Why is the libertarian ideology so popular among otherwise reasonable people?

[GuitarStv]

Guitarstv - because those aims (progressive taxation aims generally) are achieved by the progressive income tax and the redistributive welfare that it entails. You can say that expensive cars aren't a need - but for that matter, neither is having a holiday, or a television, or anything that's recreational - yet they aren't hit.

Personally, I'd rather that we distribute less welfare.  Helping the poorest people get and keep jobs and work their way up to middle class does this.  It's a little weird to hear from a Libertarian who prefers welfare redistribution to creating a situation where it's easier for the poor to work harder and make more money.

Unfortunately, in our society cars are a need often.  Having an expensive car isn't a need, but by taxing expensive cars at a higher rate you can make cheaper cars easier to obtain for the poor.  As vacations, televisions, and recreational items aren't a need there's no reason to progressively tax them to help the poor obtain them.  This makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

It's not just cars that are progressively taxed in my state - so is land. The vast majority of homeowners don't have to pay any land tax, but if you own more than one property you usually do, and the percentage scales up with the land-holding.

As a government, your job is to do what is best for your people.  Do you believe that people are best served by having huge quantities of land concentrated in the hands of an elite few (the classic serfs/nobility model), or many individual land owners who own small tracts of land?  Progressive taxation encourages the latter, but removing it would certainly result in the former.  Do you believe that the former is better for society?

[J Boogie]

... but ultimately there would have been nothing to pop if the middle class hadn't taken out loans that were beyond their willingness/ability to perform on and regular everyday local middle class loan officers wouldn't have signed off on outrageous loans with teaser rates....

Duh, I forgot to address this brand new libertarian fantasy! Who knew libertarian ideology has the power to prevent bubbles and recessions.

Let me just say that your logic attribution process needs some tuning.

Bubble and recessions are as natural to any economic system as wetness is to water. They are necessary to keep the economy going. Recessions are necessary to kill non-competitive businesses and make the competitive ones stronger. Bubbles are also necessary give fuel to the surviving strong businesses to make profit.

Bubbles and recessions will always stay there, and *should* stay there to keep the free market going.

The libertarian fuel causing the bubbles to pop higher and becoming systemic crisis is, however, entirely preventable.

Actually, the definition of ideology is in fact, a set of ideas which form the basis of a political/economic theory.

The french dude who coined the term "ideology" would like to disagree with you.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Antoine-Louis-Claude-Comte-Destutt-de-Tracy

He used the phrase "science of ideas". You know of a science that is not subject to the mathematical principle of diagonalization?
Did you happen to know diagonalization is literally taking something to logical extreme and looking if it holds or not?

Coming out of a loaf free hour of work to take back my wish for your prosperity. You do not deserve it. You are a bad faith debater who rejects dictionary definitions in shoehorns things to fit your tortured and absurd logic which you deliver, strangely enough, in a patronizing way. As though it is obvious that one should associate the word ideology with the scientific process.

You shoehorn my statement as though I have made the absurd claim that libertarianism prevents bubbles.

You have stated that you "bet I think libertarian ideals had nothing to do with (the subprime crisis)!" and that you know "I think the 2008 recession was a fairy tale"

No, I don't, and you're writing as if I do because it's easier for you to dunk on me that way.

This is known as straw manning, and it is a logical fallacy.

When I am presented with bad faith arguments I return the favor.

I discuss very politely when that is appropriate. I'd say it was good fun for me to ruffle your feathers after you started presenting bad-faith arguments.

I know I shouldn't deviate from "respectful discussion" on threads I post. But heck, it is too much fun to make fun of pontificating ideologues for me to resist!!

Nah, that's a cop out. I haven't presented bad faith arguments and I welcome you to scan through and show me anything I wrote that fits the description of a bad faith argument from a pontificating ideologue.

If you don't really want to engage and learn on this topic, just admit it.  It's fine to rant if you're admitting it's a rant. But to present a rant as a good faith inquiry into learning more about the mindset of people who take inspiration from an ideology you dislike is disingenuous.

[J Boogie]

Regardless of whether we're talking about bad behavior by the govt or by shady lenders, I take issue with your use the word forced, even in quotations, when what you really mean to say is not forced or even coerced but rather pressured, mislead or deceived. Forced means that they were compelled to do something against their will by force. Concept creep rant over.

Also, in addition to the lower income segment you're referring to getting tricked into bad loans they would struggle to cover, there were plenty of true middle class households keeping up with the joneses tricking themselves into financial irresponsibility with the mantra of "real estate always goes up" and "it's a good investment".

First part: You are fully right. You can put it up to me not finding the right word in a foreign language at that moment.

Second: Yes, that is also true, but that was true in the years before, too. What was different, and what caused the collateral debt obligations to crumble was the fact that many poor people got credits they would not have gotten a few years earlier. They were the weakest part of the chain and when they lost the ability to pay, the whole "mixing" math of those debt papers imploded on itself, resulting in the famous bankruptcys.

On the first, I appreciate that and I apologize for assuming you might have intended any concept creep. On the second - it sounds like you're reversing course on your original comment about how deregulation was the root cause of the poor taking on inappropriately large mortgages. Or do you maintain that view?

[ctuser1]

Nah, that's a cop out. I haven't presented bad faith arguments and I welcome you to scan through and show me anything I wrote that fits the description of a bad faith argument from a pontificating ideologue.

If you don't really want to engage and learn on this topic, just admit it.  It's fine to rant if you're admitting it's a rant. But to present a rant as a good faith inquiry into learning more about the mindset of people who take inspiration from an ideology you dislike is disingenuous.

You presented an ignorant take on how capital works in the present-day economy. I tried to help you by explaining how the financial system works.

You came close to acknowledging that you were wrong by saying "middle class capital (21% of all US wealth vs 29% owned by the top 1%)" - i.e. that middle class capital was NOT the majority driver of the capitalistic system in place today, and by implication that your initial take on how capitalism works is full of bull.

A good faith discussion would either involve correction of your stance, or a discussion of why - despite this specific data point - your initial point about how capital works still stands and why it should still displace labor in importance.

I still responded and explained why the 21% middle class capital punches wayyyyyy below it's weight compared to the "modern day capitalistic capital" due to the lopsided role of leverage and other factors, such as to be irrelevant for any reasonable discussion - but of course I doused my responses with a generous dosage of snark and mockery because at this point it was clear that you can't follow along logic and the info I was presenting was mainly for "I told you so" purpose like I am doing right now. :-D.

Maybe in an alternative universe we could be having a more reasonable argument. I doubt it, but stranger things beyond my imagination can and do happen.

[J Boogie]

Nah, that's a cop out. I haven't presented bad faith arguments and I welcome you to scan through and show me anything I wrote that fits the description of a bad faith argument from a pontificating ideologue.

If you don't really want to engage and learn on this topic, just admit it.  It's fine to rant if you're admitting it's a rant. But to present a rant as a good faith inquiry into learning more about the mindset of people who take inspiration from an ideology you dislike is disingenuous.

You presented an ignorant take on how capital works in the present-day economy. I tried to help you by explaining how the financial system works.

You came close to acknowledging that you were wrong by saying "middle class capital (21% of all US wealth vs 29% owned by the top 1%)" - i.e. that middle class capital was NOT the majority driver of the capitalistic system in place today, and by implication that your initial take on how capitalism works is full of bull.

A good faith discussion would either involve correction of your stance, or a discussion of why - despite this specific data point - your initial point about how capital works still stands and why it should still displace labor in importance.

I still responded and explained why the 21% middle class capital punches wayyyyyy below it's weight compared to the "modern day capitalistic capital" due to the lopsided role of leverage and other factors, such as to be irrelevant for any reasonable discussion.

You are regarding your premise as settled fact, rather than your perspective. Your perspective is that, despite being 21% of all US wealth, middle class capital is somehow irrelevant to the discussion of why middle class people embrace libertarian ideology. Your perspective is that, despite amounting to 18 trillion dollars, middle class capital is an insignificant rounding error.

One whose balance sheet is 18T a rounding error?

This doesn't pass the smell test. You argue that derivative exposure/positions equate to wealth/equity/net worth, and that lobbying/loopholes make your falsehood somehow true. You've lost first argument (this could help you understand the difference - https://www.ft.com/content/95895178-d49c-11e5-829b-8564e7528e54) and have yet to make a compelling case as to how the existence of wealthy libertarian cheaters can both define libertarianism as well as render 18 trillion dollars insignificant, especially when those invested dollars have served many in the middle class quite well.

So perhaps you approached our entire conversation from the approach of a sarcastic teacher when in reality you need a more sophisticated and fact based understanding of the economy and finance. Maybe you will refuse to accept that your premise is oversimplified and faulty; if so there's no reason for us to continue.

[LennStar]

On the second - it sounds like you're reversing course on your original comment about how deregulation was the root cause of the poor taking on inappropriately large mortgages. Or do you maintain that view?

Deregulation made it possible. Heck, if I remember right that "the poor could get a credit for the house that they cannot get under the old rules" was even an explicit reason.
So yes, you could say that within all the factors, it was the root cause, because the existing rules prevented that.

As a government, your job is to do what is best for your people.

Sorry to correct you again here, but this is a really really important point that has to be understood if you talk about politics at all.

What you described is how you want it to be. The reality is that as a government your job is to follow the orders of the leader.
And the leaders main concern - above all and everything - is to keep the power.

You do this by paying favors to the people you need to do this. In dictatorships that is the military. That is why the military is well paid (especially the generals, often indirectly) and big even (or especially) if the country is poor.

In a democracy with the troublesome election system, the number is too big for private (personal) rewards, so you have to pay the favors through policies. One well known example are farming subsidies. It is used everywhere because your other essentials are seldom going up in arms to protest that, they may even like it.

That money thing is also why Republicans hate giving to poor colored people - because they seldom vote Republican. It would be giving money to the enemies! At the same time giving that money to your group is good, of course. That is why white old men think social security is a great thing.

And the important point here to remember is that even if you are the most civil minded president ever, you can only use money that you have after paying off your winning coalition to do your projects.
Because if you don't someone else will take your place by promising more rewards.
That is also the root why so many election promises are not realized. Even if the leader wanted to, he can't.

[ctuser1]

Nah, that's a cop out. I haven't presented bad faith arguments and I welcome you to scan through and show me anything I wrote that fits the description of a bad faith argument from a pontificating ideologue.

If you don't really want to engage and learn on this topic, just admit it.  It's fine to rant if you're admitting it's a rant. But to present a rant as a good faith inquiry into learning more about the mindset of people who take inspiration from an ideology you dislike is disingenuous.

You presented an ignorant take on how capital works in the present-day economy. I tried to help you by explaining how the financial system works.

You came close to acknowledging that you were wrong by saying "middle class capital (21% of all US wealth vs 29% owned by the top 1%)" - i.e. that middle class capital was NOT the majority driver of the capitalistic system in place today, and by implication that your initial take on how capitalism works is full of bull.

A good faith discussion would either involve correction of your stance, or a discussion of why - despite this specific data point - your initial point about how capital works still stands and why it should still displace labor in importance.

I still responded and explained why the 21% middle class capital punches wayyyyyy below it's weight compared to the "modern day capitalistic capital" due to the lopsided role of leverage and other factors, such as to be irrelevant for any reasonable discussion.

You are regarding your premise as settled fact, rather than your perspective. Your perspective is that, despite being 21% of all US wealth, middle class capital is somehow irrelevant to the discussion of why middle class people embrace libertarian ideology. Your perspective is that, despite amounting to 18 trillion dollars, middle class capital is an insignificant rounding error.

One whose balance sheet is 18T a rounding error?

This doesn't pass the smell test. You argue that derivative exposure/positions equate to wealth/equity/net worth, and that lobbying/loopholes make your falsehood somehow true. You've lost first argument (this could help you understand the difference - https://www.ft.com/content/95895178-d49c-11e5-829b-8564e7528e54) and have yet to make a compelling case as to how the existence of wealthy libertarian cheaters can both define libertarianism as well as render 18 trillion dollars insignificant, especially when those invested dollars have served many in the middle class quite well.

So perhaps you approached our entire conversation from the approach of a sarcastic teacher when in reality you need a more sophisticated and fact based understanding of the economy and finance. Maybe you will refuse to accept that your premise is oversimplified and faulty; if so there's no reason for us to continue.

Let's take it step by step, starting at Logic 101.

You described capital as "When you're investing your capital, you're investing hundreds or thousands of days' wages from your past that you chose not to spend".

Do you think that most economic activity is driven by capital like the one you described above, so much so that no other form of capital deserves any mention in a discussion of "capital vs. labor"?
 
Why else would you present *just* this description of capital in response to my post questioning "why capital should be on a pedestal and completely displace labor in importance", without acknowledging any other form of capital or putting any other caveats, assuming this is a good faith discussion?

[J Boogie]

Nah, that's a cop out. I haven't presented bad faith arguments and I welcome you to scan through and show me anything I wrote that fits the description of a bad faith argument from a pontificating ideologue.

If you don't really want to engage and learn on this topic, just admit it.  It's fine to rant if you're admitting it's a rant. But to present a rant as a good faith inquiry into learning more about the mindset of people who take inspiration from an ideology you dislike is disingenuous.

You presented an ignorant take on how capital works in the present-day economy. I tried to help you by explaining how the financial system works.

You came close to acknowledging that you were wrong by saying "middle class capital (21% of all US wealth vs 29% owned by the top 1%)" - i.e. that middle class capital was NOT the majority driver of the capitalistic system in place today, and by implication that your initial take on how capitalism works is full of bull.

A good faith discussion would either involve correction of your stance, or a discussion of why - despite this specific data point - your initial point about how capital works still stands and why it should still displace labor in importance.

I still responded and explained why the 21% middle class capital punches wayyyyyy below it's weight compared to the "modern day capitalistic capital" due to the lopsided role of leverage and other factors, such as to be irrelevant for any reasonable discussion.

You are regarding your premise as settled fact, rather than your perspective. Your perspective is that, despite being 21% of all US wealth, middle class capital is somehow irrelevant to the discussion of why middle class people embrace libertarian ideology. Your perspective is that, despite amounting to 18 trillion dollars, middle class capital is an insignificant rounding error.

One whose balance sheet is 18T a rounding error?

This doesn't pass the smell test. You argue that derivative exposure/positions equate to wealth/equity/net worth, and that lobbying/loopholes make your falsehood somehow true. You've lost first argument (this could help you understand the difference - https://www.ft.com/content/95895178-d49c-11e5-829b-8564e7528e54) and have yet to make a compelling case as to how the existence of wealthy libertarian cheaters can both define libertarianism as well as render 18 trillion dollars insignificant, especially when those invested dollars have served many in the middle class quite well.

So perhaps you approached our entire conversation from the approach of a sarcastic teacher when in reality you need a more sophisticated and fact based understanding of the economy and finance. Maybe you will refuse to accept that your premise is oversimplified and faulty; if so there's no reason for us to continue.

Let's take it step by step, starting at Logic 101.

You described capital as "When you're investing your capital, you're investing hundreds or thousands of days' wages from your past that you chose not to spend".

Do you think that most economic activity is driven by capital like the one you described above, so much so that no other form of capital deserves any mention in a discussion of "capital vs. labor"?
 
Why else would you present *just* this description of capital in response to my post questioning "why capital should be on a pedestal and completely displace labor in importance", without acknowledging any other form of capital or putting any other caveats, assuming this is a good faith discussion?

Yes, I do think that most capital has come from investing labor and past wages.  And I'm not sure if you contend that most capital is unearned because you believe most capital has been inherited, or because you believe most capital was attained via leverage, or via loopholes, or options trading, or lobbying for more favorable tax policies, etc. I'm not sure what exactly you consider to be disqualifying - it seems as though you have created two separate categories of capital - one for the little people, and one for the big bad mustache twirlers. Most of us here on the board probably know a broad spectrum of folks who fall along various places in the spectrum of wealth.

(edited to remove a large block of blank space)

[Bloop Bloop]

The point was being made that automobiles should be prevented to avoid infringing upon another person's right to life without being killed by another person.  It was not that those who can pay enough tax should be able to infringe upon anyone's right to life without being killed by someone because they are rich enough to pay for the convenience of having a pollution causing car.

Or is it the Libertarian viewpoint that convenience provided by a pollution causing car is ok so long as someone can pay the tax associated and to heck with the freedom to live without breathing in cancer causing particulates?

The government can regulate automobiles to reduce emissions (as it is doing), but given that automobiles also have utility, there has to be a balance. The best way to balance it out is to dissuade excessive consumption by subsidising green cars and penalising fuel inefficient cars. All these things are being done. It's true that if you have a lot of money you can pay the penalty more easily than someone who doesn't. That's one of the myriad benefits of having money. The progressive part has already been dealt with at the income tax end.

It sort of seems the Libertarian viewpoint is those with the means can afford the right to do as they please and those without the means can afford no rights.

That's a slight straw man, but to an extent, that's how a market economy works.

Personally, I'd rather that we distribute less welfare.  Helping the poorest people get and keep jobs and work their way up to middle class does this.  It's a little weird to hear from a Libertarian who prefers welfare redistribution to creating a situation where it's easier for the poor to work harder and make more money.

The problem is that many people just don't have the ability to work their way up to the middle class, now that we live in a globalised, information-heavy economy. So you have to have some form of redistribution to keep people happy enough that we don't encourage a revolution.

Unfortunately, in our society cars are a need often.  Having an expensive car isn't a need, but by taxing expensive cars at a higher rate you can make cheaper cars easier to obtain for the poor.  As vacations, televisions, and recreational items aren't a need there's no reason to progressively tax them to help the poor obtain them.  This makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

It makes sense if you think the purpose of an economy is to drive redistribution. It doesn't make sense if you think an economy should simply enable a market transfer of goods with sufficient redistribution left over to prevent too many societal problems.

As a government, your job is to do what is best for your people.  Do you believe that people are best served by having huge quantities of land concentrated in the hands of an elite few (the classic serfs/nobility model), or many individual land owners who own small tracts of land?  Progressive taxation encourages the latter, but removing it would certainly result in the former.  Do you believe that the former is better for society?

The former is worse for society at large, due to how the marginal utility of money/resources, but as I said I believe society should be structured according to talent/merit, and not pure utilitarianism.

Note that I believe in a punitive estate/gift tax and more redistributive education/childcare policies to try to avoid a situation where a talented child is held back by his or her parents. In that way I'm not particularly libertarian. I think mass wealth shouldn't transfer across generations, so that most people start with a clean slate.

[ctuser1]

You described capital as "When you're investing your capital, you're investing hundreds or thousands of days' wages from your past that you chose not to spend".

Yes, I do think that most capital has come from investing labor and past wages.  And I'm not sure if you contend that most capital is unearned because you believe most capital has been inherited, or because you believe most capital was attained via leverage, or via loopholes, or options trading, or lobbying for more favorable tax policies, etc. I'm not sure what exactly you consider to be disqualifying - it seems as though you have created two separate categories of capital - one for the little people, and one for the big bad mustache twirlers. Most of us here on the board probably know a broad spectrum of folks who fall along various places in the spectrum of wealth.

(edited to remove a large block of blank space)

Yes. I *do* contend there are different types of capital. If/when capital = "wages from your past", then it appears far more "virtuous" than it really behaves like in any modern economy of Leveraged Buyouts and 30x leverage etc.

Since we are on logic 101 baby steps, let me bring in the extreme opposite example to establish a boundary and categories.

Our original topic, rephrased in a slightly different way, was why should Eddie Lampart come out ahead while the people who invested labor in Sears lose their job and the shirt on their back? Should returns concentrate in the "capital owners" and "capital controllers" hands, while everyone else loses everything?

Do you contend that the capital controlled by Eddie Lampert were wages from his past?
Do you think such capital represents majority of economic activity in today's financial system? Or some other sort of "wages from <the capital owner's past>" does?

Once we have hopefully established boundaries using the extreme example of Sears, we can move on to other such examples (toys r us, and almost any other types of corporate merger/spin off etc activity), then go further down to gray areas like "middle class capital" invested using Vanguard/Fidelity where the votes are almost always cast by the big fund managers, so on and so forth .... till we reach "wages from your past" variety of capital directly controlled by the capital owner - which I hope to establish is not a significant driver of any economic activity.

Is that a fair framework?

[Boofinator]

Paying more taxes on things that cost more seems like a pretty sensible way to approach taxation.  Freedom of choice is entirely up to the user.  People aren't hit at 'both ends' as you claim.  If you don't want to pay the taxes for a 200,000$ car, nobody's forcing you to.  Buy a 20,000$ car.  But this type of taxation does reduce the burden on the poorest in society who often have no choice but to buy the cheaper car (as sadly, we've designed a lot of our infrastructure to be very car dependent) without imposing any limits on the freedom of the richest.

Hate to wade into nominally political discussions, but I have to agree with Bloop Bloop, though perhaps for different reasons. I think the reason income is taxed progressively but not consumption* has more to do with the logistics than anything else. Most people have at most a small handful of income sources, whereas consumption is typically spread to many different recipients and, until we get to a truly cashless society, can be difficult to maintain accurate figures for.

*Consumption has something of a progressive element, namely that necessities like groceries are often taxed at a lower rate than discretionary items.

[Boofinator]

As a government, your job is to do what is best for your people.  Do you believe that people are best served by having huge quantities of land concentrated in the hands of an elite few (the classic serfs/nobility model), or many individual land owners who own small tracts of land?  Progressive taxation encourages the latter, but removing it would certainly result in the former.  Do you believe that the former is better for society?

The former is worse for society at large, due to how the marginal utility of money/resources, but as I said I believe society should be structured according to talent/merit, and not pure utilitarianism.

Note that I believe in a punitive estate/gift tax and more redistributive education/childcare policies to try to avoid a situation where a talented child is held back by his or her parents. In that way I'm not particularly libertarian. I think mass wealth shouldn't transfer across generations, so that most people start with a clean slate.

I would posit that aiming for the proper balance between merit and redistribution does result in the highest level of utility. Surely many of the wealthiest individuals in the world today achieved their wealth by adding massive amounts of utility to common people through their business ventures. Additionally, these people tend to have better uses for capital than the average person, assuming the latter has the means to afford the necessities. Meanwhile, redistribution needs to be such that people have the ability to grow to their potential (one reason why slavery is an evil institution).

Unfortunately, in our society cars are a need often.

My thoughts, until I found MMM.

:)

(Only partially facetious....)

[J Boogie]

You described capital as "When you're investing your capital, you're investing hundreds or thousands of days' wages from your past that you chose not to spend".

Yes, I do think that most capital has come from investing labor and past wages.  And I'm not sure if you contend that most capital is unearned because you believe most capital has been inherited, or because you believe most capital was attained via leverage, or via loopholes, or options trading, or lobbying for more favorable tax policies, etc. I'm not sure what exactly you consider to be disqualifying - it seems as though you have created two separate categories of capital - one for the little people, and one for the big bad mustache twirlers. Most of us here on the board probably know a broad spectrum of folks who fall along various places in the spectrum of wealth.

(edited to remove a large block of blank space)

Yes. I *do* contend there are different types of capital. If/when capital = "wages from your past", then it appears far more "virtuous" than it really behaves like in any modern economy of Leveraged Buyouts and 30x leverage etc.

Since we are on logic 101 baby steps, let me bring in the extreme opposite example to establish a boundary and categories.

Our original topic, rephrased in a slightly different way, was why should Eddie Lampart come out ahead while the people who invested labor in Sears lose their job and the shirt on their back? Should returns concentrate in the "capital owners" and "capital controllers" hands, while everyone else loses everything?

Do you contend that the capital controlled by Eddie Lampert were wages from his past?
Do you think such capital represents majority of economic activity in today's financial system? Or some other sort of "wages from <the capital owner's past>" does?

Once we have hopefully established boundaries using the extreme example of Sears, we can move on to other such examples (toys r us, and almost any other types of corporate merger/spin off etc activity), then go further down to gray areas like "middle class capital" invested using Vanguard/Fidelity where the votes are almost always cast by the big fund managers, so on and so forth .... till we reach "wages from your past" variety of capital directly controlled by the capital owner - which I hope to establish is not a significant driver of any economic activity.

Is that a fair framework?

It's a fair framework. To answer your question, I think Eddie is actually a great example of the downside of risk. He might not be a model of virtue, but he sure is a model of the downside of leveraged/hedge fund investing. He and his hedge fund investors would be a hell of a lot richer if he would have chosen a vanguard index fund over Sears.

I get that he's got an outsized role in determining what stores close and who loses their job. And I'm opposed to this when there is a conflict of interest or moral hazard IE if he was purposely making Sears fail so his hedge fund could buy it at a discount later, or cutting more staff than is sustainable just to look more profitable to potential buyers. The difference between us probably is that I don't regard these moral hazard situations as making up the majority of financial activity, or maybe you have much broader criteria for what constitutes moral hazard/unethical financial activity.

I think we've smoothed out our ruffled feathers at this point but I'm really not sure what we're working towards. You might view activist hedge fund managers more skeptically than I and that's ok - I agree they punch well beyond their weight as their money isn't just earned or even borrowed but managed for other wealthy folks. I never argued that. But you will probably be unable to find any statistics that demonstrate the insignificance of middle class capital. We've established that it amounts to 21% of all US wealth and we've established that derivative positions do not equate to wealth, so I'm not sure what statistic you'd use to demonstrate the insignificance - that we're not as active or as leveraged as our 1% counterparts? I'm not sure how that equates to middle class wealth being irrelevant or insignificant.

[ctuser1]

It's a fair framework. To answer your question, I think Eddie is actually a great example of the downside of risk. He might not be a model of virtue, but he sure is a model of the downside of leveraged/hedge fund investing. He and his hedge fund investors would be a hell of a lot richer if he would have chosen a vanguard index fund over Sears.

He also is a model of making out like a bandit when everyone else lost their shirts.
https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/how-eddie-lampert-can-come-out-ahead-no-matter-where-sears-lands-14463492

Comparison with SP500 is not relevant. SP500 did not go bankrupt. SHLD did. Should Eddie shoulder responsibility and take some hit on his capital? Or are the controllers of capital somehow special and immune from the responsibilities? It seems he takes almost all the upside, takes none of the downside and leaves the workers holding the bag. Quite a racket, that!

I get that he's got an outsized role in determining what stores close and who loses their job. And I'm opposed to this when there is a conflict of interest or moral hazard IE if he was purposely making Sears fail so his hedge fund could buy it at a discount later, or cutting more staff than is sustainable just to look more profitable to potential buyers. The difference between us probably is that I don't regard these moral hazard situations as making up the majority of financial activity, or maybe you have much broader criteria for what constitutes moral hazard/unethical financial activity.

I think we've smoothed out our ruffled feathers at this point but I'm really not sure what we're working towards. You might view activist hedge fund managers more skeptically than I and that's ok - I agree they punch well beyond their weight as their money isn't just earned or even borrowed but managed for other wealthy folks. I never argued that. But you will probably be unable to find any statistics that demonstrate the insignificance of middle class capital. We've established that it amounts to 21% of all US wealth and we've established that derivative positions do not equate to wealth, so I'm not sure what statistic you'd use to demonstrate the insignificance - that we're not as active or as leveraged as our 1% counterparts? I'm not sure how that equates to middle class wealth being irrelevant or insignificant.

Most capital is obtained by leverage.

BAC has a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.3%, i.e. for every $1 that someone put in as an asset there - they have loaned out $12.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tier-1-capital-ratio.asp

This is a very very very simplified view of how capital ratios actually work, and how different tiers factor in. Its a reasonable 10000ft view simplification.

This ratio used to be as high as 35 X asset before 2008.

[PKFFW]

The government can regulate automobiles to reduce emissions (as it is doing), but given that automobiles also have utility, there has to be a balance. The best way to balance it out is to dissuade excessive consumption by subsidising green cars and penalising fuel inefficient cars. All these things are being done. It's true that if you have a lot of money you can pay the penalty more easily than someone who doesn't. That's one of the myriad benefits of having money. The progressive part has already been dealt with at the income tax end.

That's a slight straw man, but to an extent, that's how a market economy works.

So yes, in a nutshell, if you can afford it you can trump the rights of others and that is apparently how it should be according to the Libertarian viewpoint.

[Bloop Bloop]

If that's how you want to characterise it, then go right ahead.

I guess you could say that by affording multiple houses, I'm trumping the rights of others to public housing, and/or I'm trumping the right of my tenants to own freehold land. By using Uber, I'm trumping the rights of medallion owners to keep their taxi licence monopoly forever. Etc etc.

[PKFFW]

If that's how you want to characterise it, then go right ahead.

I guess you could say that by affording multiple houses, I'm trumping the rights of others to public housing, and/or I'm trumping the right of my tenants to own freehold land. By using Uber, I'm trumping the rights of medallion owners to keep their taxi licence monopoly forever. Etc etc.

Housing - Only if by owning those houses you ensure there are no other houses or land to hold which is obviously not the case.
Uber - Unlike the right to life, the right to keep a taxi licence monopoly forever isn't enumerated anywhere nor has anyone ever to my knowledge claimed there is such a right.

Using a motor vehicle that emits carcinogenic particulates does actually infringe the oft mentioned right to life and there isn't any other air supply that is completely isolated and kept clean from such particulates unless one has the money to afford it. (which I suppose fits perfectly with the Libertarian viewpoint.  Those who can afford it are free to enjoy the right to clean, non-infringing air and those who can't....well they just don't have that right do they?)

[Boofinator]

Using a motor vehicle that emits carcinogenic particulates does actually infringe the oft mentioned right to life and there isn't any other air supply that is completely isolated and kept clean from such particulates unless one has the money to afford it. (which I suppose fits perfectly with the Libertarian viewpoint.  Those who can afford it are free to enjoy the right to clean, non-infringing air and those who can't....well they just don't have that right do they?)

There are many libertarian viewpoints on pollution, but I'd venture to say that the Ayn Rand-type viewpoint (to either ignore pollution or pretend it's a minor price to pay for progress) is not the common creed of today's Libertarian Party, which, as far as I can tell, favors "free-market environmentalism". This I think is a horrible idea, but nonetheless, it does not resemble your description of complete ignorance of the harm either.

The Libertarian's main complaint about the current status quo (government regulation) seems to be that it hasn't helped decrease instances of pollution, at least as compared to what tort action and/or private ownership would (which I disagree, though they have a valid point that government solution is not the panacea many make it out to be).

[robartsd]

Using a motor vehicle that emits carcinogenic particulates does actually infringe the oft mentioned right to life and there isn't any other air supply that is completely isolated and kept clean from such particulates unless one has the money to afford it. (which I suppose fits perfectly with the Libertarian viewpoint.  Those who can afford it are free to enjoy the right to clean, non-infringing air and those who can't....well they just don't have that right do they?)

While I agree that libertarians who think any regulations or fees on emissions are constructing a selfish and inconsistent world view by selectively applying their ideology, I view your argument that equates allowing the market to balance the utility of burning fossil fuels (by applying a fee or tax as proxy for the damage to the shared air) with infringing on the right to life of others as quite a straw man argument when viewed from the perspective of mainstream political policy. Some people favor regulations that dictate how emissions can and cannot be used; libertarians would prefer to put a price on the emissions and let the market decide the results.

[J Boogie]

He also is a model of making out like a bandit when everyone else lost their shirts.
https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/how-eddie-lampert-can-come-out-ahead-no-matter-where-sears-lands-14463492

Comparison with SP500 is not relevant. SP500 did not go bankrupt. SHLD did. Should Eddie shoulder responsibility and take some hit on his capital? Or are the controllers of capital somehow special and immune from the responsibilities? It seems he takes almost all the upside, takes none of the downside and leaves the workers holding the bag. Quite a racket, that!

I dunno. What upside, the pot scrapings he probably tried to siphon out of the company before bankruptcy? The dust hasn't completely settled yet, but I imagine creditors are probably going to sue Lampert if he tried to hide any assets from the bankruptcy fillings.

I see a guy whose hedge fund went from 16B AUM down to 1B and personal net worth probably followed a similar trajectory.

I don't feel sorry for him, and if it turns out he did act unethically to try and subvert the bankruptcy process, then he deserves jail time. If not, then he's just a capitalist who lost.

The meme of Eddie Lampert getting rich at the expense of honest hardworking people is false. Employees lost jobs, stockholders lost capital, and Eddie ~ 90% of his own and his friends' investment in Sears.

Let me ask you this hypothetically: If it turns out Eddie did not try to cheat the bankruptcy process, that he was always trying to revive the company, and put off layoffs as much as he could - would you still consider him unethical?

I ask because my suspicion is that what rubs people the wrong way is ultimately that a guy with a 7b net worth invested 6b and lost it, and still remains a billionaire while the poor people working for Sears then became poor and unemployed.

If that's true, what would you change about our laws (besides making our bankruptcy proceedings ethically ironclad, which we're both 100% for) to favor labor over investors who borrow and manage?

[J Boogie]

Most capital is obtained by leverage.

BAC has a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.3%, i.e. for every $1 that someone put in as an asset there - they have loaned out $12.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tier-1-capital-ratio.asp

This is a very very very simplified view of how capital ratios actually work, and how different tiers factor in. Its a reasonable 10000ft view simplification.

This ratio used to be as high as 35 X asset before 2008.

I'm familiar with leverage and how banks use it. I just don't see how this makes middle class capital an irrelevant insignificant rounding error, especially as it relates to labor vs capital discussions - as small businesses employ nearly half of all US employees. From that standpoint, it's almost equally likely that we're talking about a middle class employer who used their past wages and sweat equity to invest in a business.

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/2018-Small-Business-Profiles-US.pdf

[LennStar]

Some people favor regulations that dictate how emissions can and cannot be used; libertarians would prefer to put a price on the emissions and let the market decide the results.

And who is the one putting the price on emission?
Because the Free Market isn't, or not the correct one anyway. The price the FM puts on it is just the price of the resources, not the price of the usage (health and environment costs).
And I am sure as hell, should the Free Market but a more korrekt 40 dollar per liter on gas, all those libertarians would be crying foul and that this price is taking away their freedom to drive.

[ctuser1]

Most capital is obtained by leverage.

BAC has a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.3%, i.e. for every $1 that someone put in as an asset there - they have loaned out $12.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tier-1-capital-ratio.asp

This is a very very very simplified view of how capital ratios actually work, and how different tiers factor in. Its a reasonable 10000ft view simplification.

This ratio used to be as high as 35 X asset before 2008.

I'm familiar with leverage and how banks use it. I just don't see how this makes middle class capital an irrelevant insignificant rounding error, especially as it relates to labor vs capital discussions - as small businesses employ nearly half of all US employees. From that standpoint, it's almost equally likely that we're talking about a middle class employer who used their past wages and sweat equity to invest in a business.

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/2018-Small-Business-Profiles-US.pdf

Do you plan to defend your position that says:
1. "When you're investing your capital, you're investing hundreds or thousands of days' wages from your past that you chose not to spend"?
2. "Yes, I do think that most capital has come from investing labor and past wage"

Or do you plan to suddenly adjust the goalpost to "I just don't see how this makes middle class capital an irrelevant insignificant rounding error, especially as it relates to labor vs capital discussions"?

What is your position?
Is "past wage" representative of "most capital"?
Or just NOT("insignificant rounding error")? 

You know the basics of good faith interaction - right? If you are making a claim - you should either back it up with data or acknowledge when you make adjustments.

I am still waiting for you to substantiate your two explicit claims regarding earned wage.

-----------------
>> it's almost equally likely that we're talking about a middle class employer who used their past wages and sweat equity to invest in a business

A small business is defined as < 500 employees in the chart you gave.

The owner of that business will have his own wages (i.e. earned income), and other income he gains based on other people's labor. Is it your claim that the business owner's value for time (i.e. wage, "sweat equity") forms most of his money? and not leveraging other employees time? Or other such investment returns?

Heck, in my own 401k - my wages are only one-fourth of the total. Rest is investment returns and compounding!!

[ctuser1]

Let me ask you this hypothetically: If it turns out Eddie did not try to cheat the bankruptcy process, that he was always trying to revive the company, and put off layoffs as much as he could - would you still consider him unethical?

I ask because my suspicion is that what rubs people the wrong way is ultimately that a guy with a 7b net worth invested 6b and lost it, and still remains a billionaire while the poor people working for Sears then became poor and unemployed.

If that's true, what would you change about our laws (besides making our bankruptcy proceedings ethically ironclad, which we're both 100% for) to favor labor over investors who borrow and manage?

From all indications, he did NOT lose money!!
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1c33fqdnhf21s/Eddie-Lampert-Shattered-Sears-Sullied-His-Reputation-and-Lost-Billions-of-Dollars-Or-Did-He

Although current Sears shareholders have lost almost their entire investment, tens of thousands of employees have lost their jobs, and creditors — including the U.S. government — and others are owed $11 billion, Lampert has still made nearly $1.4 billion to date from his Sears investment, a number that has never been calculated before.

Many changes to law are possible once the US Capitalism is freed from the Ayn Rand gang.  Maybe labor representation in the hiring and firing decision of CEO in the boardroom is a good idea. Germans do it, it seems.

[GuitarStv]

Some people favor regulations that dictate how emissions can and cannot be used; libertarians would prefer to put a price on the emissions and let the market decide the results.

And who is the one putting the price on emission?
Because the Free Market isn't, or not the correct one anyway. The price the FM puts on it is just the price of the resources, not the price of the usage (health and environment costs).
And I am sure as hell, should the Free Market but a more korrekt 40 dollar per liter on gas, all those libertarians would be crying foul and that this price is taking away their freedom to drive.

It's extremely difficult to price things like that.  We know that x number of people are killed each year by pollution from vehicles, but what is the value of a human life?

[Boofinator]

Some people favor regulations that dictate how emissions can and cannot be used; libertarians would prefer to put a price on the emissions and let the market decide the results.

And who is the one putting the price on emission?
Because the Free Market isn't, or not the correct one anyway. The price the FM puts on it is just the price of the resources, not the price of the usage (health and environment costs).
And I am sure as hell, should the Free Market but a more korrekt 40 dollar per liter on gas, all those libertarians would be crying foul and that this price is taking away their freedom to drive.

It's extremely difficult to price things like that.  We know that x number of people are killed each year by pollution from vehicles, but what is the value of a human life?

And to top it off, deaths from pollution tend to happen disproportionately to older people, whose lives are worth presumably less than the average person.

[robartsd]

Some people favor regulations that dictate how emissions can and cannot be used; libertarians would prefer to put a price on the emissions and let the market decide the results.

And who is the one putting the price on emission?
Because the Free Market isn't, or not the correct one anyway. The price the FM puts on it is just the price of the resources, not the price of the usage (health and environment costs).
And I am sure as hell, should the Free Market but a more korrekt 40 dollar per liter on gas, all those libertarians would be crying foul and that this price is taking away their freedom to drive.

I'm saying the government putting a price on emissions can easily be reconciled to a libertarian point of view as long as the price applies to all emissions. Libertarians are generally not anarchists and recognize that there is some need for government - just much more limited than most other ideologies. No reason that necessary government shouldn't be funded by taxing activities that are harmful to the commons while allowing the free market choice regarding if those activities are worth the cost. Ideally the government would set a target for emissions, and a tax on emissions with a goal of meeting the target. If the tax is insufficient to motivate the free market to meet the target, use a formula to adjust the tax until the minimum tax that meets the target is reached. I don't see this idea as more or less effective than other ways to get to an emissions target, but it is in line with my view of libertarian and free market principles.

[Bloop Bloop]

Some people favor regulations that dictate how emissions can and cannot be used; libertarians would prefer to put a price on the emissions and let the market decide the results.

And who is the one putting the price on emission?
Because the Free Market isn't, or not the correct one anyway. The price the FM puts on it is just the price of the resources, not the price of the usage (health and environment costs).
And I am sure as hell, should the Free Market but a more korrekt 40 dollar per liter on gas, all those libertarians would be crying foul and that this price is taking away their freedom to drive.

If petrol cost $40 a litre I would just switch to an EV. And keep my gas guzzling, beautifully naturally aspirated car (the sound at redline is amazing!) for twisty driving only. Which is what I already do. No doubt, though, while you'd be happy with me paying $40/L, you'd want taxes to recompense all the poor people who could no longer afford to drive. Not really a Free Market solution though is it.

[GuitarStv]

Some people favor regulations that dictate how emissions can and cannot be used; libertarians would prefer to put a price on the emissions and let the market decide the results.

And who is the one putting the price on emission?
Because the Free Market isn't, or not the correct one anyway. The price the FM puts on it is just the price of the resources, not the price of the usage (health and environment costs).
And I am sure as hell, should the Free Market but a more korrekt 40 dollar per liter on gas, all those libertarians would be crying foul and that this price is taking away their freedom to drive.

I'm saying the government putting a price on emissions can easily be reconciled to a libertarian point of view as long as the price applies to all emissions. Libertarians are generally not anarchists and recognize that there is some need for government - just much more limited than most other ideologies. No reason that necessary government shouldn't be funded by taxing activities that are harmful to the commons while allowing the free market choice regarding if those activities are worth the cost. Ideally the government would set a target for emissions, and a tax on emissions with a goal of meeting the target. If the tax is insufficient to motivate the free market to meet the target, use a formula to adjust the tax until the minimum tax that meets the target is reached. I don't see this idea as more or less effective than other ways to get to an emissions target, but it is in line with my view of libertarian and free market principles.

What is a fair price to put on emissions known to cause deaths?

[J Boogie]

Most capital is obtained by leverage.

BAC has a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.3%, i.e. for every $1 that someone put in as an asset there - they have loaned out $12.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tier-1-capital-ratio.asp

This is a very very very simplified view of how capital ratios actually work, and how different tiers factor in. Its a reasonable 10000ft view simplification.

This ratio used to be as high as 35 X asset before 2008.

I'm familiar with leverage and how banks use it. I just don't see how this makes middle class capital an irrelevant insignificant rounding error, especially as it relates to labor vs capital discussions - as small businesses employ nearly half of all US employees. From that standpoint, it's almost equally likely that we're talking about a middle class employer who used their past wages and sweat equity to invest in a business.

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/2018-Small-Business-Profiles-US.pdf

Do you plan to defend your position that says:
1. "When you're investing your capital, you're investing hundreds or thousands of days' wages from your past that you chose not to spend"?
2. "Yes, I do think that most capital has come from investing labor and past wage"

Or do you plan to suddenly adjust the goalpost to "I just don't see how this makes middle class capital an irrelevant insignificant rounding error, especially as it relates to labor vs capital discussions"?

What is your position?
Is "past wage" representative of "most capital"?
Or just NOT("insignificant rounding error")? 

You know the basics of good faith interaction - right? If you are making a claim - you should either back it up with data or acknowledge when you make adjustments.

I am still waiting for you to substantiate your two explicit claims regarding earned wage.

I defend my position in the first statement I made before you held it up to your criteria. In light of the criteria you're applying,  I could have also included "your future earnings & wages" as well to account for use of leverage, or "earnings and wages you are managing on behalf of your friends who are expecting big returns who will pull it out if you fail". 

But it wouldn't change the fundamental underlying premise that when someone invests capital, they put their wealth on the line and it comes with big risks - especially if they use leverage. You can try to use bankruptcy to screw your creditors, but oftentimes they'll get good lawyers and they'll try really hard to find whatever you tried to siphon off the company before you filed.

What it seems like is that you're trying to pick apart a generalized and pithy statement I made in a way that doesn't materially change the argument. You could have simply mentioned that I left out borrowed/managed wealth which I grant. An relevant omission to be sure, but it doesn't change anything as borrowers are responsible for repaying loans.

On the second point, it's kind of up in the air.  There isn't a great way of determining inherited vs earned wealth.  However, the NBER estimates that 35-45% of wealth is inherited vs earned, which would support my contention that most wealth has been earned.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/01/30/wealth-inheritance-and-social-mobility/

https://www.nber.org/papers/w11767.pdf

[ctuser1]

On the second point, it's kind of up in the air.  There isn't a great way of determining inherited vs earned wealth.

You are using a different definition of "earned" than is appropriate in the context of "wages".

My W2 wages are earned income. No dispute there.

Dividends and capital gains will also be considered earned income (and not "inherited") in the definition you are using. IRS has a definition of "earned income" vs. "unearned income". *That* is a more appropriate definition in the same context where wages are discussed.
------------------

You made a statement trying to somehow show "capital" is sacrosanct and labor is not! This is a common right-wing fallacy - of somehow prioritizing one economic input over others.

Capital is *just another economic input*, just like labor is, nothing more and nothing else! This is especially true in an economic system awash with liquidity because (I believe) of aging populations, and with shortage of workers due to the same underlying factor!! There is *no reason* to continue allowing *capital controllers* to use their monopsonistic power to create deadweight loss for everyone else in the labor market.

Eddie Lampert is a bad example because he is so blatant and obvious. If you consider every 10-employee small business owner that hogs the entire economic return from the business without sharing it with the labor, then he is engaging the monopsonistic behavior as well.

Capital owner isn’t the only one with their neck on the line.

[robartsd]

What is a fair price to put on emissions known to cause deaths?

Point to one example of someone seriously targeting zero emissions at a national level who has anywhere near the level of support of a libertarian.

[J Boogie]

On the second point, it's kind of up in the air.  There isn't a great way of determining inherited vs earned wealth.

You are using a different definition of "earned" than is appropriate in the context of "wages".

My W2 wages are earned income. No dispute there.

Dividends and capital gains will also be considered earned income (and not "inherited") in the definition you are using. IRS has a definition of "earned income" vs. "unearned income". *That* is a more appropriate definition in the same context where wages are discussed.

Disagree. We are differentiating between money that was given to someone vs money they made themselves. Whether you put it under a mattress or invest it, you earned it and you earn any interest it accrues. The IRS definition is good for differentiating between money made through labor vs investing but actually doesn't apply very well in this instance.

[J Boogie]

You made a statement trying to somehow show "capital" is sacrosanct and labor is not! This is a common right-wing fallacy - of somehow prioritizing one economic input over others.

Capital is *just another economic input*, just like labor is, nothing more and nothing else! This is especially true in an economic system awash with liquidity because (I believe) of aging populations, and with shortage of workers due to the same underlying factor!! There is *no reason* to continue allowing *capital controllers* to use their monopsonistic power to create deadweight loss for everyone else in the labor market.

Eddie Lampert is a bad example because he is so blatant and obvious. If you consider every 10-employee small business owner that hogs the entire economic return from the business without sharing it with the labor, then he is engaging the monopsonistic behavior as well.

Capital owner isn’t the only one with their neck on the line.

Sure, capital is just another economic input. I don't prioritize capital in any particular way, I simply assign it market value as I assign labor market value. Many labor laws are excellent, as they establish ground rules that cannot be violated even if a recession meant workers might put up with them due to having no other prospects.

I'm curious to know what law you'd propose to give workers more economic power. Who knows, maybe it'd be something I'd agree with. I just don't agree with assigning labor itself a value beyond market value - I'd rather call it what it is, a wealth transfer designed to achieve a better society.

[ctuser1]

We are differentiating between money that was given to someone vs money they made themselves.

You used the word "wage" as a rhetorical device in a specific context.

I invested a fairly big chunk of money in AAPL back in 2012 and now sit on a big pile of capital gains. Is that capital gain my "wage"? In the same way that "a fair days wage for a fair days labor" mean?

[ctuser1]

Sure, capital is just another economic input. I don't prioritize capital in any particular way, I simply assign it market value as I assign labor market value. Many labor laws are excellent, as they establish ground rules that cannot be violated even if a recession meant workers might put up with them due to having no other prospects.

I'm curious to know what law you'd propose to give workers more economic power. Who knows, maybe it'd be something I'd agree with. I just don't agree with assigning labor itself a value beyond market value - I'd rather call it what it is, a wealth transfer designed to achieve a better society.

I don't have any specific laws in mind, because I have not spent any effort thinking about them - and it will require a LOT of effort given laws tend to have a lot of unintended consequences.

The inequality in US has increased a lot in the last few decades. That needs to be countered if we want the economic well-being of everyone (even the billionaires) to continue.

In an ideal utopia where the entire political class was patriotic, I'd like to see it as an incremental project to fix the inequality - one small law at a time.

Incremental - because big bang approach typically causes disruptive changes that are difficult to predict.

-----------------

"a wealth transfer designed to achieve a better society"

When a capital controller uses his monopsonistic power to tilt the market in his favor, create deadweight losses for all other participants, and hogs the entire economic return to himself - then what do you call it?

Wealth transfer designed to achieve a yatch for a billionaire?

Go ahead and use whatever linguistic devices you want as long as you stay fair.

[PKFFW]

libertarians would prefer to put a price on the emissions and let the market decide the results.

Which is another way of saying "if you can afford the luxury you can trump the rights of others".

Let's be honest here.  "Let the market decide the results" specifically means that so long as one can pay the market price they can do what they want. (assuming what they want to do is legal to begin with)  Furthermore, it means those who do not have the funds to influence the market or "buy" their rights have no rights because they simply can't afford them.

That's the reality no matter how one choose to obfuscate it with Libertarian jargon.

[Bloop Bloop]

It's almost as if having money allows you to purchase legal goods and services that others can't afford.

[GuitarStv]

It's almost as if having money allows you to purchase legal goods and services that others can't afford.

Everyone seems to be missing a fundamental part here.  There is still nobody in this thread who has proposed a reasonable way for the market to decide the value of a human life in order to price pollution.  How does the market determine the price of human life?  What if one of the people dying doesn't want to sell their life for a value that a rich libertarian with a car wants to buy at?

[PKFFW]

It's almost as if having money allows you to purchase legal goods and services that others can't afford.

It's almost as if so long as you can afford those legal goods and services it shouldn't matter if those legal goods and services kill other people.  Your rights trump their rights because you can afford it.

[Bloop Bloop]

It's almost as if having money allows you to purchase legal goods and services that others can't afford.

Everyone seems to be missing a fundamental part here.  There is still nobody in this thread who has proposed a reasonable way for the market to decide the value of a human life in order to price pollution.  How does the market determine the price of human life?  What if one of the people dying doesn't want to sell their life for a value that a rich libertarian with a car wants to buy at?

To make it clear, I've never said that "the market" should determine everything, only that it should determine wages; our existing structures are more than sufficient for other regulation and there is no need to redistribute to enable some further framework of 'natural rights'. In my society, there'd be free healthcare for everyone which would alleviate the issue with the asthmatic with an eggshell pair of lungs who can't abide any cars.

[Boofinator]

It's almost as if having money allows you to purchase legal goods and services that others can't afford.

Everyone seems to be missing a fundamental part here.  There is still nobody in this thread who has proposed a reasonable way for the market to decide the value of a human life in order to price pollution.  How does the market determine the price of human life?  What if one of the people dying doesn't want to sell their life for a value that a rich libertarian with a car wants to buy at?

Are you suggesting you have a value for a human life? Or are you suggesting that a value cannot be placed on human life?

If it's the former, we'd all love to hear it. If it's the latter, you're reading from the non-aggression page of the Libertarian playbook, where any aggression on someone's liberty, no matter how small or unlikely to cause harm, should be prevented, with the absurd conclusion that we perform self-euthanasia in order to not potentially cause harm to another.

[ctuser1]

It's almost as if having money allows you to purchase legal goods and services that others can't afford.

Everyone seems to be missing a fundamental part here.  There is still nobody in this thread who has proposed a reasonable way for the market to decide the value of a human life in order to price pollution.  How does the market determine the price of human life?  What if one of the people dying doesn't want to sell their life for a value that a rich libertarian with a car wants to buy at?

Not a "free market" definition - but government agencies and some case law routinely assign value of life.

e.g. from US DOT:  https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%20Value%20of%20a%20Statistical%20Life%20Guidance.pdf

Economic value of life was assigned to be $9.4M in 2015.

I understand you are trying to point out the absurdity of the Libertarian logic.

In real world, I am more pi**ed off that the freeloading libertarians (e.g. the Koch's) get to weasel out of paying their fair share of pollution taxes while taking theirs AND everyone else's share of the profits.

[okonumiyaki]

[LennStar]

What is a fair price to put on emissions known to cause deaths?

I was already preparing a long explanation to why, but ctuser1 beat me to the fact, so the short version:

Putting aside the moral implications of a killed(!) humans life, we could take the amount that is taken when calculating safety measures. In the US that is a bit above 9 million per life as per my head, so I think the number from ctuser1 is the same or calculated on the same base.

Now you have to take the number of death. I don't know about epidemiology studies of the US on this, but judging on the numbers for Germany and Diesel alone, there should be around 30K death per year in the US by traffic emissions.

That makes
30*9 = 270
270'000 for the K
270'000'000'000 for the million.
270 billion, to have a ballpark number.
Now find out how much gas is used in the US per year and divide.

And after that you can add the environmental damage. There are quite some people that will be killed (admittedly most outside the US) because of the impeding climate catatrophe.

[robartsd]

Now you have to take the number of death. I don't know about epidemiology studies of the US on this, but judging on the numbers for Germany and Diesel alone, there should be around 30K death per year in the US by traffic emissions.

I do believe that diesel is worse than gasoline in terms of direct emissions impact on human life.  Also differences in population density may make significant differences. That said, a quick Google search says that the US used about 140 B gallons of gasoline in 2015 and I don't think an additional $2/gallon tax on gasoline would be a bad idea (with equivalent tax on other fossil fuels domestically and an embodied fossil fuel tariff on imports to prevent substitution of fossil fuel source/location) provided other taxes are cut to be overall revenue neutral. I think adding $2/gallon to the price would influence fossil fuel consumption in measurable ways (I'm not convinced that it would be enough, but it would be a reasonable starting point). I don't find this at all at odds with a libertarian point of view.

[GuitarStv]

OK, so we've come up with a price for a human life.  9 million dollars.  Granted, that was arrived at from a government agency . . . not the free market, but whatever.

If I'm a rich guy with multiple billions of dollars, that means that I can execute any person I want and simply hand their family 9 mil, right?

I ask because . . . maybe some of the people who are going to die because of automobile use don't want to trade their lives for 9 million collected in gas tax.  The market can't effectively set a price on something that nobody wants to sell.

[robartsd]

OK, so we've come up with a price for a human life.  9 million dollars.  Granted, that was arrived at from a government agency . . . not the free market, but whatever.

If I'm a rich guy with multiple billions of dollars, that means that I can execute any person I want and simply hand their family 9 mil, right?

I ask because . . . maybe some of the people who are going to die because of automobile use don't want to trade their lives for 9 million collected in gas tax.  The market can't effectively set a price on something that nobody wants to sell.

Yes, you've made the point (over and over) that not everything can be determined by the market. Libertarians also agree that some government is needed. The proper term for those that believe that no government is needed is anarchist. Stop arguing against libertarian ideology using an anarchist straw man.

[GuitarStv]

OK, so we've come up with a price for a human life.  9 million dollars.  Granted, that was arrived at from a government agency . . . not the free market, but whatever.

If I'm a rich guy with multiple billions of dollars, that means that I can execute any person I want and simply hand their family 9 mil, right?

I ask because . . . maybe some of the people who are going to die because of automobile use don't want to trade their lives for 9 million collected in gas tax.  The market can't effectively set a price on something that nobody wants to sell.

Yes, you've made the point (over and over) that not everything can be determined by the market. Libertarians also agree that some government is needed. The proper term for those that believe that no government is needed is anarchist. Stop arguing against libertarian ideology using an anarchist straw man.

What exactly is the Libertarian argument against the rich murdering people and paying the families 9 million dollars though?  Typically this is the part where Libertarians go on about 'natural rights'.

But here's the problem.  We know that driving will deprive people of their life because of the pollution generated.  If life is a 'natural right', then it should be illegal for anyone to ever drive a car . . . no matter what tax is levied.

[freya]

What exactly is the Libertarian argument against the rich murdering people and paying the families 9 million dollars though?  Typically this is the part where Libertarians go on about 'natural rights'.

Simple:  it's wrong to do so and is disruptive to normally functioning society.  You will not find any libertarian who does not believe that "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

Can we please dispense with the ridiculous straw-man arguments?  I have another conundrum to pose that is worthy of debate:  illegal immigration.  In the pure Libertarian view, there should be no borders - but also no "welcome wagon" greeting the immigrants.  You come here, you earn your own way with no one's help, or don't come.  If you do come and earn your own way, you contribute to society by definition which benefits everyone.  The biggest reason why we need border control is that we do, in fact, have a welcome wagon attracting unskilled immigrants:  free schools catering to families who refuse to learn English, free medical care, food stamps, subsidized housing, and on and on.  Which the rest of us get to pay for.  Under this scenario, illegal immigrants are an expensive hobby and especially are bad news for our native lower class (despite contrived attempts to prove otherwise by playing fast and loose with numbers and facts).

This simplified argument for open borders breaks down badly in a couple situations:  immigrants who come and then develop an unforeseen need for expensive medical care, and of course there's the issue of people coming intent on terrorism or other criminal behavior.  Both of these are rare scenarios though.

So....intelligent debate please?