Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Report: 74% of Billionaire Wealth from Rent-Seeking
Topic Started: Apr 5 2016, 07:41 PM (1,317 Views)
Gizmolove
Member Avatar
Gizmolove
estonianman
Apr 6 2016, 12:46 AM
Gore Vidal
Apr 5 2016, 11:15 PM
nNeo
Apr 5 2016, 11:10 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
^ An actual, free-thinking libertarian, and not an Ayn-Randist/Rothbardian idealogue. :)

Greg .. projection.

Be careful that Wilmywood doesn't hear you say that.
When it comes to lying, cheating, or stealing, consult your DNC or GOP handbook.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Attaburnsinhell

Gizmolove
Apr 6 2016, 01:19 AM
estonianman
Apr 6 2016, 12:41 AM
nNeo
Apr 5 2016, 11:10 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
So, government is the answer.

Sorry for your loss.
So yes. When the only purpose for your wealth is to grow more wealth at society's expense; then yes. That's the time for government to step in 'to provide for the common good', and to 'promote the general welfare'.

You can look it up in the American Constitution.
Libertarians are at their core money misers. They're tight fisted skin flints who consider any form of taxation to be ''stealing'' by government, so in they're minds if one eliminates government they get to keep all their money. They also like to babble on about the constitution, and how they're such ''originallists. Nevermind the fact that constitutionally it's the original obligation of government to raise taxes in order to promote the general welfare. It's a pathology with them
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harambe4Trump
Member Avatar

Gore Vidal
Apr 5 2016, 07:41 PM
A new report by Dider Jacobs at the Center for Popular Economics offers a breathtaking estimate of how the rich have gotten richer in recent years. According to Jacobs’analysis, 74% of billionaire wealth in America was gained through rent-seeking, or socially useless activity.

There has always been a tension between America’s meritocratic mythology and the blatant evidence of a thoroughly rigged economy. After the 2008 financial crisis where bankers brought the economy to its knees through reckless and criminal behavior only to end up richer after a taxpayer funded bailout, the contradictions between the myth and the reality became harder to ignore.

Even mainstream establishment publications like The New Yorker started asking, “What Good Is Wall Street?” Why is a sector of the economy that creates nothing running the real economy and taking home such a large portion of national income?

What Jacobs reveals is that most of the wealth that has propelled people into the top 1% and beyond was gained not through the creation economic benefit, but through rent-seeking. Economic rents are obtained when someone is able to extract wealth or excessive returns despite no additional contribution to productivity, or what could be called socially useless activity.


Jacobs then identifies the industries in which rent-seeking is most significant: those heavily reliant on the state, like oil, gas and mining, gambling, or forestry, and industries that involve a lot of imperfect information and market failures, like finance, IT, and the music and fashion industry.




https://shadowproof.com/2016/03/27/report-74-of-billionaire-wealth-from-rent-seeking/
How are oil, forestry, IT, or even finance rent-seeking? You drive in cars, fly in planes and sit on wooden chairs, don't you?
Skipping leg day is the equivalent of a woman having an abortion. You're ashamed of it, and it was probably unnecessary.
#MAGA
#wallsnotwars
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Adolph Hipster
Apr 6 2016, 01:01 AM
estonianman
Apr 6 2016, 12:47 AM
Adolph Hipster
Apr 6 2016, 12:45 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
neo is off the deep end.

We'll see how he responds.
Nneo is one of the more grounded souls I know

Your trip is that you have a rather simplistic way of looking at things

Either one is a full on free market Austrian Minarchist..or one is Kim Jong-un

And thus..you take offense to anyone pointing out the many shades between these ends of the spectrum.
Nneo is grounded, which is why I am surprised he made this comment. Now I learn he is 50+ years old, sad.

Giz is a moron - so I am not surprised there.

You are a troll, but so am I. I understand your plight.

Trickle down is a myth started by leftists hating Reagan - whom they should have loved due to his propensity to expand government and his love of high taxes, after 1983 of course. You know with all the erections Keynesians have for false heroes in the economy, one FED chairmen really pulled through - Volckner. But that is for another time.

and let's be clear, the only trickling down that has been occurring for the last 5 decades has been the wealth of the citizens trickling down to the coffers of the State. That's attanomics for you - which is why the west is in such dire straights.

tl;dr anyone that has their head on straight understands that "trickle-down" is bullshit. Truth is the rich have moved their money to more capital; friendly environments, to avoid the massive transfer payments to DC.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Attaburnsinhell
Apr 6 2016, 05:37 AM
Gizmolove
Apr 6 2016, 01:19 AM
estonianman
Apr 6 2016, 12:41 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
So yes. When the only purpose for your wealth is to grow more wealth at society's expense; then yes. That's the time for government to step in 'to provide for the common good', and to 'promote the general welfare'.

You can look it up in the American Constitution.
Libertarians are at their core money misers. They're tight fisted skin flints who consider any form of taxation to be ''stealing'' by government, so in they're minds if one eliminates government they get to keep all their money. They also like to babble on about the constitution, and how they're such ''originallists. Nevermind the fact that constitutionally it's the original obligation of government to raise taxes in order to promote the general welfare. It's a pathology with them
I'll explain your entire existence in a nutshell.

"Trickle-down economics" is a made-up pejorative term used to describe certain ideas and policies by people who don't care to actually understand them.
Edited by estonianman, Apr 6 2016, 08:57 AM.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Gore Vidal
Apr 6 2016, 12:58 AM
Adolph Hipster
Apr 6 2016, 12:45 AM
estonianman
Apr 6 2016, 12:41 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Man you make a lot of ASSumptions...Just because someone doesn't prescribe to your Austrian woo woo doesn't mean that they think "gubmint" is the panacea for everything
More like Austrian voodoo.


Actually, that's a disservice to real voodoo. At least real voodoo doesn't hinder anyone other than its own practitioners.
The real voodoo is "trickle down". Pro-tip: Reagan passed some of the largest tax increases in US history.

People are catching on to Attanomics, so the goal for politicians is to pretend it doesn't exist to they can to continue to expand it.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jake58

... and yet no one points out the biggest rent seeker going... 40+% of GDP and counting
That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Gizmolove
Apr 6 2016, 01:21 AM
estonianman
Apr 6 2016, 12:46 AM
Gore Vidal
Apr 5 2016, 11:15 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Greg .. projection.

Be careful that Wilmywood doesn't hear you say that.
Using a member's real first or last name will be disallowed in the new rules, whether they have let the cat out of the bag in the past or not. Just a kind advisement.

Quote Post Goto Top
 
Attaburnsinhell

estonianman
Apr 6 2016, 08:57 AM
Attaburnsinhell
Apr 6 2016, 05:37 AM
Gizmolove
Apr 6 2016, 01:19 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Libertarians are at their core money misers. They're tight fisted skin flints who consider any form of taxation to be ''stealing'' by government, so in they're minds if one eliminates government they get to keep all their money. They also like to babble on about the constitution, and how they're such ''originallists. Nevermind the fact that constitutionally it's the original obligation of government to raise taxes in order to promote the general welfare. It's a pathology with them
I'll explain your entire existence in a nutshell.

"Trickle-down economics" is a made-up pejorative term used to describe certain ideas and policies by people who don't care to actually understand them.
Trickle down economics is an accurate descriptive term for the con job conservatives pulled with their small government scam. The idea was that if you gave large tax cuts to the wealthy, they would turn around and invest that extra cash in American jobs. Never happened, they took that cash and kept it for themselves, pouring most of it in the stock market, or moved their companies overseas.

The final shakeout was trickle up economis-all the wealth of the middle class went to the wealthy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Attaburnsinhell
Apr 6 2016, 09:10 AM
estonianman
Apr 6 2016, 08:57 AM
Attaburnsinhell
Apr 6 2016, 05:37 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I'll explain your entire existence in a nutshell.

"Trickle-down economics" is a made-up pejorative term used to describe certain ideas and policies by people who don't care to actually understand them.
Trickle down economics is an accurate descriptive term for the con job conservatives pulled with their small government scam. The idea was that if you gave large tax cuts to the wealthy, they would turn around and invest that extra cash in American jobs. Never happened, they took that cash and kept it for themselves, pouring most of it in the stock market, or moved their companies overseas.

The final shakeout was trickle up economis-all the wealth of the middle class went to the wealthy
"Trickle down" has never existed outside of populist rhetoric, bailouts and subsidies.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Attaburnsinhell

estonianman
Apr 6 2016, 09:13 AM
Attaburnsinhell
Apr 6 2016, 09:10 AM
estonianman
Apr 6 2016, 08:57 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Trickle down economics is an accurate descriptive term for the con job conservatives pulled with their small government scam. The idea was that if you gave large tax cuts to the wealthy, they would turn around and invest that extra cash in American jobs. Never happened, they took that cash and kept it for themselves, pouring most of it in the stock market, or moved their companies overseas.

The final shakeout was trickle up economis-all the wealth of the middle class went to the wealthy
"Trickle down" has never existed outside of populist rhetoric, bailouts and subsidies.
How would you know, you live inside your libertarian bubble
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

estonianman
Apr 6 2016, 12:41 AM
So, government is the answer.

How in the world did you get from what I wrote to that?

Not even close.
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

There may be a member or two who doesn't understand the economic term of art "rent." The dictionary definition is clear:

Economic rent is the positive difference between the actual payment made for a factor of production (such as land, labor or capital) to its owner and the payment level expected by the owner, due to its exclusivity or scarcity.

One must bear in mind that the biggest source of such exclusivity or scarcity is the government. Laws making marijuana illegal, for example, create a risk to producers and sellers that raises the street price above what 420 would cost on a "free" market.

I mention this because the role of the government as a creator of rents as well as the largest purchaser of goods and services in the US economy points inescapably to the reality that income distribution (or, if you prefer, class structure) is a government function.
Conservatism is a social disease
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Attaburnsinhell
Apr 6 2016, 09:23 AM
estonianman
Apr 6 2016, 09:13 AM
Attaburnsinhell
Apr 6 2016, 09:10 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
"Trickle down" has never existed outside of populist rhetoric, bailouts and subsidies.
How would you know, you live inside your libertarian bubble
I am sorry you feel that way
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

estonianman
Apr 6 2016, 09:13 AM


"Trickle-down economics" is a made-up pejorative term used to describe certain ideas and policies by people who don't care to actually understand them.
Actually it's a very well known pejorative term that's been widely used longer than you've been alive, often by people who understand economics quite well ;)
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

nNeo
Apr 6 2016, 10:47 PM
estonianman
Apr 6 2016, 09:13 AM


"Trickle-down economics" is a made-up pejorative term used to describe certain ideas and policies by people who don't care to actually understand them.
Actually it's a very well known pejorative term that's been widely used longer than you've been alive, often by people who understand economics quite well ;)
name one
Edited by estonianman, Apr 6 2016, 11:01 PM.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nNeo

"name one"? ROTFL Seriously? okay, more than one... Greg Mankiw, David Stockman, Nouriel Roubini (who also called it "voodoo"), John Galbraith, Mohsen Bahmani and his brilliant daughter (who also has a phd in econ), Andy Samwick, Janet Rogers, Fassil Fanta, Brad DeLong... want more? I can keep going. I think Will Rogers said it originally.

The terminology isn't important. The point is that capital is a factor of production, but more only acts as a stimulus up to a point. Once you have the means of production fully capitalized, that's no longer the limiting constraint, so making the very rich even richer has no significant benefit to productivity or the broader economy. In simple terms, a factory owner having more money doesn't create more customers. The notion that concentrating wealth creates growth is pervasive, but unsupported. History shows otherwise.

None of which translates into "government is the answer" or anything remotely like it. I suggest trying to see beyond black and white. Economics is about dynamic balances, not absolutes or ideologies.

btw, Federal tax revenue was at a peak (about 18.5% of GDP) around the start of Reagan's term. It was mostly 16 to 17.5 after that. Spending increased relative to GDP, hence the growth of deficits during his terms, and a "stimulus" - on borrowed money.
Edited by nNeo, Apr 7 2016, 12:03 AM.
“Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
"name one"? ROTFL Seriously? okay, Greg Mankiw, David Stockman, Nouriel Roubini (who also called it "voodoo"), John Galbraith, Mohsen Bahmani and his brilliant daughter (who also has a phd in econ), Andy Samwick, Janet Rogers, Brad DeLong... want more? I can keep going. I think Will Rogers said it originally.


I understand media pundits have talked about "trickle down" - but anyone that has studied economics, understands that it is not a thing in economics.

Quote:
 
The terminology isn't important. The point is that capital is a factor of production, but more only acts as a stimulus up to a point. Once you have the means of production fully capitalized, that's no longer the limiting constraint, so making the very rich even richer has no significant benefit to productivity or the broader economy. In simple terms, a factory owner having more money doesn't create more customers. The notion that concentrating wealth creates growth is pervasive, but unsupported. History shows otherwise.


I agree with this - but would also like to add that the FED has added to this immensely, it has nothing to do with trickle down but more the result of adding to asset bubbles. Currently this is the stock market bubble - and to be honest I have to agree with atta here - people invest in buckets of company shares to make money. that's great eventually this money goes to market - but the FED doesn't want it to. Instead the current FED wealth effect scheme is the NYSE. This never existed during Reagan's era - so the trickle down mantra from that era is still considered a pejorative.

What I consider trickle down:

There are all kinds of stories you can tell that make the case for trickle down plausible, and evidence to back those stories up. What supply-side believers believe is not that wealth trickles down to the poor via lavish spending, but rather, that investment leads to growth in real output, and so investment incentives are good for output. There is an extremely large body of theory and evidence (much larger than any evidence on the negative effects of inequality) backing the proposition that investment is good for growth. So the supply-side story isn't that the rich guy gets a tax break and immediately hits up the faberge egg store and leaves the sales guy a trickle-down tip. The story is that the recipients of investment incentives -- many of whom are rich by default -- don't spend the extra cash, but rather, invest it. So the supply-sider will believe that we ought to keep taxes on investments low. Since rich people are often the ones who can make use of investment incentives, this often ends up being a tax cut to the rich, but there aren't economists who believe that the policies are good because they target the rich.

Quote:
 
None of which translates into "government is the answer" or anything remotely like it. I suggest trying to see beyond black and white. Economics is about dynamic balances, not absolutes or ideologies.


Fair enough.



Edited by estonianman, Apr 7 2016, 12:11 AM.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
« Previous Topic · Op EDITORIALS: personal & political governance · Next Topic »
Add Reply