We are all Slave now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Trump caves. Will the right-wing echo chamber defend him?

Ann Coulter says no: "Good news for George Herbert Walker Bush: As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States."

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Ann Coulter says no: "Good news for George Herbert Walker Bush: As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States."

She is scheduled to be on Bill Maher tonight.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Lots of no show TSA. If Philly has Clear get it.

I called a contact in the White House. That’s how I roll.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

She is scheduled to be on Bill Maher tonight.

Her personality is naturally that of a raging cokehead. If she took uppers you’d need slow motion filming to follow her ramblings.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Hey Sebby, this thread from Paul Krugman has an interesting angle on something you talk about. It's about the way that less populated areas are hit by changes from international trade. Because they are less populated, and because trade increasingly drives specialization, changes in the economy that have small aggregate effects can have huge effects in particular places. If you have a small town with a single factory and that factory closes, the town gets totally whacked, even if the aggregate effects on its state or the country are small and/or generally positive. And in the background, you have a steady, long-term decline in jobs from farming.

I agree this phenomenon is taking place. But I’m not sure it’s a counter to the broader wage stagnation we’re facing as labor arbitrage and automation work on la macro level. Which is I think where he is ultimately going.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree this phenomenon is taking place. But I’m not sure it’s a counter to the broader wage stagnation we’re facing as labor arbitrage and automation work on la macro level. Which is I think where he is ultimately going.

It's not a counter, it's an explanation of why an aggregate effect that seems pretty mild really hits some places hard.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

She is scheduled to be on Bill Maher tonight.

I wish I'd seen this earlier. What an opportunity to just lock up the studio and never let either of them out again.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not a counter, it's an explanation of why an aggregate effect that seems pretty mild really hits some places hard.

The aggregate effect isn’t mild. By asserting it is, Krugman assumes something contrary to reality. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/18/few-...emergency.html

https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/22/pf/...ces/index.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-shame/476415/

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...k-robert-reich

There are a lot of reasons for this, including a lot of Americans making unwise financial decisions. But the overwhelming majority of it stems from policy decisions and changes in the labor market. This is not “mild” in any regard.

The notion it’s mild is undone by the admissions at Davos this very year. The Brahmin of global capitalism even admitted that the old neoliberal system is losing (or has lost) its grip because there are too many angry and forgotten people to control. Christ, look at the crazy confiscatory tax Warren just proposed. This political upheaval, these admissions from the “elites” themselves, do not describe problems in the global economy one would call mild. They are extreme reactions to an acute and significant group of problems.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The aggregate effect isn’t mild. By asserting it is, Krugman assumes something contrary to reality. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/18/few-...emergency.html

https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/22/pf/...ces/index.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-shame/476415/

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...k-robert-reich

There are a lot of reasons for this, including a lot of Americans making unwise financial decisions. But the overwhelming majority of it stems from policy decisions and changes in the labor market. This is not “mild” in any regard.

The notion it’s mild is undone by the admissions at Davos this very year. The Brahmin of global capitalism even admitted that the old neoliberal system is losing (or has lost) its grip because there are too many angry and forgotten people to control. Christ, look at the crazy confiscatory tax Warren just proposed. This political upheaval, these admissions from the “elites” themselves, do not describe problems in the global economy one would call mild. They are extreme reactions to an acute and significant group of problems.

I don't think you understand Davos. Most of those planes come from MENA, Russia, and the Autocracies of Asia.

You think a 2% wealth tax on wealth over $50M is confiscatory? Really? What are your property taxes? Here in Mass, median home and mortgage are about $400K and $300K, respectively, and average retirement savings are around $200. With a 2 1/2%+ property tax (prop. taxes are limited by law to 2.5$ unless the town votes to "override" the limits), most people are paying more than 2% in wealth taxes each year (the wealthy aren't - they have more wealth in assets that aren't part of the tax and less leveraged homes).

We can debate the merits, but calling it confiscatory is just moronic and out of touch. Get a clue.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The aggregate effect isn’t mild. By asserting it is, Krugman assumes something contrary to reality.

I think you misread him. This is from that chain:

A case in point: furniture production is one of those sectors that lost a substantial fraction of its jobs to imports. At a national level those job losses were tiny, lost in statistical noise. But furniture production was highly localized in Hickory, NC.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I don't think you understand Davos. Most of those planes come from MENA, Russia, and the Autocracies of Asia.

You think a 2% wealth tax on wealth over $50M is confiscatory? Really? What are your property taxes? Here in Mass, median home and mortgage are about $400K and $300K, respectively, and average retirement savings are around $200. With a 2 1/2%+ property tax (prop. taxes are limited by law to 2.5$ unless the town votes to "override" the limits), most people are paying more than 2% in wealth taxes each year (the wealthy aren't - they have more wealth in assets that aren't part of the tax and less leveraged homes).

We can debate the merits, but calling it confiscatory is just moronic and out of touch. Get a clue.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, one I hadn't considered. Maybe the way to sell this to expand property taxes to include other kinds of wealth.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That's an interesting way of looking at it, one I hadn't considered. Maybe the way to sell this to expand property taxes to include other kinds of wealth.

The biggest problem with wealth taxes is that they can lead to capital flight when the asset involved is intangible or mobile (including assets in corporate solution). It's easy to levy wealth taxes on real estate because you can't take your skyscraper and leave the country. So set your wealth tax too high, and your wealthy all relocate to somewhere else. Florida had a wealth tax on stock for many years, made possible because people wanted to have their stock in Florida to avoid higher income taxes elsewhere, but the tax ultimately became filled with so many loopholes it was silly.

There is a theory that if the wall is big enough, in the form of expatriation taxes, the capital drain can be minimized, but there is probably not a wall that solid or that large.

I don't know where the break point is on a wealth tax before you get too much capital flight; it may well be in the vicinity of that 2% number. But it might make sense to replace the estate tax with a wealth tax. The estate tax has a lot of irrationality to it, it is a big but occasional hit, where a smaller and more predictable wealth tax might get more total revenue with less economic dislocation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The biggest problem with wealth taxes is that they can lead to capital flight when the asset involved is intangible or mobile (including assets in corporate solution). It's easy to levy wealth taxes on real estate because you can't take your skyscraper and leave the country. So set your wealth tax too high, and your wealthy all relocate to somewhere else. Florida had a wealth tax on stock for many years, made possible because people wanted to have their stock in Florida to avoid higher income taxes elsewhere, but the tax ultimately became filled with so many loopholes it was silly.

There is a theory that if the wall is big enough, in the form of expatriation taxes, the capital drain can be minimized, but there is probably not a wall that solid or that large.

I don't know where the break point is on a wealth tax before you get too much capital flight; it may well be in the vicinity of that 2% number. But it might make sense to replace the estate tax with a wealth tax. The estate tax has a lot of irrationality to it, it is a big but occasional hit, where a smaller and more predictable wealth tax might get more total revenue with less economic dislocation.

I don't think many people see property taxes as a subset of wealth taxes, but it is true that for the middle class, their home is often their biggest investment.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't think many people see property taxes as a subset of wealth taxes, but it is true that for the middle class, their home is often their biggest investment.

Really? I find that surprising - it's the quintessential wealth tax. What do other folks think?

If we're looking to reform the current system, simply making the existing wealth taxes less regressive would be good - include all forms of wealth and all types of taxpayers and allow the gross to be reduced by debt (because the banks will pay the wealth tax on the value of the debt anyways).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Really? I find that surprising - it's the quintessential wealth tax. What do other folks think?

If we're looking to reform the current system, simply making the existing wealth taxes less regressive would be good - include all forms of wealth and all types of taxpayers and allow the gross to be reduced by debt (because the banks will pay the wealth tax on the value of the debt anyways).

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you're pointing out something which is true but very much underappreciated.