David Simon on Two Americas and the loss of our Social Compact

[Syonyk]

I personally find a lot to like in the modern monetary theory (MMT) descriptions and proposals in recent times...

MMT, in the reading I've done on it so far, essentially argues, "Nothing about any fiscal discipline matters at all, because GOVERNMENT IS MAGIC!"  Despite a rather horrible track record of government managing to do anything useful for more than about 2 election cycles before it starts getting badly corrupted.

I've got those links queued up to read, and will get to them.

Don't most grocery stores (high end and low end) buy their produce, meats and consumables from similar/the same suppliers?  Would not the wholesale price be effected to the same degree for all stores?

I don't have detailed information on grocery store supply chains or costs handy, but I'm reasonably certain Whole Foods and Dollar General don't use the same suppliers for food.  Also, the raw cost of the food is not the only factor in the cost - the cost of employees, rent, power, etc, all factor in, with the cost of employees being a significant factor.  So there's still a lot of local pressure that won't affect higher priced stores.

If twice as many people wanted to buy a cheap new car, car prices would not double.

Car prices might not, but the cost of a parking spot (part of housing costs) would certainly increase if the number of cars in an area went up significantly.  Also, if the purchases were not new cars but were used cars (due to being unable to get credit or afford the $15k cost of a base model new car), it would certainly affect the cost of used cars in the area.

I hope that you lose some of your cynicism regarding possibility of improving the disparity in incomes and wealth in the U.S.

 

Let me know when something happens that makes it worth believing government (which I've argued is a major source of the problem through the actions of the Federal Reserve) suddenly can become a solution, in an increasingly energy-constrained world, with nearly full corporate capture of the heavily monetized political process.

I certainly think government could offer functional solutions to the problem.  I also think it's highly unlikely that the US government will do so, because doing so is against the interests of those who have the power to do so.

However, I'm not sure putting "the employer of last resort" on one's resume would be attractive to a majority of employers.

If you can prove that you can show up to a job reliably and not get fired for doing something moronic, that goes a surprisingly long way.

[Syonyk]

On the other side, there's plenty of money in pawn shops, payday loans, car title loans, buy here pay here car lots, the list goes on and on...

There's a LOT of money in those places. :(  They require nearly no store front space.  And at least some people argue that major banks are providing the funding because it's so profitable.  http://npa-us.org/research/payday-lending being one such place.

Whatever the cause or nuance, every governmental regime throughout history was overthrown by disenfranchised populations within their ranks.

Mmhmm.  And why would you think the current establishments are any different?

[ChrisLansing]

Or, to put it slightly differently, the possibility of working people deciding they liked communism gave the rich a reason to share the wealth, to some extent.   Now that communism is seen as a complete failure, there is no fear that people will turn to it, and no reason for a reasonably prosperous middle class.    What's the alternative?   There isn't one anymore.   

There's more to all this than what I said above, but that's part of the story.   

This factor alone is quite scary.  When people think there is no alternatives or no hope, eventually the discontent will grow to the point of open rebellion.  Whatever the cause or nuance, every governmental regime throughout history was overthrown by disenfranchised populations within their ranks.  Wars are won or lost by hearts and minds.

But, the discontent needs to get focused and channeled into something effective.     Whether or not Communism could ever have succeeded ( I doubt it)  it at least was feared as an alternative.    If Capitalists didn't treat people right, they might decide to become commies.    But Communism is no longer an alternative.     

The "rebellion" (if there is one) will be unfocused and ineffective.    For the rich this isn't much to worry about.   Poor people will be destroying poor neighborhoods, and the poor barely bother to vote so they won't be voting for "socialists".   

As an aside, I thought the article lacked an analysis of the rise of the knowledge economy.    We simply don't need all hands on deck to raise and lower the sails anymore.   Much of that has been automated and even where it isn't automated, it's more efficient (e.g. needing fewer labor inputs) so a certain (and probably growing) percentage of the population simply aren't needed anymore.   


The article is "spot on" in saying that Capitalism works because it's not pure.   

[GuitarStv]

That article is bang on accurate.

[Chuck]

All this talk of inequality and discontent forgets a key point: People turned to communism in early 20th century not because there were people with bigger houses than they had. It was because they were starving to death. They turned to violence because it was necessary to survive.

The least in American society today have more luxuries and comforts than the wealthy even two generations ago. This was not true 100 years ago. Having a roof over your head was a major concern for a huge number of people. Starvation was a major concern.

With housing and food now abundant, and few if any at risk of dying from starvation or exposure (indeed, the number one health risk is obesity) I find it very hard to give a flying fuck that some people can't buy as much bullshit as others. Fuck this envy politics bullshit.

[Beaker]

The job guarantee is an interesting concept, but I have hard time picturing how that would work in actual practice. If employment is guaranteed, doesn't that mean you effectively can't fire anybody? Or even if you did fire them from this guaranteed job, they would just get another one? So if you show up and just screw around all day, or don't show up at all, you'll still get paid one way or another. Or, worse yet, people might show up and then do "negative work", ie break things, create disorder, promise to do things and then don't, etc.


Perhaps I'm being overly cynical. There is such a thing as pride in doing good work, and I'm sure there are a lot of people would try hard and use such a job as a stepping stone to better things. But those people would probably move through the program rather quickly, and leave all the useless idiots as permanent wards of the program.


Honestly, if you want to just pay everyone then the guaranteed income seems like a better approach. You're still paying people, but at least then you don't have people gumming up the works because they have to pretend to work.

[jmusic]

Or, to put it slightly differently, the possibility of working people deciding they liked communism gave the rich a reason to share the wealth, to some extent.   Now that communism is seen as a complete failure, there is no fear that people will turn to it, and no reason for a reasonably prosperous middle class.    What's the alternative?   There isn't one anymore.   

There's more to all this than what I said above, but that's part of the story.   

This factor alone is quite scary.  When people think there is no alternatives or no hope, eventually the discontent will grow to the point of open rebellion.  Whatever the cause or nuance, every governmental regime throughout history was overthrown by disenfranchised populations within their ranks.  Wars are won or lost by hearts and minds.

But, the discontent needs to get focused and channeled into something effective.     Whether or not Communism could ever have succeeded ( I doubt it)  it at least was feared as an alternative.    If Capitalists didn't treat people right, they might decide to become commies.    But Communism is no longer an alternative.     

The "rebellion" (if there is one) will be unfocused and ineffective.    For the rich this isn't much to worry about.   Poor people will be destroying poor neighborhoods, and the poor barely bother to vote so they won't be voting for "socialists".   

As an aside, I thought the article lacked an analysis of the rise of the knowledge economy.    We simply don't need all hands on deck to raise and lower the sails anymore.   Much of that has been automated and even where it isn't automated, it's more efficient (e.g. needing fewer labor inputs) so a certain (and probably growing) percentage of the population simply aren't needed anymore.   


The article is "spot on" in saying that Capitalism works because it's not pure.   

I agree.  Right now the economy is like the California forests in a long, severe drought.  It's not on fire at this very moment, but the conditions are certainly ripe.  I'm actually more concerned about other parts of the world.  Greece, for example, is unable to repay debts incurred from their bailout during 2011, and its population is under severe stress from the resulting austerity measures.  Germany was in similar condition after WWI which allowed Hitler to rise to power. 

Regarding Knowledge economy:  While it wasn't directly mentioned, it's definitely a large contributing factor for the disconnect. 

Using McDonalds as an example, there is little value in unskilled labor; the money is in designing and engineering processes.  I guarantee the operations researchers and engineers that shave 3 seconds off of the assembly time of each Big Mac make far more than the people assembling said burgers.  They're also contributing to a reduced need for employees.

[Syonyk]

As a concrete example of the point I made earlier regarding politicians, noises, and money:

Hillary Clinton has recently been making the "right noises" about wealth inquality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/us/politics/hillary-clintons-quest-to-prove-her-populist-edge-is-as-strong-as-elizabeth-warrens.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Assorted snippets:

“The deck is stacked in their favor,” Mrs. Clinton said of the wealthy and powerful. “My job is to reshuffle the cards.”

And the policies Mrs. Clinton is advancing, like paid sick leave for employees and an increase in the minimum wage, align with that emphasis.

In a meeting with economists this year, Mrs. Clinton intensely studied a chart that showed income inequality in the United States. The graph charted how real wages, adjusted for inflation, had increased exponentially for the wealthiest Americans, making the bar so steep it hardly fit on the chart.
Mrs. Clinton pointed at the top category and said the economy required a “toppling” of the wealthiest 1 percent, according to several people who were briefed on her policy discussions but could not discuss private conversations for attribution.

She's certainly saying she cares about such things.

But, then, one looks at who's been giving her money for her various campaigns.
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019&type=I


Citigroup Inc   $782,327   $774,327   $8,000
Goldman Sachs   $711,490   $701,490   $10,000
DLA Piper   $628,030   $601,030   $27,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co   $620,919   $617,919   $3,000
EMILY's List   $605,174   $601,254   $3,920
Morgan Stanley   $543,065   $538,065   $5,000
Time Warner   $411,296   $386,296   $25,000
Skadden, Arps et al   $406,640   $402,140   $4,500
Lehman Brothers   $362,853   $359,853   $3,000
Cablevision Systems   $336,288   $306,900   $29,388
University of California   $329,673   $329,673   $0
Kirkland & Ellis   $311,441   $294,441   $17,000
Squire Patton Boggs   $310,596   $305,158   $5,438
21st Century Fox   $302,400   $302,400   $0


So, the question is, if she gets into office, which side will she play?  What she says she cares about (while trying to get elected), or the companies who have been paying for her campaigns to remain in office and get elected president?

We'll see.  But money talks very loudly in Washington, and most politicians, when it comes down to money or principles, seem to be pretty solid at picking money.

[Rocketman]

I have two comments:

First, I have noticed that the cost of a combo meal at a burger place has been equal to the minimum wage. 

When I started working as a teenager I could get lunch for $2.99 - Min wage-3.15/hr.
After Min wage got raised to $5-something (just don't remember right now) all of a sudden the combo meals were $5
Now Combo meals for 6.99 wand guess what... Min wage is $7.15/hr.

Raising Min wage just raises inflation. 

I believe the REAL reason people are poor is usually because of poor decision.  You reap what you sow.  The real problem is people learn most of their life skills from their parents.  Which if parent have poor life skills (spending less than you earn as one example), they will pass those down to their kids.  If you always spend all you earn, you will never save much.

All of these small life skills, (spend less than earn, get a good education,Proper Diversification, Don't buy crap you don't need. Work Hard to get ahead, Think, Reason, and Improve, Fix/Repair your stuff, plus many more) are what keeps the wealthy people wealthy and the poor people poor.  To make the poor people "less" poor, they need to learn the skills they are missing. Same with everyone (including me).

[Otsog]

I believe the REAL reason people are poor is usually because of poor decision.  You reap what you sow.  The real problem is people learn most of their life skills from their parents.  Which if parent have poor life skills (spending less than you earn as one example), they will pass those down to their kids.  If you always spend all you earn, you will never save much.

You have two contradicting ideas in the same paragraph

1) people are poor because they make bad decisions (it's their own fault)
2) people are poor because of their upbringing (it's their environment's fault)

[Syonyk]

https://www.crowdpac.com/blog/the-1-percent-of-the-1-percent

The top 0.01% of Americans contribute 40% of campaign money.

And people think that the politicians they buy care about inequality?

[Argyle]

Rocketman, have you considered the possibility that you have the correlation wrong?  That the minimum wage is raised after inflation has raised prices, so that those making minimum wage have some chance of being able to afford those higher prices?

[Beaker]

I believe the REAL reason people are poor is usually because of poor decision.  You reap what you sow.  The real problem is people learn most of their life skills from their parents.  Which if parent have poor life skills (spending less than you earn as one example), they will pass those down to their kids.  If you always spend all you earn, you will never save much.

You have two contradicting ideas in the same paragraph

1) people are poor because they make bad decisions (it's their own fault)
2) people are poor because of their upbringing (it's their environment's fault)

I don't entirely agree with Rocketman, but they're not contradictory ideas. A poor upbringing could lead to making poor decisions. A (poor upbringing) causes B (poor decisionmaking) causes C (poor life).

[RetiredAt63]

My random $.05C here

Interesting article: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/income-inequality.aspx

On other international boards I frequent I hear many horror stories from teachers - and those teachers are invariably in the U.S.  I definitely hear bad stories from teachers in other countries, but the worst are American.  How can we expect people to educate themselves when their own country seems to be sabotaging their educational resources?

I am in the midst of reading Deer Hunting with Jesus, and I think it would be a very informative read for those posting on this topic.

[jzb11]

  My mom was complaining that under 'Obamacare' she has to carry pregnancy coverage when she is already in her 60s.  She couldn't comprehend that health insurance only works if every person pitches in for every condition regardless of their likelihood to need that specific treatment.

Wrong, insurance is something used to mitigate risk. Health insurance prior to obamacare worked on the basic priniciples that all insurances follow - those who are part of the high risk pool pay higher prices, those who are a part of the low risk pool pay lower prices. If you want the high risk pool to pay less for their insurance, then you have to force the low risk pool to pay more for their insurance.

Personally I think insurance is not what we should be using to pay for health costs and the system needs real reform - not a mandate and a complete upending of underwriting principals.

[Bucksandreds]

  My mom was complaining that under 'Obamacare' she has to carry pregnancy coverage when she is already in her 60s.  She couldn't comprehend that health insurance only works if every person pitches in for every condition regardless of their likelihood to need that specific treatment.

Wrong, insurance is something used to mitigate risk. Health insurance prior to obamacare worked on the basic priniciples that all insurances follow - those who are part of the high risk pool pay higher prices, those who are a part of the low risk pool pay lower prices. If you want the high risk pool to pay less for their insurance, then you have to force the low risk pool to pay more for their insurance.

Personally I think insurance is not what we should be using to pay for health costs and the system needs real reform - not a mandate and a complete upending of underwriting principals.

Sorry, maybe I should have said functional health insurance (one without the government paying for high risk people) only works if we all pay for the risk associated with all conditions.  I just assumed that people would understand that I was talking about a more functional system and not our previous broken system where the federal government subsidized the healthy by paying for the previously healthy who were kicked out of the healthy pool.  So I agree.  According to the exact wording, I was wrong. 

[Bucksandreds]

My random $.05C here

Interesting article: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/income-inequality.aspx

On other international boards I frequent I hear many horror stories from teachers - and those teachers are invariably in the U.S.  I definitely hear bad stories from teachers in other countries, but the worst are American.  How can we expect people to educate themselves when their own country seems to be sabotaging their educational resources?

I am in the midst of reading Deer Hunting with Jesus, and I think it would be a very informative read for those posting on this topic.

Thanks. I just read a bunch of reviews of the book.  Seems to dive in to the reason that so many who are rural, white and poor vote against their economic interests. Conservatives use social issues to get these votes.  Liberals would help themselves to devise a better strategy to collect their votes. I imagine liberals have been working on this for years, however.

[tarheeldan]

Just gonna leave this here for the minimum wage and inflation thing:

http://www.dol.gov/minwage/minwage-gdp-history.htm

[GuitarStv]

Just gonna leave this here for the minimum wage and inflation thing:

http://www.dol.gov/minwage/minwage-gdp-history.htm

Reality has a well-known leftist bias.

[johnhenry]

Anyone read Piketty?

His hypothesis is that it was the 1910s-1960s in the West that was odd (major depression, major wars, large parts of the world being removed from capitalism) and this led to a mjor destruction of capital, and flattening of incomes.  Also, the West, faced with requirement to fight communism & facism, had to motivate all of society with propoganda, but this propoganda led to action.  E.g. "We are fighting for Freedom" and the impact of returning US servicemen on the civil rights movement, or the UK wartime debates on "Why We Fight" which led to the NHS and "Homes for Heroes" social housing

Without this destruction of capital, and without an external enemy that requires cohesion, the rich are getting richer, and don't feel they need to care so much about the non-rich. 

In the FIRE community we see this (rich getting richer) but we call it snowballing.

Amen, my brother!!

Those of us who spend our time on this forum are either building or have built fortunes significant enough to allow retirement well ahead of our peers.  Not everyone here posts the economic circumstances from which they rose, but anecdotal evidence seems to indicate we are mainly a group of "self-made" success stories rather than trust fund recipients. 

The forum philosophy revolves around integrating a combination of earning, saving, investing, and general frugality to most efficiently get from point A (current net worth) to point B, a net worth sufficient to let "snowballing" (compound interest) work so that one's financial desires for themselves (spending) and financial responsibility to the group (taxes) are covered for the estimated remainder of one's life.

Any beginner mustachian can tell you that the secret to success is saving/investing early. The bigger and sooner you can build up your stash, the more it will "work for you".  Any intermediate mustachian will tell you that once your invested wealth reaches a certain multiple of your required annual spending (lifestyle + tax), your wealth can produce enough returns to fund the spending indefinitely!, not just the 30, 40, 50 remaining years of a life.  There is (should be) a clear recognition among mustachians that wealth is used by citizens to fund their lifestyles and meet their obligations to the group. Mustachians seem to grasp the inevitable result: that, wealth is destined to become more concentrated in this scenario.

So mustachians seem to recognize, "obtain enough wealth and it's nearly impossible to lose".  I know this forum exists for the purpose of making financial decisions that most efficiently build wealth to that level at which obligation is "resolved".  But I am a little surprised that more of my fellow mustachians don't concern themselves with the implications of a society in which the rules promote: "obtain enough wealth and it's nearly impossible to lose".

Maybe if enough of us retire early enough to think more and work less it will become obvious to us :)

[johnhenry]

Anyone read Piketty?

His hypothesis is that it was the 1910s-1960s in the West that was odd (major depression, major wars, large parts of the world being removed from capitalism) and this led to a mjor destruction of capital, and flattening of incomes.  Also, the West, faced with requirement to fight communism & facism, had to motivate all of society with propoganda, but this propoganda led to action.  E.g. "We are fighting for Freedom" and the impact of returning US servicemen on the civil rights movement, or the UK wartime debates on "Why We Fight" which led to the NHS and "Homes for Heroes" social housing

Without this destruction of capital, and without an external enemy that requires cohesion, the rich are getting richer, and don't feel they need to care so much about the non-rich. 

In the FIRE community we see this (rich getting richer) but we call it snowballing.

Or, to put it slightly differently, the possibility of working people deciding they liked communism gave the rich a reason to share the wealth, to some extent.   Now that communism is seen as a complete failure, there is no fear that people will turn to it, and no reason for a reasonably prosperous middle class.    What's the alternative?   There isn't one anymore.   

There's more to all this than what I said above, but that's part of the story.   

The alternative is "capitalism for a generation(lifetime)".  A system that recognizes that the primary relationship in society should between a government and each individual, NOT between the government and each dollar of accumulated capital (which is what we have today).  And frankly, why under a system like this "perpetual capitalism", it will be impossible to separate money from political influence, or give a true equality of opportunity to poor as well as rich.

That's not to say pure "communism" has ever been tried (and it's true that pure capitalism hasn't either).  Yes, we can acknowledge even pure communism, where the government owns and controls all means of capital production, is too much at odds with our biological tendency as humans to hoard for well being (of self and family) and to secure social stature (not to mention limiting our freedom in economic matters).

But the problem with "perpetual capitalism", where capital is allowed to be passed unencumbered from generation to generation, is that it is impossible for a government to fairly impose obligation among citizens.  How can the government ask a citizen with $0 net worth to contribute the same as a citizen with a $1M net worth?  It's only possible if the government taxes directly without money, by requiring each of them to labor or perform military service, etc.  Once the government agrees that tax can instead be paid with "money" of any kind (fiat or natural resource), obligation cannot be fairly imposed!!  It will favor the citizen who has a surplus of whatever money is.... that is whatever extinguishes tax obligation.  After all, what is the purpose of even imposing the obligation if it cannot be met without a real contribution??

If each citizen mentioned above was born with the same amount of wealth, then yes a tax can be levied, denominated in dollars, requiring both citizens to pay, and it would be fair.  But if the $1M in wealth was inherited, perpetual capitalism has no problem letting the heir dispose of his tax liability with that inheritance.  Capitalism for a generation would allow the inheritance in the form of land, business, money, etc.  But it would impose a tax equal to 100% that would be paid over time.  That's not confiscation! It's just recognition by the group(the government) that the heir still has the same obligation to the group as the citizen with no inheritance. 

Yes, generational capitalism would work best when paired with a guaranteed income, when each citizen is basically paid an amount sufficient to keep their basic needs sustained.  Anyone receiving a (sizeable) inheritance would be required to forgo that guaranteed income.  i.e. their tax on the inheritance would be paid for them in part by non-payment of their guaranteed income.

Capitalism for a generation doesn't involve government "taking" wealth from citizens, but rather imposing tax liability based on inherited wealth. 

And it's not based on the notion that by "printing money" the government is attempting to "print prosperity".  It recognizes that the government's primary duty to it's citizens is to tax fairly, NOT to tax in a manner that promotes prosperity, or economic growth, etc!!

Not only would capitalism for a generation be more fair, it would remove the perverse incentive to amass huge fortunes just for purpose of leaving a legacy or ensuring the "security/financial status" of the next generation. 

[johnhenry]

Why don't we have someone proposing a modern equivalent of FDR's New Deal programs?  Could welfare be tied, on a large scale, to a jobs program with private industry or government?  Are large scale uses of unskilled labor dead?  Would there be a path up for people in such a program? 

I personally find a lot to like in the modern monetary theory (MMT) descriptions and proposals in recent times (I've included a few links below, but there are quite a few other researchers and websites along similar lines). One of their major proposals is for what they call a Job Guarantee (JG), which calls for federal funding of a job for anyone that wants to work. This would replace the minimum wage and some of the welfare apparatus, and would provide a floor for wages (hard to imagine anyone taking a private sector job for less than the JG wages). It also has the presumed benefit of eliminating or are least partially negating the negative connotations that attach to the jobless, meaning employment through the JG should make it easier to get the next job later. Anyway, these economists are still a small voice, but they certainly propose some out-of-the-box ideas and understanding of modern economies, and it feels like some of their ideas are gaining ground, with one (Stephanie Kelton) being recently appointed to Chief Economist, U.S. Senate Budget Committee (Democratic Staff).

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/01/growing-recognition-need-job-guarantee.html
http://www.levyinstitute.org/topics/job-guarantee
http://moslereconomics.com/2012/01/10/proposal-update-including-the-jg/

Thank goodness MMT is finally getting some mainstream attention.  Thanks for mentioning it here.  Their economics holds up academically against the orthodox schools of thought, but when it comes down to understanding ideas like the job guarantee or a guaranteed income, it doesn't take an advanced understanding of economics.  Really, once people understand that our money is just monopoly money, it makes perfect sense.

If you and your spouse want to motivate your kids to do chores around the house, sure one option is just to tell them, you each work 10 hours a week or we'll punish you severely enough that you will be motivated to do the chores.  This is one way to ensure that each kid (there are 10 of them) pull their own weight (by taxing them directly by requiring their labor, time, etc).  Keep in mind it doesn't matter much if your goal is to just keep the kids busy and not fighting, or if your goal is to have them be productive enough that you increase the value of your property by having them paint, pull weeds, etc.  Most parents would agree, it's MUCH more important to fairly measure contribution from each sibling than to have them productively "earning their keep".

But if you wanted to introduce money, which would be paid for labor and then collected back at the end of the week in the form of a tax, you would need to come up with some token to give/pay them to extinguish their weekly tax liability.  Even if you were careful to never run a deficit by paying out more tokens each week than you required in tax payment, it would allow the kids the "freedom" to work less than their required number of hours that week, as long as a) the parents allowed another sibling to earn more than enough to pay their weekly tax and b) that sibling was willing to exchange that extra tax token with something in exchange from the sibling who wanted to provide "that" instead of an hour of doing chores.

Even in this very basic scenario, which does accurately describe fiat money creation and taxation by any sovereign government, one can logically review the repercussions if there is NO job guarantee.

Let us suppose that the parents now take the stance that they will still require tax payment from each member of the family, but instead of allowing any sibling to work at any time to earn a token, they will set a limit of 100 tokens to be paid weekly.  So each of the 10 kids is still required to pay the 10 tokens weekly, but no sibling is guaranteed that they can obtain that tax credit token directly from the parents.  Maybe each child will continue to work 10 hours per week and pay their 10 tokens weekly.  But maybe the children who are free from after school activities on Monday and Tuesday show some extra initiative and earn as many tokens as possible during those days.  Once a sibling has earned more than enough tokens to meet his own tax requirement for the week, he controls the extra tokens that another sibling needs to extinguish his tax liability.  At that point, the sibling in need of a token is required to pay the going rate for the token, not necessarily just one hour of labor.

That is how unemployment gets created.  It does not exist without taxation and it cannot exist when there is a job guarantee.  It's really a simple matter of logic.  Any government that taxes must set a denomination for that tax.  If the tax is denominated in any fiat token, the government must create and distribute that token to some citizen before it can be taxed as a measure of fulfilled obligation.  It is inherently unfair to impose a tax in any denomination that REQUIRES a citizen to obtain that token from a citizen that has a surplus of tokens.  To fairly impose tax obligation, the government must always be willing to guarantee a citizen the option to directly meet his obligation to his government if he cannot obtain one from a fellow citizen.

[Chuck]

Anyone read Piketty?

Have you?

Do you remember his prescriptions to fix this? Taxing all capital gains to the point that they maintain inflation, and nothing more. Taxation of all incomes above ~100k at confiscatory rates, so that even the middle class cannot aquire compouding capital.

Piketty wants me to work until the day I die, like a good party member. He can suck a bag of dicks and choke on them.

[Syonyk]

MMT.  Because everyone is the property of the government who is the only entity who can properly "manage" them.

I'm not a damned piece of livestock, than you very much.

[Otsog]

I believe the REAL reason people are poor is usually because of poor decision.  You reap what you sow.  The real problem is people learn most of their life skills from their parents.  Which if parent have poor life skills (spending less than you earn as one example), they will pass those down to their kids.  If you always spend all you earn, you will never save much.

You have two contradicting ideas in the same paragraph

1) people are poor because they make bad decisions (it's their own fault)
2) people are poor because of their upbringing (it's their environment's fault)

I don't entirely agree with Rocketman, but they're not contradictory ideas. A poor upbringing could lead to making poor decisions. A (poor upbringing) causes B (poor decisionmaking) causes C (poor life).

Yes, they made a bad decision whose root cause was lack of education.  We have no ability to judge their decision making skills.

Anything that goes bad can be blamed on poor decisions.  The underlying cause of poor decisions is more important.  Emphasizing the poor decision making of the poor oftentimes leads people to be disinterested in the plight of the poor.  Throw in an anecdote of someone bootstrapping themselves out of poverty so they should be able to do it too and you have outright disdain.  Not that it is happening in this thread, but it is pretty common on these forums.

[jmusic]

MMT.  Because everyone is the property of the government who is the only entity who can properly "manage" them.

I'm not a damned piece of livestock, than you very much.

Seems like this "guaranteed job" or "guaranteed income" is on the slippery slope to outright Communism.  And I don't say that just to label-slap...

[Beaker]

It is inherently unfair to impose a tax in any denomination that REQUIRES a citizen to obtain that token from a citizen that has a surplus of tokens.

That might be true if the tax was a flat amount per week, as in your example. Of course, nobody actually taxes that way - it's always a percentage of income. So you have the option to not work and pay zero tax. Or, in the tax regimes I'm familiar with, not make a very large income and still pay zero tax.

That is how unemployment gets created.  It does not exist without taxation...

Really? Because it seems to me that everyone needs to feed and shelter themselves, even in a complete anarchy. And if you don't have the skills and resources to do that for yourself you'll probably need to work for someone to acquire those skills & resources.

[Bucksandreds]

Anyone read Piketty?

Have you?

Do you remember his prescriptions to fix this? Taxing all capital gains to the point that they maintain inflation, and nothing more. Taxation of all incomes above ~100k at confiscatory rates, so that even the middle class cannot aquire compouding capital.

Piketty wants me to work until the day I die, like a good party member. He can suck a bag of dicks and choke on them.

His ideas for taxation aren't quite to that degree. He believes in a global wealth tax and progressively high income taxes.  If taxation on investments was done to the point of taxing to the level of inflation, all money would be invested in low/zero risk investments.  He is smarter than that.  The biggest change he promotes is the global wealth tax that progressively rises from 0% up to 2% of wealth, annually.  Taxed wealth percentages for the non ultra rich would be much, much lower than 2%.  The whole idea is that dynastic wealth is terrible for everyone except the heirs.  Extreme income/wealth gaps result in lower growth across economies.     

[Syonyk]

That is how unemployment gets created.  It does not exist without taxation...

Really? Because it seems to me that everyone needs to feed and shelter themselves, even in a complete anarchy. And if you don't have the skills and resources to do that for yourself you'll probably need to work for someone to acquire those skills & resources.

Reality is pretty clear that you cannot consume more value/wealth than you produce for an extended period of time.

... that someone arguing for MMT claims that taxation is the reason for unemployment, on the other hand, is entertaining.  MMT: Because you're the government's proper to mismanage as is currently profitable for whoever happens to be running the show.

[J Boogie]

Seems to me we would be in a better position if we actually tried reducing the number of poor in the US.

Currently, the US govt heavily subsidizes the poor to breed via deductions in the tax code and through social programs like WIC.  Wouldn't it be better if we gave people incentives to not reproduce?  Education levels are lower for the poor.  So, if you reduce the birthrate amongst the poor, you would reduce to supply of less educated people. 

Give people tax deductions for not having kids.  Have the govt fully pay for adoptions/abortions.  Give people big tax credits to obtain one. 

Whatever.  Just try something new.  The current system does not work.

First, I agree that a government shouldn't incentive having children for those who are ill equipped to provide for any children.

I also agree that adoption should not be a prohibitive expense.

However, what you're proposing is economic eugenics.  Offering free abortions in hopes that you'll "reduce the supply of less educated people" (who are, Jews aside, often the same groups who were targeted by genetic eugenics) is ugly.

[johnhenry]

That is how unemployment gets created.  It does not exist without taxation...

Really? Because it seems to me that everyone needs to feed and shelter themselves, even in a complete anarchy. And if you don't have the skills and resources to do that for yourself you'll probably need to work for someone to acquire those skills & resources.

Reality is pretty clear that you cannot consume more value/wealth than you produce for an extended period of time.

... that someone arguing for MMT claims that taxation is the reason for unemployment, on the other hand, is entertaining.  MMT: Because you're the government's proper to mismanage as is currently profitable for whoever happens to be running the show.

You guys misunderstand.  Money is not value/wealth.  No one is claiming that government money creation/spending/taxation magically creates prosperity, or even that it currently "creates jobs for everyone".  But it does create unemployment.

[TrulyStashin]

No one here has brought this up so I'll venture in.....

Since the 1960's - 70's there has been an ongoing debate over whether corporations owed duties only to shareholders (a narrow duty to make a profit) or whether that duty was broader and included stakeholders (shareholders & non-shareholders who are impacted by corporate decisions).  In the U.S. shareholder-capitalism won the argument until roughly twenty years ago.  Since then, stakeholder-capitalism in the guise of "sustainability" has been gaining ground.   In Europe, shareholder-capitalism won back then and continues to prevail.   Corporate law developed accordingly.

I agree with the earlier comment to the effect that without communism as an alternative, capitalism is running amok and veering toward its darker exploitative side. 

However, roughly thirty years ago smart people started talking about the idea of sustainability or sustainable capitalism.  The "definition" has been all over the map since then but essentially, sustainability seeks to embed a stakeholder-capitalism ethic into corporate behavior as a mechanism for mitigating the excesses of capitalism.

Without some mitigation, "pure capitalism" will cannibalize itself because it is a model reliant on cheap/ free and abundant natural and human resources combined with the easy ability to externalize costs.   Proponents of sustainability argue that a new model of capitalism is necessary and they've gained a lot of ground, especially in the last decade.  For example:

The CDP demands that the world's largest companies disclose their performance on GHG emissions and companies respond, disclose information, and submit to CDP's "Leadership" assessments.   https://www.cdp.net/en-US/Pages/HomePage.aspx

CERES represents investors demanding action on climate change, and companies listen.  Behavior is altered.  https://www.ceres.org/

Companies adopt human rights codes of conduct governing their supply chains http://business-humanrights.org/en/un-guiding-principles

SASB is creating industry-specific standards for disclosure to investors which will (hopefully) use the power of the marketplace to drag companies into more sustainable practices simply because their competitors are disclosing and improving.  http://www.sasb.org/

This is just the tip of the iceberg.  If you want to know more about you can read http://www.greenbiz.com/ on the daily.  Or http://www.environmentalleader.com/

Yes, some of it is eyewash by companies looking to score a cheap, quick PR victory.  But much of it arises from CEO-level commitments and it is changing how business is done.   I've been working in this area for about 5 years and I've seen big progress just in that time.  There is a large and growing cadre of committed professionals who see this as the next-generation capitalism, a capitalism for the long-haul, if you will. 

And, FWIW, corporate leaders pay attention to their customers.  If customers demand commitments to sustainable products, fair treatment of workers or animals, transparency in corporate disclosure, water- and waste-neutral operations, etc. then companies WILL DO IT.

[okonumiyaki]

Anyone read Piketty?

Have you?

Do you remember his prescriptions to fix this? Taxing all capital gains to the point that they maintain inflation, and nothing more. Taxation of all incomes above ~100k at confiscatory rates, so that even the middle class cannot aquire compouding capital.

Piketty wants me to work until the day I die, like a good party member. He can suck a bag of dicks and choke on them.

Yep, but that his prescriptions are bad doesn't mean he has misdiagnosed the issue.

I'm for 100% estate tax myself, or at least very punitive estate taxes. 

[Syonyk]

What's a justification for a 100% estate tax?

You literally want everything anyone has at death to go to the state and nothing to their children?

[okonumiyaki]

- Increases meritocracy.  You can give your children social capital (education etc.) but not large amounts of monetary capital.  So their success is their efforts
- Removes intragenerational wealth accumulation (aka the rich get richer)
- Increases incentives to growth.  Take the example of post war Japan.  MacArthur implemented some very radical policies, such as breaking up all the feudal land holdings, corporate zaibatsu, encouraging trade unions, a big capital tax and war profits tax.  Entrepeneuralism exploded.  Empty or flattened fields give the most growth - e.g. the disruption caused by early internet
- Gets us closer to a Rawlsian state of affairs.  (Rawls tought experiment on distribution of wealth at birth.  If, before we were born, we could choose wealth distribution but it was then a lucky draw of into which family we were born, would you choose a highly unequal, or equal distribution?)

[Schaefer Light]

- Gets us closer to a Rawlsian state of affairs.  (Rawls tought experiment on distribution of wealth at birth.  If, before we were born, we could choose wealth distribution but it was then a lucky draw of into which family we were born, would you choose a highly unequal, or equal distribution?)

A highly equal distribution sounds like communism.

[2lazy2retire]

MMT.  Because everyone is the property of the government who is the only entity who can properly "manage" them.

I'm not a damned piece of livestock, than you very much.

Seems like this "guaranteed job" or "guaranteed income" is on the slippery slope to outright Communism.  And I don't say that just to label-slap...

On the contrary I think guaranteed minimum income would be hugely liberating and give rise to an explosion of entrepreneurship. Just imagine the number of people who are stuck in dead end jobs by the need to provide the essentials of existence - if that need was already met so many more opportunities for betterment, may it be educational, spiritual or financial would arise. Personally I think it would be an extension of the whole FIRE principal.
The ACA was a step in the right direction by removing the need to have a job in order to have access to healthcare - a form of indentureship if ever there was.

[okonumiyaki]

- Gets us closer to a Rawlsian state of affairs.  (Rawls tought experiment on distribution of wealth at birth.  If, before we were born, we could choose wealth distribution but it was then a lucky draw of into which family we were born, would you choose a highly unequal, or equal distribution?)

A highly equal distribution sounds like communism.

Starting distribution.  Having a highly unequal starting distribution based on the luck of birth sounds like feudalism

[Bucksandreds]

- Gets us closer to a Rawlsian state of affairs.  (Rawls tought experiment on distribution of wealth at birth.  If, before we were born, we could choose wealth distribution but it was then a lucky draw of into which family we were born, would you choose a highly unequal, or equal distribution?)

A highly equal distribution sounds like communism.

Starting distribution.  Having a highly unequal starting distribution based on the luck of birth sounds like feudalism

Facts and figures won't change these people's minds.  I am starting to feel like it is futile.  I can't comprehend how half of this country vote for people who's policies benefit 1% of this country. On top of that the benefit is only short term as income/wealth disparity tears societies apart. Highly progressive taxes, guaranteed minimum income (through minimum wage, eitc and/or direct payments) and wealth tax and/or high estate taxes are the only way to let everyone share in this countries extreme wealth while preventing dynastic wealth.

[johnhenry]

What's a justification for a 100% estate tax?

You literally want everything anyone has at death to go to the state and nothing to their children?

In a word, meritocracy.

What's the justification for a society in which there's essentially no limit on on the amount of capital that can pass from one generation to the next?  Keep in mind just because there is an estate tax of even, say 50% on large estates.... so what??  As anyone who understands the basic philosophy of this blog knows, it's not hard to turn a lot of money into at least 2 or 3 times that amount over the course of a generation.  Which means even with an inheritance tax of 50%, fortunes will grow and wealth will accumulate.

Advocates of this system aren't concerned at all with how much money someone dies with, only how much they are born with!!  Why would anyone argue against that??  Then, if you wind up on 3rd base, everyone will know you hit a triple.  And you will know too.

The state doesn't have to "take" assets for generational capitalism to work.  We can recognize that people inherit homes, farms, businesses, etc that have sentimental value as well as value as wealth.  I don't advocate any system that dictates to citizens which assets they must own/sell.  But they should be required (and yes, allowed) to pay for them.  One way to accomplish this would be to set up a payment plan for the inherited asset, sort of like a reverse depreciation, where the heir basically made payments towards the total value so that it would be "paid off" in 27.5 or 39 years, or whatever.  Another option would be to basically create a mortgage, held by the government (that's right by default we are all the rightful owners and we are giving the heir the first right of refusal, so to speak).  The heir would make payments over 15, 20, 30 years until he/she had EARNED ownership.  You don't have a problem with people EARNING what they own, do you??

Advocates of traditional capitalism love to tell the rags to riches story of those who rise from nothing to great wealth, where every bit of wealth can be attributed to meritocratic effort.  Those stories are inspirational precisely because they are so unlikely!!  But what about the wealth that builds up generation after generation, with much of it necessarily earned/inherited in generations past when even the most ardent libertarian will admit that the playing field was not level for all citizens.

Of course the main benefit of generational capitalism vs what we have now is a basic sense of fairness and NOT an attempt by the state to motivate certain economic behavior like spending vs saving or even frugal spending vs extravagant spending.  But, with that said, since this is being discussed in a forum about frugality.  Imagine, as an heir in generational capitalist system, the repercussions of inheriting a modest asset (small home) or a financially productive one (small business) vs one that is expensive and unproductive (extravagant home).  In the long run a system like this would likely spur citizens to live "within their own means" because it would be understood that everyone is living "by their own means" and not getting a handout from their ancestors.  As a society we will likely start to place more value on small adequate homes vs 90 ft yachts.  And if not, oh well, at least we'll know that everyone with a 90 ft yacht earned enough to pay for it in his/her own lifetime.

[kite]

Seems to me we would be in a better position if we actually tried reducing the number of poor in the US.

Currently, the US govt heavily subsidizes the poor to breed via deductions in the tax code and through social programs like WIC.  Wouldn't it be better if we gave people incentives to not reproduce?  Education levels are lower for the poor.  So, if you reduce the birthrate amongst the poor, you would reduce to supply of less educated people. 

Give people tax deductions for not having kids.  Have the govt fully pay for adoptions/abortions.  Give people big tax credits to obtain one. 

Whatever.  Just try something new.  The current system does not work.

First, I agree that a government shouldn't incentive having children for those who are ill equipped to provide for any children.

I also agree that adoption should not be a prohibitive expense.

However, what you're proposing is economic eugenics.  Offering free abortions in hopes that you'll "reduce the supply of less educated people" (who are, Jews aside, often the same groups who were targeted by genetic eugenics) is ugly.

Thank you.

Preventing or otherwise discouraging the poor from reproduction makes a small problem into a gigantic one.  Society needs those children, and well never have a sufficient immigration level to bring in the needed number of people.  It's fun to term other people's kids as dirty disease buckets  (as one of my friends calls them) or scream to them to get off the lawn.  But eventually you need them to cut your lawn and to remove your cancerous tumor and represent your intrests in court or in congress.   Poverty is relative in the US.  No matter how rich or poor we are as a society, we're always going to have a lowest quintile.  We should get honest about our inequality fixation because it inspires horrific "solutions " that are worse than the status quo. 
For all the flaws in our current system, it is vastly superior to everything else any society has ever attempted. 

[johnhenry]

- Gets us closer to a Rawlsian state of affairs.  (Rawls tought experiment on distribution of wealth at birth.  If, before we were born, we could choose wealth distribution but it was then a lucky draw of into which family we were born, would you choose a highly unequal, or equal distribution?)

A highly equal distribution sounds like communism.

We are talking about trying to play a monopoly game where everyone STARTS with the same amount of money.  Not where we set the rules during the game so that everyone finishes with the same amount!! 

Imagine playing game after game of monopoly, but instead of starting each new game (generation) with the same amount of money/property as the other players, each player starts with the status (money and property) from last game.  The question at hand is not whether it was luck or skill that produced the winner of the first game.  We are happy to recognize that all we can do is have fair rules during the game and let the winner enjoy the spoils.  But what about the next game?  And the next?  The winner of that first game (the 1%) would be happy to play game after game, but what about everyone else?  In fact, once that first game is in the books, the winner would even be happy to start adjusting the inter-game rules to "make things slightly more fair" for the players starting with nothing (as long as he knew wealth still transferred to the next game).  He's happy to to let everyone else collect $400 each round while he still collects $200.  Why?  Because he gets richer faster!!

[Bucksandreds]

Seems to me we would be in a better position if we actually tried reducing the number of poor in the US.

Currently, the US govt heavily subsidizes the poor to breed via deductions in the tax code and through social programs like WIC.  Wouldn't it be better if we gave people incentives to not reproduce?  Education levels are lower for the poor.  So, if you reduce the birthrate amongst the poor, you would reduce to supply of less educated people. 

Give people tax deductions for not having kids.  Have the govt fully pay for adoptions/abortions.  Give people big tax credits to obtain one. 

Whatever.  Just try something new.  The current system does not work.

First, I agree that a government shouldn't incentive having children for those who are ill equipped to provide for any children.

I also agree that adoption should not be a prohibitive expense.

However, what you're proposing is economic eugenics.  Offering free abortions in hopes that you'll "reduce the supply of less educated people" (who are, Jews aside, often the same groups who were targeted by genetic eugenics) is ugly.

Thank you.

Preventing or otherwise discouraging the poor from reproduction makes a small problem into a gigantic one.  Society needs those children, and well never have a sufficient immigration level to bring in the needed number of people.  It's fun to term other people's kids as dirty disease buckets  (as one of my friends calls them) or scream to them to get off the lawn.  But eventually you need them to cut your lawn and to remove your cancerous tumor and represent your intrests in court or in congress.   Poverty is relative in the US.  No matter how rich or poor we are as a society, we're always going to have a lowest quintile.  We should get honest about our inequality fixation because it inspires horrific "solutions " that are worse than the status quo. 
For all the flaws in our current system, it is vastly superior to everything else any society has ever attempted.

Disagree. We are not even the healthiest, smartest, happiest or least suffering country right now. 

[kite]

Seems to me we would be in a better position if we actually tried reducing the number of poor in the US.

Currently, the US govt heavily subsidizes the poor to breed via deductions in the tax code and through social programs like WIC.  Wouldn't it be better if we gave people incentives to not reproduce?  Education levels are lower for the poor.  So, if you reduce the birthrate amongst the poor, you would reduce to supply of less educated people. 

Give people tax deductions for not having kids.  Have the govt fully pay for adoptions/abortions.  Give people big tax credits to obtain one. 

Whatever.  Just try something new.  The current system does not work.

First, I agree that a government shouldn't incentive having children for those who are ill equipped to provide for any children.

I also agree that adoption should not be a prohibitive expense.

However, what you're proposing is economic eugenics.  Offering free abortions in hopes that you'll "reduce the supply of less educated people" (who are, Jews aside, often the same groups who were targeted by genetic eugenics) is ugly.

Thank you.

Preventing or otherwise discouraging the poor from reproduction makes a small problem into a gigantic one.  Society needs those children, and well never have a sufficient immigration level to bring in the needed number of people.  It's fun to term other people's kids as dirty disease buckets  (as one of my friends calls them) or scream to them to get off the lawn.  But eventually you need them to cut your lawn and to remove your cancerous tumor and represent your intrests in court or in congress.   Poverty is relative in the US.  No matter how rich or poor we are as a society, we're always going to have a lowest quintile.  We should get honest about our inequality fixation because it inspires horrific "solutions " that are worse than the status quo. 
For all the flaws in our current system, it is vastly superior to everything else any society has ever attempted.

Disagree. We are not even the healthiest, smartest, happiest or least suffering country right now.

Where's your utopia?  And what did they do to achieve bliss? 

[Chuck]

Preventing or otherwise discouraging the poor from reproduction makes a small problem into a gigantic one. 

How?

Society needs those children, and well never have a sufficient immigration level to bring in the needed number of people. 

Needs them for what? Chronic unemployment amongst the lower classes is largely a result of an economy that has rendered many low education/skill labor inputs obsolete. What exactly are they needed for?

It's fun to term other people's kids as dirty disease buckets  (as one of my friends calls them) or scream to them to get off the lawn.  But eventually you need them to cut your lawn and to remove your cancerous tumor and represent your intrests in court or in congress.

I cut my own lawn, and there will be no shortage of doctors or politicians if we stop giving poor people money for having kids.

Poverty is relative in the US.  No matter how rich or poor we are as a society, we're always going to have a lowest quintile.  We should get honest about our inequality fixation because it inspires horrific "solutions " that are worse than the status quo. 
For all the flaws in our current system, it is vastly superior to everything else any society has ever attempted.

Why are free abortions horrific? Why is getting rid of child related tax credits horrific? Neither actually prevents people from having children, it just removes financial incentive to do so.

[johnhenry]

Seems to me we would be in a better position if we actually tried reducing the number of poor in the US.

Currently, the US govt heavily subsidizes the poor to breed via deductions in the tax code and through social programs like WIC.  Wouldn't it be better if we gave people incentives to not reproduce?  Education levels are lower for the poor.  So, if you reduce the birthrate amongst the poor, you would reduce to supply of less educated people. 

Give people tax deductions for not having kids.  Have the govt fully pay for adoptions/abortions.  Give people big tax credits to obtain one. 

Whatever.  Just try something new.  The current system does not work.

First, I agree that a government shouldn't incentive having children for those who are ill equipped to provide for any children.

I also agree that adoption should not be a prohibitive expense.

However, what you're proposing is economic eugenics.  Offering free abortions in hopes that you'll "reduce the supply of less educated people" (who are, Jews aside, often the same groups who were targeted by genetic eugenics) is ugly.

Thank you.

Preventing or otherwise discouraging the poor from reproduction makes a small problem into a gigantic one.  Society needs those children, and well never have a sufficient immigration level to bring in the needed number of people.  It's fun to term other people's kids as dirty disease buckets  (as one of my friends calls them) or scream to them to get off the lawn.  But eventually you need them to cut your lawn and to remove your cancerous tumor and represent your intrests in court or in congress.   Poverty is relative in the US.  No matter how rich or poor we are as a society, we're always going to have a lowest quintile.  We should get honest about our inequality fixation because it inspires horrific "solutions " that are worse than the status quo. 
For all the flaws in our current system, it is vastly superior to everything else any society has ever attempted.

Disagree. We are not even the healthiest, smartest, happiest or least suffering country right now.

Where's your utopia?  And what did they do to achieve bliss?

Is that an argument in favor of the status quo?  Because there are always those in favor of the status quo?

Before abolishing slavery or leaving behind feudalism, must we point out another society that's done it already?  Instead of just asking our fellow citizens to discard the shackles of the status quo and ask themselves what is fair?

Your argument against progress (as in our society progressing to a more fair system) is that advocates of progress outlining specific steps to make a "more fair" system have not convinced YOU that the "more fair" society will result in utopian bliss?  I can imagine your ancestors telling the same to those born into slavery or peasantry!!  "Prove to me this new society will be utopian and we'll give it a try!!" 

[Bucksandreds]

Seems to me we would be in a better position if we actually tried reducing the number of poor in the US.

Currently, the US govt heavily subsidizes the poor to breed via deductions in the tax code and through social programs like WIC.  Wouldn't it be better if we gave people incentives to not reproduce?  Education levels are lower for the poor.  So, if you reduce the birthrate amongst the poor, you would reduce to supply of less educated people. 

Give people tax deductions for not having kids.  Have the govt fully pay for adoptions/abortions.  Give people big tax credits to obtain one. 

Whatever.  Just try something new.  The current system does not work.

First, I agree that a government shouldn't incentive having children for those who are ill equipped to provide for any children.

I also agree that adoption should not be a prohibitive expense.

However, what you're proposing is economic eugenics.  Offering free abortions in hopes that you'll "reduce the supply of less educated people" (who are, Jews aside, often the same groups who were targeted by genetic eugenics) is ugly.

Thank you.

Preventing or otherwise discouraging the poor from reproduction makes a small problem into a gigantic one.  Society needs those children, and well never have a sufficient immigration level to bring in the needed number of people.  It's fun to term other people's kids as dirty disease buckets  (as one of my friends calls them) or scream to them to get off the lawn.  But eventually you need them to cut your lawn and to remove your cancerous tumor and represent your intrests in court or in congress.   Poverty is relative in the US.  No matter how rich or poor we are as a society, we're always going to have a lowest quintile.  We should get honest about our inequality fixation because it inspires horrific "solutions " that are worse than the status quo. 
For all the flaws in our current system, it is vastly superior to everything else any society has ever attempted.

Disagree. We are not even the healthiest, smartest, happiest or least suffering country right now.

Where's your utopia?  And what did they do to achieve bliss?

Is that an argument in favor of the status quo?  Because there are always those in favor of the status quo?

Before abolishing slavery or leaving behind feudalism, must we point out another society that's done it already?  Instead of just asking our fellow citizens to discard the shackles of the status quo and ask themselves what is fair?

Your argument against progress (as in our society progressing to a more fair system) is that advocates of progress outlining specific steps to make a "more fair" system have not convinced YOU that the "more fair" society will result in utopian bliss?  I can imagine your ancestors telling the same to those born into slavery or peasantry!!  "Prove to me this new society will be utopian and we'll give it a try!!"

It's no argument for the status quo or against progress.
A not so Modest Proposal was floated to fix something that isn't even fixable.  Deuteronomy 15:11.
Yet not only is the solution unethical, it is societal economic suicide.   

Could things be better?  Certainly.  At the same time they are better here & now than they ever were.

Happiness, healthiness, economic mobility and educational indicators say that Canada, all of Scandinavia, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand are winning the life game over America.  Your next comment. 'Well, go move there.' My next comment. 'I haven't given up on here.' It's not terrible here but it can and will get better. It's up to us to make it that way.

[dplasters]

I have not yet been able to imagine a political system that would be feasible to transition to and also would limit special interest power.

Given those two things, it all just runs in cycles.  Like fashion.  But slower.  Wake me up when the inflation of the 70s and 80s comes back around.  The colors already have.

[J Boogie]

Happiness, healthiness, economic mobility and educational indicators say that Canada, all of Scandinavia, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand are winning the life game over America.  Your next comment. 'Well, go move there.' My next comment. 'I haven't given up on here.' It's not terrible here but it can and will get better. It's up to us to make it that way.

I'd wager a guess that white people in the US vs white people in those countries enjoy pretty similar high quality of life indicators.  Overall, things tend to be better for white people, and those countries have higher percentages of white people.

Or is it our admittedly flawed politics? Wouldn't we be better off with a more socialist model like Norway? Every time I hear a US resident point to a Scandinavian country as a socialism success story, I remind them that those countries don't take on recent immigrants and have an awful history of slavery like we do.  It's easier for everyone to share everything when you have a homogeneous culture.  When you have a club that offers great benefits, but you don't have enough money to give everyone in the club these great benefits, you have to decide who can't be in the club.  Interestingly enough, Switzerland's largest political party maintains that Swiss communities have a right to decide who can or cannot be Swiss.

I agree that we should strive to create the best environment possible by trying new things.  But let's be fully aware of the Nationalist/Racist/Xenophobic attitudes that are alive and well in some of the countries we might look to as models.  American poet Robert Frost wrote that good fences make good neighbors - I agree, and I think our live and let live mindset we have here in America helps keep our various cultures from clashing as much as they would under a more socialist umbrella.

[GuitarStv]

Happiness, healthiness, economic mobility and educational indicators say that Canada, all of Scandinavia, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand are winning the life game over America.  Your next comment. 'Well, go move there.' My next comment. 'I haven't given up on here.' It's not terrible here but it can and will get better. It's up to us to make it that way.

I'd wager a guess that white people in the US vs white people in those countries enjoy pretty similar high quality of life indicators.  Overall, things tend to be better for white people, and those countries have higher percentages of white people.

Or is it our admittedly flawed politics? Wouldn't we be better off with a more socialist model like Norway? Every time I hear a US resident point to a Scandinavian country as a socialism success story, I remind them that those countries don't take on recent immigrants and have an awful history of slavery like we do.  It's easier for everyone to share everything when you have a homogeneous culture.  When you have a club that offers great benefits, but you don't have enough money to give everyone in the club these great benefits, you have to decide who can't be in the club.  Interestingly enough, Switzerland's largest political party maintains that Swiss communities have a right to decide who can or cannot be Swiss.

I agree that we should strive to create the best environment possible by trying new things.  But let's be fully aware of the Nationalist/Racist/Xenophobic attitudes that are alive and well in some of the countries we might look to as models.  American poet Robert Frost wrote that good fences make good neighbors - I agree, and I think our live and let live mindset we have here in America helps keep our various cultures from clashing as much as they would under a more socialist umbrella.

You would probably lose that bet.  As of 2011 Canada's population is 20% visible minority and a little over 4% aboriginal . . . which means that we're about 76% white (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada).  The US as of 2013 is 77% white (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html).