to wuf: faultlines and the rich, obama's failings

[bikes]

Hi I'm wufwugy.

back to the commune hippy.

[Sasquach991]

IMO,

(1) The rich are rich because they keep doing the things that made them rich.
(2) The poor are poor because they keep doing the things that made them poor.

When you increase taxes on the rich and give it to the poor, the rich will continue to do (1) and the poor will continue to do (2).

The rich will stop spending and increase prices on goods and services to make up for higher taxes.

The poor will complain about high prices but still spend on the higher prices goods and services once again making them poor.

Repeat steps (1) and (2)

When a poor person wins the lottery do they stay rich or become poor again?

If rake was 1% at 10NL and 70% at 500NL would anyone play 500NL?

[a500lbgorilla]

IMO,

(1) The rich are rich because they keep doing the things that made them rich.
(2) The poor are poor because they keep doing the things that made them poor.

I believe these assumptions to be highly fallacious.

If I were from poorer origins, I would tend to find myself worse off. If I were from wealthier origins, I would tend to find myself much better off. If I happened to contract an expensive illness without insurance, I would very likely find myself perpetually broke. If I were to inherit a large sum of money tomorrow, I would very likely manage to maintain and enhance that wealth.

The difference between rich people and poor people is in bank account alone, not something innate in the process of the people.

[a500lbgorilla]

Well, you made me think I may have been talking out of my ass.

The difference between rich people and poor people is in bank account alone, not something innate in the process of the people.

This statement is very close to being empty or untrue.

There is no "the difference" and I think balancing it on the word innate keeps its meaning. But there are still very certainly poor people in India/Mexico/China who would do very well in America and poor people in those same countries who would do very poorly. I think it may have to do with how a person could look around to his poor family and neighbors and be motivated to want more whereas the same person could look to his declining middle classed friends and family and not be motivated to work harder than the previous generation for seemingly less.

I would amend it to say: Of the many differences between rich people and poor people, very few to almost none are innate, and many relate to matters of circumstance.

[Lukie]

I believe these assumptions to be highly fallacious.

If I were from poorer origins, I would tend to find myself worse off. If I were from wealthier origins, I would tend to find myself much better off. If I happened to contract an expensive illness without insurance, I would very likely find myself perpetually broke. If I were to inherit a large sum of money tomorrow, I would very likely manage to maintain and enhance that wealth.

The difference between rich people and poor people is in bank account alone, not something innate in the process of the people.

I don't agree. Good examples: look into the rates of bankruptcy and/or brokeness among lottery winners and former (ahem, and current) professional athletes. It is staggering.

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't agree. Good examples: look into the rates of bankruptcy and/or brokeness among lottery winners and former (ahem, and current) professional athletes. It is staggering.

I tried to address this a bit. But instead, I'll ask this: what is an innate difference between the rich and the poor?

That there seems to be one evidenced in lotto winners and rich athletes does not mean there necessarily is one, just that there seems to be one.

[Lukie]

I tried to address this a bit. But instead, I'll ask this: what is an innate difference between the rich and the poor?

That there seems to be one evidenced in lotto winners and rich athletes does not mean there necessarily is one, just that there seems to be one.

I think your points earlier about some in other countries really not having a realistic chance of becoming rich are pretty spot on. e.g. one couldn't convince me that a starving kid in Africa has much of a chance

As it relates to those who have access to a computer, the internet, enough time to surf FTR, and literary ability to read this message there isn't a comparable excuse.

Among the rich that I know (friends and acquintances) there is a certain amount of drive, responsibility, and refusal to fail in all of them that I would not expect to see among the typical poor person.

[CoccoBill]

Among the rich that I know (friends and acquintances) there is a certain amount of drive, responsibility, and refusal to fail in all of them that I would not expect to see among the typical poor person.

Out of curiosity, how many poor people do you know closely?

[a500lbgorilla]

I think your points earlier about some in other countries really not having a realistic chance of becoming rich are pretty spot on. e.g. one couldn't convince me that a starving kid in Africa has much of a chance

As it relates to those who have access to a computer, the internet, enough time to surf FTR, and literary ability to read this message there isn't a comparable excuse.

Among the rich that I know (friends and acquintances) there is a certain amount of drive, responsibility, and refusal to fail in all of them that I would not expect to see among the typical poor person.

This all sounds spot on. I guess I just see drive and responsibility as attributes of circumstance and not innate. I believe that you could take the same person and have him put up in two different environments and see him turn out to be two different people: one driven, hungry, with an intuition that is honed to the problems at hand, and one that turns out more or less worthless by comparison. But both are still innately the same person.

That is to say that your life could have developed in such a way that you would possess an entirely different skill set than you do today but still be entirely the same person. In a sense, in a parallel universe there may exist a fat, nerd Lukie who is entirely driven to develop the mathematical understanding of a world of entirely imperfect shapes and patterns which arise from simple and regular events on a tiny scale but fails because of legal intervention into his life's pursuits. And there could exist another Lukie still, essentially the same, who slipped into a bit of a meth habit.

This all builds upon a central belief of mine: that we're all 100 fold more similar than we are different. There don't exist supermen - just normal men who seemingly manage to accomplish things on a super scale.

So the rich don't strike me as special, though every bit of their life story could show how they had a deep desire and ability which lead to accumulated wealth, nothing that went into building them was destined for greatness. Just as the poor don't strike me as worthless, though every bit of their life story could show how little they endeavored to succeed and how often they seemingly chose to fail.

[wufwugy]

I don't agree. Good examples: look into the rates of bankruptcy and/or brokeness among lottery winners and former (ahem, and current) professional athletes. It is staggering.

That doesn't actually tell us anything because it doesn't isolate much. Besides, it's an effect that should be predicted if rilla's assertion was right because it would demonstrate a lot of rich people not being rich based in merit. And what about all those hard workers who are financially astute, yet not rich

The best idea we have about the difference between rich and poor is circumstance. This is why we see structural problems of things like blacks on average being substantially poorer than white people. Is Bill Gates a harder worker and smarter than many millions of his peers? No. Was he one of the only people on the planet who had personal access to a computer at the time based on circumstance, then with a little bit of innate human creativity and work, he sparked a wildfire? Yes

[Lukie]

That doesn't actually tell us anything because it doesn't isolate much. Besides, it's an effect that should be predicted if rilla's assertion was right because it would demonstrate a lot of rich people not being rich based in merit. And what about all those hard workers who are financially astute, yet not rich

I proposed that in a direct response to rilla's quote that the only difference between rich and the poor is in the bank account. Which, actually, in a roundabout way with a strict definition might actually be right

The best idea we have about the difference between rich and poor is circumstance. This is why we see structural problems of things like blacks on average being substantially poorer than white people. Is Bill Gates a harder worker and smarter than many millions of his peers? No. Was he one of the only people on the planet who had personal access to a computer at the time based on circumstance, then with a little bit of innate human creativity and work, he sparked a wildfire? Yes

Yet another thing I talked about in another thread about how not everything is black and white and there are varying shades of gray. You seem to think that circumstance is the most important thing; I realize it's a factor just less so than you do. Such is life.

[wufwugy]

I proposed that in a direct response to rilla's quote that the only difference between rich and the poor is in the bank account. Which, actually, in a roundabout way with a strict definition might actually be right


Yet another thing I talked about in another thread about how not everything is black and white and there are varying shades of gray. You seem to think that circumstance is the most important thing; I realize it's a factor just less so than you do. Such is life.

You are right that I think circumstance is the most important thing. It's what I see in any area whenever I look. One example is evolution being almost entirely about environment. Biologically, nothing about who we are wasn't borne of circumstance. It's a difficult thing to reconcile with other things like ego, though, because even things that seem non-circumstantial still are. Like one person being smarter or more driven is still best explained by that person's circumstances. The way I look at it is that when you're living your own life, you have to treat things as if they're not circumstantial and there is no determinism, but when developing macro models for things like society, you have to account for circumstantial selection, so to speak

[a500lbgorilla]

I proposed that in a direct response to rilla's quote that the only difference between rich and the poor is in the bank account. Which, actually, in a roundabout way with a strict definition might actually be right

[a500lbgorilla]

When a poor person wins the lottery do they stay rich or become poor again?

If rake was 1% at 10NL and 70% at 500NL would anyone play 500NL?

These are neat questions. The first question supposes someone who probably is not prepared to have money. In that that person probably has no analogue for what someone successful would do with money, and no network of people he can trust to give him the information he needs to not be preyed upon.

So a poor person would probably have a tough time maintaining or enhancing his wealth due to many pitfalls and weaknesses in how he'll naturally approach his wealth.

The second is cool because the obvious answer is no, every player will aim to maximize his winrate/wintotal, so no one would ever play in the theoretical 500NL game with 70% rake. Hell, they'll probably hit a limit and quit playing poker all together looking elsewhere for better opportunities.

I think both questions are rhetorical and the best answer is, "the questions are inherently meaningless."

[wufwugy]

The rich will stop spending and increase prices on goods and services to make up for higher taxes.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't have a detrimental effect on the economy because of turnaround spending with tax dollars. But also, that's not a worry because the idea of taxing the rich more than the poor is borne of hoarding practices that come around when people are effectively too rich

Penney, would be nice to get an actual rebuttal

[Sasquach991]

Even if that were true, it wouldn't have a detrimental effect on the economy because of turnaround spending with tax dollars. But also, that's not a worry because the idea of taxing the rich more than the poor is borne of hoarding practices that come around when people are effectively too rich

Penney, would be nice to get an actual rebuttal

It would be nice to get an actual rebuttal. Tell me why it's not true.

Turnaround spending? Explain. I'm no economics expert and really don't care to be.

Hoarding practices? So people who are in a 50% tax bracket should not try to find ways to pay less taxes.

@a500lbgorilla I like the self debate. Keep it going

[a500lbgorilla]

@a500lbgorilla I like the self debate. Keep it going

I could use your help :P

[wufwugy]

It would be nice to get an actual rebuttal. Tell me why it's not true.

Higher taxes on the wealthy doesn't curb their spending and investment because it's meant to address the hoarding issue. We're not interested in cutting into their cyclical consumption or investment. That's why one of the caveats of progressive taxation is that investment can lower your bracket. This is one reason why high taxes on the rich work so well, because it promotes investment instead of hoarding. Currently, our paradigm is the opposite. Soooooo much money has been hoarded, that the richies say they're waiting to use it on good investments, but they don't realize (or more like don't care) that it's because of all that hoarding that the consumption cycle is disrupted and those investments opportunities are not arising

Turnaround spending? Explain. I'm no economics expert and really don't care to be.

Taxes don't just disappear. In fact, they're the highest economic multipliers. It's only when the wealthy are taxed so little that they have so much money they use to corrupt governments that tax dollars are secretly returned to the rich that tax dollars lose their big multipliers. The US government is the largest employer of a middle class than any institution on the planet, and many of what tax dollars pay for are things that greed would like to do away with, but would have egregiously detrimental effects on the masses.

Also, all tax dollars are spent, but not all tax cuts are. If you reduce taxes, you can expect only a fraction on the dollar to return to the economy, but when increase spending by the exact same amount instead of cutting taxes you get the entire sum returning to the economy

Hoarding practices? So people who are in a 50% tax bracket should not try to find ways to pay less taxes.

They should, but nobody in the US is in that bracket (except possibly some measure of poor people when you combine all taxes). Look at it this way, if taxation is progressive and people are paying the top rate, imagine how bad it would have been if that top rate was low because the only reason they're in the top rate is because they have soooo much money that they're not recycling it, and thus the aggregate economy suffers.

All us normies do cyclical consumption. That's what economies are based in. But the rich don't want to do their part in cyclical consumption. Why should you and I be structurally determined to recycle 100% of our wealth through the economy, yet richies should only be structurally required to do a fraction of that?

[Sasquach991]

Higher taxes on the wealthy doesn't curb their spending and investment because it's meant to address the hoarding issue. We're not interested in cutting into their cyclical consumption or investment. That's why one of the caveats of progressive taxation is that investment can lower your bracket. This is one reason why high taxes on the rich work so well, because it promotes investment instead of hoarding. Currently, our paradigm is the opposite. Soooooo much money has been hoarded, that the richies say they're waiting to use it on good investments, but they don't realize (or more like don't care) that it's because of all that hoarding that the consumption cycle is disrupted and those investments opportunities are not arising

So if the rich don't invest in a bad economy then you raise their taxes to try to force them to invest so they will be in a lower bracket. What if they decide to cut costs by laying off employees, or reduce income by closing stores? It's their choice but they get targeted by the guvmint with all the blame.

Taxes don't just disappear. In fact, they're the highest economic multipliers. It's only when the wealthy are taxed so little that they have so much money they use to corrupt governments that tax dollars are secretly returned to the rich that tax dollars lose their big multipliers. The US government is the largest employer of a middle class than any institution on the planet, and many of what tax dollars pay for are things that greed would like to do away with, but would have egregiously detrimental effects on the masses.

Greed? When someone will not do with THEIR money what you want them to do then they are greedy? No sale there.

Also, all tax dollars are spent, but not all tax cuts are. If you reduce taxes, you can expect only a fraction on the dollar to return to the economy, but when increase spending by the exact same amount instead of cutting taxes you get the entire sum returning to the economy.

Of course all tax dollars are spent. It's not their money. It's easy not to be greedy with other people's money. If you lower taxes on the rich will they be more or less likely to hoard?

They should, but nobody in the US is in that bracket (except possibly some measure of poor people when you combine all taxes). Look at it this way, if taxation is progressive and people are paying the top rate, imagine how bad it would have been if that top rate was low because the only reason they're in the top rate is because they have soooo much money that they're not recycling it, and thus the aggregate economy suffers.

All us normies do cyclical consumption. That's what economies are based in. But the rich don't want to do their part in cyclical consumption. Why should you and I be structurally determined to recycle 100% of our wealth through the economy, yet richies should only be structurally required to do a fraction of that?

Seems a bit greedy to try to tell other people to do with their money regardless of how much they have.

How about this?
I don't think anybody should be able to withdraw any of their poker BR. It stays online where other people have the chance to win it. When you withdraw it to buy a townhouse or a BMW 3 series 335i coupe, you are being greedy (not aimed at you M2M ). When you get to 5000NL you should be required to use 40% of your BR to stake microstakes players so they have a chance to be successful at poker too (not aimed at you Keith ). They didn't earn it but it's fair. If you do not stake the micro players then the amount of rake that only you pay increases by 20%. You don't agree with this thhen you are greedy?

Bill gates worked a "little bit"? Really?

[Lukie]

@jack

Thanks for posting that again. I understand well the concept of decreasing marginal utility. And while I don't agree that a 90% top tax is anything evening approaching fair or ideal, a 90% tax above $1,000,000 is far different than wuf's proposition of a 100% tax above $250,000.

Beyond that though I think there is a fundamental and philosophical difference of opinion here that no amount of debate will change.

[wufwugy]

So if the rich don't invest in a bad economy then you raise their taxes to try to force them to invest so they will be in a lower bracket.

The economy is bad because they have too much of its money. At every given point we're dealing with finite wealth in an economy, and since the economy churns only on cyclical consumption, when there is lack of demand it's because there's too much wealth stuffed away in pockets of the system not contributing. The rich are currently richer than they have ever been. That is why the economy is so shitty. They are holding onto the very wealth that is needed to run the economy via cyclical consumption

What if they decide to cut costs by laying off employees, or reduce income by closing stores?

Then they would be terrible businessmen. But the the evidence has shown that when the rich have a smaller portion of the pie, businesses actually thrive due to more customers spending more money.

Greed? When someone will not do with THEIR money what you want them to do then they are greedy? No sale there.

Be sure to not impose things like morality onto economics. Economics is a mathematical and behavioral system. Moral ideas like ownership are afterthoughts and facets of the system. I mean, I guess you could claim moral ideas are paramount, but don't pretend you're referring to economics then. The fact is that if you want to run an economy, you have to run an economy

Also, the greed I was referring to was the stuff that makes the corruption and bribery

Of course all tax dollars are spent. It's not their money. It's easy not to be greedy with other people's money. If you lower taxes on the rich will they be more or less likely to hoard?

They have and will be more likely to hoard. We've been running the same dysfunctional "give the rich more" econ strategy for four decades now. And things have only gotten worse for everybody else. Much worse, in fact.

Seems a bit greedy to try to tell other people to do with their money regardless of how much they have.

Well that's not what greed is. Such irony in being able to claim trying to stamp greed in exchange for fairness as itself greed

Bill gates worked a "little bit"? Really?

He most certainly never worked harder than my father. Or my brother-in-law. Or me. Or most normal people