Time to Talk About the Buffett Rule

[Yossarian]

??
loosechickens just provided the link with all kinds of specifics. Is there any you care to refute?

No one disputes that there are disparities in income, which is all that link shows, so it doesn't really address anything at issue.

[Lainey]

No one disputes that there are disparities in income, which is all that link shows, so it doesn't really address anything at issue.

It shows much more than that - namely, that borrowing money to give tax cuts to the wealthy does not - repeat, does not - provide job growth in the U.S.
So, it's not about how much "effort" one is willing to put in, it's about these economic myths that continue their zombie-like existence.

[bae]

??
loosechickens just provided the link with all kinds of specifics. Is there any you care to refute?

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." - Bertrand Russell

[peggy]

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." - Bertrand Russell

And your quote about the existence, or non existence of god has what context in this discussion? That quote is about the dogma of belief in a god, or other invisible, imagined deity.

[peggy]

When I see folks repeatedly falling into the use of thought-terminating cliches, refusing to address refuting information, refusing to provide specifics, relying on handpicked examples and nonrepeatable experiments, being unwilling to test, and using all the other shop-worn techniques of distraction and avoidance, I know I am dealing with people who have been inculcated with a belief system, and factual honest open discourse is of no further use.

"And I usually use myself as a model, posing in front of a mirror as I dab the strokes on the canvas."
Cleo Moore

[txgran]

I'm honestly sick of this whole subject. And, no, I'm not going to spend hours Googling to buttress what I've said here. Most of us know it is true, because we feel it in our lives, and those whose ideological views are more in the dog eat dog view will always have wonderful talking points to muddy the waters. But the truth is that a LOT has changed in this country in the past thirty years, really since conservatives have gained power, from Reagan, on. And most of the actual growth in wealth and income during those years has gone to the very richest of the rich, who are the people who pull the conservative strings, despite the fact that a number who follow them don't really realize that, or somehow think that someday they are going to join them.

I give you this. It's an excellent picture of how, factually, the middle class is being hollowed out by these conservative ideas, that have been kicking around and gaining traction in recent decades. And, then, I'm off.......because real life is out here being wasted while I'm in here hitting my head against a proverbial brick wall. Those who might actually be interested in understanding what has happened in this country in recent decades, can click here. Those of you who believe wholeheartedly in that "free market", "cream rises" world, keep on keeping on, I guess.

http://currydemocrats.org/american_pie.html

ahh...........facts, the chart pretty well says it all.

[Gregg]

If anyone knows of an example in history where a society was rejuvenated through forceful capture of the assets of the wealthy and a subsequent redistribution to the 'lower classes' please let us know. I don't believe there are any. The attempt ultimately fails every single time. Or the society does.

It absolutely amazes me that the entire Democratic position appears to be based on the "fact" that wealth is a zero sum game. It's not. Wealth CAN be created. Do the top few percent control a big share of the pie? Yes, obviously they do. Did they get it by taking it out of the pockets of the middle class. No. It's wealth that the middle class (or anyone else) never had because it was created. If you want to effect some good for the middle class through policy it needs to be in a way that will cause the assets held by that class to increase in value. Housing, for example. That's where the middle class holds their wealth and it is a declining value asset. As long as that is the case we can not reverse the course, except at gunpoint, of course.

When the economy is slow and inflation is low, or worse, when we experience deflation of a prime asset class, alot of the gains in wealth become relative (as shown in all of LC's charts). If my neighbor and I start out with exactly the same net worth, but I rent and he owns his house and that house decreases in value then I have advanced to where I have a bigger share of the American pie, but I didn't necessarily gain anything. If you want to show dramatic changes in all of the charts in LC's post just kick inflation up to 7% or so for a few years. The very small billionaire class will still gain the most in terms of absolute dollars if you do that, but a gigantic shift will take place on the pie chart when the largest asset held by hundreds of millions of middle class homeowners starts jumping in value. The math works like this...

If every single one of the 403 billionaires in the US (according to Forbes) all make huge gains and increased their wealth by a full $1 billion that is an increase in wealth of $403 billion.

If 150 million homeowners all experience an average increase in the value of their home of $25,000 that would be an increase in wealth of $3.75 trillion.

In this example almost 90% of the increase in wealth would go to homeowners and the majority whom are in the middle class. That would be a healthy redistribution of wealth, it would radically change all those pretty pie charts and Congress wouldn't even have to pull a gun.

[creaker]

We have a lot of examples in the world where little redistribution of wealth takes place - I think that as a country we're just moving more toward these models. We've had a long trend where global differentials in labor and productions costs have been used to turn profits, eventually those differences will equalize. Whether that's a good thing or not I guess would depend on where you're standing.

[Yossarian]

We've had a long trend where global differentials in labor and productions costs have been used to turn profits, eventually those differences will equalize.

.

True that, and when you combine it with the rise of the tech/information economy it is not hard to see what the impact is. The Google guys didn't take money from the steelworkers, and that shift in wealth isn't attributable to tax rates. However if we suppress the upside of the economic trends all we have left is the downside.

[Lainey]

.

... The Google guys didn't take money from the steelworkers ... .

No, but Bain Capital did: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2012-...-bain-capital/

Best article I've read yet summarizing the wealth-destruction by Bain Capital.