economists in the world, and accompanied by serious and detailed policy argument--is that it "won't work", sight unseen, unread? Has it occurred to you that Piketty just might possibly have been aware of your kneejerk objection and substantively addressed the issue you raise?

My assessment or reply was based solely on your memory of Piketty’s idea. I can feel your frustration at my reply, I too desire a much more equitable situation for the new generations of my family, friends and the wider world. What you proposed relies on the super-wealthy being compassionate and of a different mindset. My experience tells me that those people want wealth, status and power in perpetuity. Which IMHO makes your memory of Piketty’s idea, incompatible.

 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Abolition of slavery? "Won't work". Women's suffrage? "Won't work". Civil rights legislation of the 1960's? "Won't work".

Inheritance for All? "Won't work", says Chris. 

Never mind, I'm out of this discussion.

Oh Greg. You’ve reacted emotionally and you are trying to say I said something that I didn’t. This is purely born of your frustration. I am in wholehearted agreement with you that these things need fixing with haste. I am being practical, measured and logical in my responses. It is best if you duck out of this chat if you can’t refrain from character attacks. Which is really what the first line of this quote is. It has no bearing on my position or anything I have said.

Edited May 22, 2022 by Chris Barnard
Typo

[Greg Doudna]

Chris, the topic was equality of opportunity. I emphasized that the single greatest driver of equality of opportunity is family wealth, assets, capital. Families with assets = greater opportunity. Families without assets = less opportunity. Assets--family wealth levels into which one is born--is far more important and fundamental as a driver of good outcomes--the metric to look at-- than income level, education level, or social safety net programs, important as those are. Equality before the law does not deliver equality of opportunity. Families having assets delivers equality of opportunity.

You said you were seeking solutions that work, so I cited a specific one.

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

On solutions that work, take a look at Piketty's Inheritance for All idea. A stiff inheritance tax starting on estates of over $10 million, graduated rates starting lower up to no higher than 65% top end (Piketty had an argument that top end tax rates should never be higher than 65%, I don't know his argument but he had one), this inheritance tax going not into government general revenue but pass-through to a dedicated fund which would pay out a lump sum to every citizen on their 21st birthday, the same one-time amount that year to every person who came of age that year, the amount recalibrated annually based on how much was in the fund. Something like that, I may not have remembered every detail right. 

Sure some people blow inherited money. But a majority do something productive with it. That is real equalization of opportunity. Capital. Inheritance for All. 

To which you showed no interest but riffed off a few boilerplate economic arguments why it could never work, reminding me of boilerplate economic arguments from conservatives against raising minimum wage levels on the grounds that it is not beneficial to poor people for whom they care so much about (= no interest in attempting politically to push for the specific proposal?) 

3 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Even if you could close all loopholes and eliminate all avenues for the super wealthy to avoid paying taxes, they’d just take their wealth with them to a country that provided more favourable terms to them. Some of these fatcats own massive businesses that employ thousands, they’d probably move their companies abroad also, and you’d lose the taxation of the employee’s and have an unemployment situation to remedy. 

To that you later added a second reason why the proposed change in tax policy could not work (= no interest in attempting politically to push for the specific proposal?): because the super-wealthy do not have compassion in their hearts. 

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

I too desire a much more equitable situation for the new generations of my family, friends and the wider world. What you proposed relies on the super-wealthy being compassionate and of a different mindset. My experience tells me that those people want wealth, status and power in perpetuity. Which IMHO makes your memory of Piketty’s idea, incompatible.

That's a perfect reason not to reform tax policy toward a partial redistribution of inherited wealth in the form of Inheritance for All--because at the top level some do not have compassion in their hearts! Therefore, don't attempt a tax reform that could move toward partial equalization of opportunity for children born into millions of families at the low end? Makes perfect sense!

The beauty of having just laws, courts, environmental protections, and tax policies is it doesn't matter if not everybody has compassion in their hearts. The hearts can catch up later if need be.  

Also, although it is a distinct issue (tax policy debates among economists and in Congress are not normally decided on the basis of whether a sector of society has sufficient inner compassion in their individual hearts) I am not as certain as you that at the super-rich top end it is such a lost cause as you say for all in that category. I suspect that perhaps as many as 55% of the super-wealthy do have a social conscience including where it costs some of that wealth. Warren Buffet types who support the Buffet Rule (supported by Democrats, opposed by Republicans). (Buffet Rule--that income taxation percentage rates shall be no higher--legal linkage--on people who work for it [wages and salaries] than on people who gain money without working for it [passive investments].)

Ralph Nader--who except for his giant blunder of running third-party for president, otherwise is one of the great American engaged citizens of all time--wrote a book which basically made the serious argument that the state of the world is so far gone that only the super-rich can save us now. He made a direct appeal to individuals with great wealth in the world to save the world (with concrete specifics of what he was talking about, not bromides).

Its why in my book Bill Gates is one of the good ones on earth, no matter what all the whackadoos on the internet (and a few serious criticisms too) say. That isn't giving dimes to children for public image. 

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Chris, the topic was equality of opportunity. I emphasized that the single greatest driver of equality of opportunity is family wealth, assets, capital. Families with assets = greater opportunity. Families without assets = less opportunity. Assets--family wealth levels into which one is born--is far more important and fundamental as a driver of good outcomes--the metric to look at-- than income level, education level, or social safety net programs, important as those are. Equality before the law does not deliver equality of opportunity. Families having assets delivers equality of opportunity.

You said you were seeking solutions that work, so I cited a specific one.

To which you showed no interest but riffed off a few boilerplate economic arguments why it could never work, reminding me of boilerplate economic arguments from conservatives against raising minimum wage levels on the grounds that it is not beneficial to poor people for whom they care so much about (= no interest in attempting politically to push for the specific proposal?) 

To that you later added a second reason why the proposed change in tax policy could not work (= no interest in attempting politically to push for the specific proposal?): because the super-wealthy do not have compassion in their hearts. 

That's a perfect reason not to reform tax policy toward a partial redistribution of inherited wealth in the form of Inheritance for All--because at the top level some do not have compassion in their hearts! Therefore, don't attempt a tax reform that could move toward partial equalization of opportunity for children born into millions of families at the low end? Makes perfect sense!

The beauty of having just laws, courts, environmental protections, and tax policies is it doesn't matter if not everybody has compassion in their hearts. The hearts can catch up later if need be.  

Also, although it is a distinct issue (tax policy debates among economists and in Congress are not normally decided on the basis of whether a sector of society has sufficient inner compassion in their individual hearts) I am not as certain as you that at the super-rich top end it is such a lost cause as you say for all in that category. I suspect that perhaps as many as 55% of the super-wealthy do have a social conscience including where it costs some of that wealth. Warren Buffet types who support the Buffet Rule (supported by Democrats, opposed by Republicans). (Buffet Rule--that income taxation percentage rates shall be no higher--legal linkage--on people who work for it [wages and salaries] than on people who gain money without working for it [passive investments].)

Ralph Nader--who except for his giant blunder of running third-party for president, otherwise is one of the great American engaged citizens of all time--wrote a book which basically made the serious argument that the state of the world is so far gone that only the super-rich can save us now. He made a direct appeal to individuals with great wealth in the world to save the world (with concrete specifics of what he was talking about, not bromides).

Its why in my book Bill Gates is one of the good ones on earth, no matter what all the whackadoos on the internet (and a few serious criticisms too) say. That isn't giving dimes to children for public image. 

I'll just cut to the point here. 

- We both want equality of opportunity. 
- You advocated reparations. 
- I asked how they would work, ie how much, who would pay. 
- You quoted a memory of some economists proposal. 
- I explained why that wouldn't work. 
- You became emotional because I didn't agree that a policy you quoted from memory could work, even though I was polite.
- You mentioned abolition, the suffragettes, civil rights legislation, and me in the same sentence with rejecting your proposal from your memory. You mentioned them because you couldn't effectively argue your point on how reparations would work. 

You added no real value in your last post. Though, I do feel I understand you better after the Bill Gates comment, so thank you, Greg. 

 

[Steve Thomas]

'Power without principle': Elise Stefanik slammed by college mentor who encouraged her congressional run

by Tom Boggioni May 22, 2022

https://www.rawstory.com/elise-stefanik-2657368906/

“Then along came Trump and everything changed, with the WaPo's Milbank writing, "Ambitious Republican official abandons principle to advance in Trump’s GOP. But perhaps nobody’s fall from promise, and integrity, has been as spectacular as the 37-year-old Stefanik’s."

According to her old college mentor, "I was just so shocked she would go down such a dark path. No power, no position is worth the complete loss of your integrity. It was just completely alarming to me to watch this transformation. I got a lot of notes saying, ‘What happened to her?’ ”

Everything that Donald Trump touches, dies.

Steve Thomas

[Greg Doudna]

14 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I'll just cut to the point here. 

- We both want equality of opportunity. 
- You advocated reparations. 
- I asked how they would work, ie how much, who would pay. 
- You quoted a memory of some economists proposal. 
- I explained why that wouldn't work. 

No I didn't. I quoted Thomas Piketty's Inheritance for All as a distinct proposal, not an explanation of how reparations would work. 

Piketty's Inheritance for All has nothing to do with reparations. 

The "solutions that work" was in response to you speaking of wanting solutions that work toward resolving wealth inequality (as I understood you). 

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I believe MLK's vision was in the name of reparations and formal apology, a massive redistribution of wealth to all poor in America (non-race-based or even proof of ancestry or descent from a slave based). It would be like acknowledging a crime, and then as a memorial to the victims (who are dead and cannot be repaid) a hospital is set up dedicated to those crime victims, to help others today. That principle. So it would do an endrun around all the divisiveness of race and would heal poor whites vs. poor blacks divide. In the best case a majority of the superwealthy would support this (I actually think that is realistic that that could be so). 

On solutions that work, take a look at Piketty's Inheritance for All idea. A stiff inheritance tax starting on estates of over $10 million, graduated rates starting lower up to no higher than 65% top end (Piketty had an argument that top end tax rates should never be higher than 65%, I don't know his argument but he had one), this inheritance tax going not into government general revenue but pass-through to a dedicated fund which would pay out a lump sum to every citizen on their 21st birthday, the same one-time amount that year to every person who came of age that year, the amount recalibrated annually based on how much was in the fund. Something like that, I may not have remembered every detail right. 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Greg Doudna said:

No I didn't. I quoted Thomas Piketty's Inheritance for All as a distinct proposal, not an explanation of how reparations would work. 

Piketty's Inheritance for All has nothing to do with reparations. 

The "solutions that work" was in response to you speaking of wanting solutions that work toward resolving wealth inequality (as I understood you). 

 

Ok, so pretty much the same thing, Greg. I said they wouldn't work and you became emotional, took exception. I don't think the idea you suggested from your memory of Piketty would work, for reasons explained earlier. Cool. 

[James DiEugenio]

10 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

 

Sen. Mitt Romney suggests 'NATO could engage' in Ukraine, 'potentially obliterating Russia's struggling military' if Putin used nuclear weapons (msn.com)

This is truly nutty.  In a sideways manner it encourages direct American involvement.  

I for one am sick and tired of this sickening doctrine of Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.

JFK: Let us never negotiate out of fear but let us never fear to negotiate. 

Why has the military option so often become the ONLY option.

 

Edited May 22, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Douglas Caddy]

 

Editorial: Day could come when Supreme Court rulings openly defied (msn.com)