What is Your Definition of A Fair and Just Society ?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 hours ago, Mikael said:

This is fine i guess, except for the idea that individuals would leave and be embraced in new communities, people are rarely welcoming towards outcasts.. Also, as far as individual freedom goes, om pretty sure your number three is way better than the other two.

[edit]Too broad a question for the statement you made.  I shouldn’t put words in your mouth.[/edit]

[GAROVORKIN]

Indeed , Lots of good and very  commentary. 

[Werthead]

One possibility might be to take the system that worked in 1947-79 and just do that again.

There was an interview with a billionaire on the BBC a few years back and he made a note that he really likes trainers. He bought about a hundred pairs of top-quality trainers. But that still didn't make up for the shortfall that thousands of people with more money would have been able to afford trainers and thus the people who make trainers would have made higher profits. For capitalism to work, it's important to create the largest possible base of consumers and give them the money needed to consume a wide variety of products. The problem comes when you squeeze them so hard they can't consume very much, and that leads to the collapse of industries and markets. The current inequality time bomb is a problem not just because it's inherently unfair and amoral, but because it contradicts the basic tenets of capitalism itself.

[Eggegg]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

One possibility might be to take the system that worked in 1947-79 and just do that again.

There was an interview with a billionaire on the BBC a few years back and he made a note that he really likes trainers. He bought about a hundred pairs of top-quality trainers. But that still didn't make up for the shortfall that thousands of people with more money would have been able to afford trainers and thus the people who make trainers would have made higher profits. For capitalism to work, it's important to create the largest possible base of consumers and give them the money needed to consume a wide variety of products. The problem comes when you squeeze them so hard they can't consume very much, and that leads to the collapse of industries and markets. The current inequality time bomb is a problem not just because it's inherently unfair and amoral, but because it contradicts the basic tenets of capitalism itself.

Surely a company's incentive to pay their workers more is to produce an increase in productivity, not increase consumer demand.

If all companies in the world increased their wages there might be a short term increase in consumer spending I guess, or if workers were only allowed to spend their wages on goods from their employer.

Are you suggesting a Keynesian stimulus to pump money back into the system in the case of a recession?

Either way I think there are a number of factors that have contributed to stagnating wage growth, among them globalisation, increased labour competition, restriction of labour unions. 
 

[Iskaral Pust]

I can’t resist playing devil’s advocate:

You want govt to deliver the SocSec and Medicare promised because they’ve already been paid for by payroll taxes, but the benefits promised far, far exceed the payroll taxes that will ever be collected, and this was made even worse by Bush adding Part D to Medicare.  So if politicians make fantasy promises without any funding basis, then they become sacred entitlements? This also occurred with public sector pensions.  Who eventually pays for our willful self-deception on the gap between expectation and tax payment? (The answer is always: someone else)

You want to reduce inequality and distribute income more broadly (and return to 1947-79), but that’s exactly what’s happening already.  Except that now there are 5bn+ people in the third world who are being included in the distribution.  The main reason for stagnant incomes among low-skilled people in the developed world in recent decades is that their unsustainable income advantage over the developing world is gradually wearing away.  No doubt there are plenty of billionaires you’d like to see taxed more heavily but none of that will stop the global convergence of incomes for low-skilled work.  The only way to take the white, western middle class back to a world where a high school diploma is sufficient for a luxurious lifestyle is if billions of people in the developing world return to abject poverty. 

It sounds like these definitions of “fair and just” are a demand for unrealistic entitlements to be paid for by someone else.  Not that it means SocSec/Medicare should be cut, nor that rising inequality should not be addressed, but some reality check is needed. 

[Eggegg]

6 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

You want to reduce inequality and distribute income more broadly (and return to 1947-79), but that’s exactly what’s happening already.  Except that now there are 5bn+ people in the third world who are being included in the distribution.  

This is a vital piece of the puzzle. Equality has been happening massively in the last few decades, but the victims of it have been the working class people in the western world. The poorest in the Third World have massively benefitted from globalisation, with big increases in pay. 

 

[OldGimletEye]

I think Social Security is relatively an easy fix. Though Social Security and Medicare are usually mentioned to together  they don’t have the same sort of long term funding issues. Its Medicare that is the bigger issue because according to the CBO, it’s user cost defined as cost growth over GDP growth is going to be about 1 percent a year. But, a big reason Medicare has that issue is because of the United States’ ridiculous overpriced and expensive health care system. Fix that, and a lot of the problem goes away.

And if the United States has to hold a higher debt/GDP ratio to meet it’s commitments to Medicare and Social Security, particularly as baby boomers retire, I don’t see that as a real problem. I think we can do over a 100% debt/GDP ratio with little worry. The real problem is that around 2045, according to the CBO, the interest rate at which the US borrows becomes greater than it’s nominal rate of Growth, and when R>NGP, then the debt/GDP ratio is not on a path that will converge, but is on an unsustainable path.

The issue of medicare is more about political will to reform the US ridiculous healthcare system than it is economics, in the final analysis.

With regard to free trade, I tend to be a pro free trader, because I do believe it can help to alleviate poverty around the world and because like John M. Keynes and Henry Dexter White and others who came up with the Bretton Woods agreement, I do believe that the turn to autarky helped to start World War 2 and that avoiding autarky can help to promote world peace. But, if nations decide to turn towards to autarky, the international elites, the Davos crowdm can largely blame themselves as there is no reason to think that trade has been handled as good as it could have been.

Tthe problem with issue of free trade is that here in the US, we’ve never had an honest conversation about it. We cycle back and forth between crude mercanalist arguments, ala Donald Trump, where the story is America can’t compete or is getting taken advantage of  or whatever do to free trade and one where free trade has no set of issues to worry about. Neither is true. For one, a country can run trade deficits and still be at full employment. Secondly, potential distributional consequences of free trade are predicted by standard models, like the Hecksher Ohlin model or whatever, but were seemingly ignored by policy makers when they passed these trade deals, probably because the business community that pushed for these deals, just didn’t care about labor. It seems to me, we didn’t have to go that route, and could have better prepared ourselves for the invertible distributional consequences that would follow from free trade, like committing more money and resources to helping those who have lost their jobs in sectors exposed to free trade competition.

As far as mere high school graduates not being able to find good jobs. I agree that better skills are needed in todays world to maintain a better standard of living. But, if the only way for people to earn a decent income is by going to school for about 8 years after high school, then we are in real trouble, and the Davos crowd and the worlds international elite who want to maintain free trade, had better deal with the problem, and shouldn’t be too surprised if they don’t many nations may vote for autarky, rather than free trade. The solution here it would seem to me, in part, is to invest in more vocational training and adult education, while pursuing aggressive full employment policies.

Of course, after the financial crises, we heard a lot from business leaders about the skills gap, which really was nothing but largely elitist nonsense as that wasn’t the main issue. The issue was just an old fashioned aggregate demand problem. But, if the skills gap were part of the story, then fine, borrow the money to help people upgrade their skills while borrowing cost was cheap. Interestingly enough, the same people that were running around talking about the “skills gap” were the same people that went running around saying the fiscal deficit was our biggest issue and wouldn’t have supported borrowing any money to fix the skills gap problem, but now seemingly have little problem with the 1 trillion dollars or so that will be used to finance corporate tax cuts.

And if the skills gap thingy was your story, then fairy tales about Swabian Housewives, likely made the problem worse as many people sat around needlessly unemployed where their jobs skills likely atrophied in the process. This was a political choice. And then of course the same people that went around telling fairy tales about Swabian Housewives, also were the same crowed that warned about “inflation is just around the corner” and when that didn’t pan out so well, then switched to asset mispricing concern trolling, as  the Fed struggled to push the economy back to full employment. This had little to do with decent economic reasoning and had more to do with the economic preferences of elitist dunderheads like Kevin Warsh.

And now with economy turning around, now we see stories of business people complaining about labor being harder to find, at prices they’d like to pay (in others words hosing people) and heaven forbid having to pay labors more as their choices are improving. But with low inflation it  would seem higher wages would be a good thing. And of course the business elites of the Chamber of Commerce Crowd will be the first people to give people lectures about “economics”, but then turn around and complain when a higher demand for labor increases wages.

And here in the United States, I don’t think the growing wealth inequality is just a matter of free trade and robots, but the result of institutional and political decisions we have chosen to make for years, like for instance less vigorous anti-trust enforcement, ever since Robert Bork convinced much of the policy making community that monopoly power wasn't’ anything to worry about. And the assault on unions and the refusal to pass reasonable minimum wage laws.

In the latest iteration of bad policy choices, the US has now passed this ridiculous corporate tax cut, that will do very little for the average person. Now the corporate tax cut was passed, in part, because “America couldn’t compete!” which is entirely ridiculous as US multinationals are more than holding their own. And the hilarious thing about the bill, is that it is likely to make corporations to invest over seas or at least pretend they are doing so, because of the bill’s ridiculous territorial provisions. In short, the bill does exactly the opposite of what the Orange clown promised to stop on the campaign trail. And of course the bills ridiculous pass through provisions will just shovel more money to the well off, without any grounds based on economic efficiency.

And in order to fund this corporate tax cut, Republicans are talking about cutting TANF, which only cost us about 16 billion dollars per year, and is hardly breaking the bank. It would seem to me, that a better deal, for many people would be to actually expand money spent on TANF and then mandate the states use it to help with job training and placement and such an expansion would probably be a lot cheaper than the 1 trillion dollars being shoveled out to corporations and the wealthy. And of course the bills ridiculous pass through provisions will make wealth inequality worse, for no good reason.

And of course there is the issue with CEO pay. Now, I’m sure many CEO’s will just say, “hey brah, I’m just getting paid my marginal product, so whats the problem?” but I really doubt it. Certainty one would be hard pressed to find anything in the data that would support the idea that the US is getting a good deal with the current compensation that CEO’s get. Likely there is a whole lot of inefficient rent seeking going on here. And those rents that CEO’s get are basically coming out of everyone else’s pocket.

Also with higher taxation, I don’t think the progressive story should necessarily be about just taxing the rich to pay for transfer programs. The fact of the matter is that higher taxes may affect pre tax income as higher marginal rates likely deters rent seeking. In fact, liberals probably ought to avoid competing with conservatives about who can lower your taxes the most and just make the case, that while you may pay higher rates under a center left government, your likely to see your wages grow faster and have better social safety nets that you can rely on.

In short, while some of the growing wealth inequality may be due to robots and international trade, there is a lot of reasons to think it’s not all about that, but more do to specific policy choices the have been made in the US, since the 1980s.

[OldGimletEye]

The other problem we have in the United States is that lots of people like to talk up a big libertarian game, but in practice like redistributive policies. This leads to all kinds of nonsense like tax code expenditures, which makes actual spending not all that transparent.

In many cases, it would just probably be better to eliminate the tax code expenditure and have the government mail a check directly and put on the budget, so the actual spending is more transparent.

But a lot of Americans like tax expenditures cause by golly “it’s a tax cut and not a handout!, so I can go around feeling all libertariannnnnish about myself!” But, it’s pure crap.

The worst of course is likely the employer health insurance tax exclusion. I think it would just be better to for the government to mail checks and then put it on the actual budget so people could see how much were spending on it and people would stop being under the illusion that they are just getting that employer sponsored healthcare because they are just so awesome that their employer just decided to throw that in for free. They didn’t.’

Personally, I believe capitialism needs a bit of social democracy and accordingly re distributive polices are justified. And because I have no intent of puttin’ on any kind of libertarian airs, I have no desire to hide spending programs through the tax code. Just wish some who like to pretend to be libertarians, but are actually social democrats, would drop the pretense so we could do away with much the tax expenditure shennigans.

ETA:

Also I suspect why some people liked Trump's rhetoric on free trade was because in their minds trade barriers or tariffs isn't re-distributive (though it is), it's by golly the free market at work!

[OldGimletEye]

On 12/29/2017 at 3:15 PM, Eggegg said:

Are you suggesting a Keynesian stimulus to pump money back into the system in the case of a recession?

In the next recession, there is a good chances your choices are going to be 1) attempting to do negative interest rates, 2) have the central bank buy long term assets again, 3) resort to some kind of price level targeting scheme. Now all these exotic monetary policy schemes have their own set of issues, and really it would probably just be easier to do a fiscal expansion. And if you are sitting near the ZLB, not doing a fiscal expansion isn’t an awesome exercise in fiscal rectitude, though some people think it is. 

[GAROVORKIN]

One Where common sense and critical  thinking  predominate ?

[Larry of the Lawn]

10 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

One Where common sense and critical  think predominate ?

On 12/31/2017 at 1:05 AM, Iskaral Pust said:

I can’t resist playing devil’s advocate:

You want govt to deliver the SocSec and Medicare promised because they’ve already been paid for by payroll taxes, but the benefits promised far, far exceed the payroll taxes that will ever be collected, and this was made even worse by Bush adding Part D to Medicare.  So if politicians make fantasy promises without any funding basis, then they become sacred entitlements? This also occurred with public sector pensions.  Who eventually pays for our willful self-deception on the gap between expectation and tax payment? (The answer is always: someone else)

You want to reduce inequality and distribute income more broadly (and return to 1947-79), but that’s exactly what’s happening already.  Except that now there are 5bn+ people in the third world who are being included in the distribution.  The main reason for stagnant incomes among low-skilled people in the developed world in recent decades is that their unsustainable income advantage over the developing world is gradually wearing away.  No doubt there are plenty of billionaires you’d like to see taxed more heavily but none of that will stop the global convergence of incomes for low-skilled work.  The only way to take the white, western middle class back to a world where a high school diploma is sufficient for a luxurious lifestyle is if billions of people in the developing world return to abject poverty. 

It sounds like these definitions of “fair and just” are a demand for unrealistic entitlements to be paid for by someone else.  Not that it means SocSec/Medicare should be cut, nor that rising inequality should not be addressed, but some reality check is needed. 

 

Only part of the bolded I'd quibble with is 'unrealistic'.  That's exactly what I want. I want the uber-upperclass to actually pay back into the system for everything they've accumulated on the backs of the rest of us.  I fundamentally reject the idea that someone has a right to insane levels of wealth while the people who have allowed them to create that fortune go without affordable healthcare and housing.  The idea that someone can own several homes and rent them to others who have to pay for the privilege of having a roof over their head disgusts me on the most basic level.  Or that you can make a living by charging people to live in properties that you own while contributing nothing of value to the world at large.  To use an extreme example, Donald Trump, or that Koch heir with the goofy Hawaiian shirt company are burdens on all of us and their ridiculous lifestyle comes with a massive societal cost.  No reality check is needed, we are well aware of the reality and want to change it.  Everything is paid for by someone else.  This 'you want me to pay for your healthcare' argument is laughable.  The .1% wants the rest of us to pay for their leisure too.  

[DireWolfSpirit]

21 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

 

Only part of the bolded I'd quibble with is 'unrealistic'.  That's exactly what I want. I want the uber-upperclass to actually pay back into the system for everything they've accumulated on the backs of the rest of us.  I fundamentally reject the idea that someone has a right to insane levels of wealth while the people who have allowed them to create that fortune go without affordable healthcare and housing.  The idea that someone can own several homes and rent them to others who have to pay for the privilege of having a roof over their head disgusts me on the most basic level.  Or that you can make a living by charging people to live in properties that you own while contributing nothing of value to the world at large.  To use an extreme example, Donald Trump, or that Koch heir with the goofy Hawaiian shirt company are burdens on all of us and their ridiculous lifestyle comes with a massive societal cost.  No reality check is needed, we are well aware of the reality and want to change it.  Everything is paid for by someone else.  This 'you want me to pay for your healthcare' argument is laughable.  The .1% wants the rest of us to pay for their leisure too.  

Its worth noting here that the very people who made those " no handouts" and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" speeches, were the very groups first in line for the massive Bush/Obama government bailouts. Their new arguments about how Social Security will be unaffordable, should be remembered in that context. When Goldman Sachs, AIG, and numerous Wall Street enterprises needed bailing out, why didnt they just follow their own mantra's of "no handouts" and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps"?

Making good on Social Security is merely a promise to meet insurance obligations, the government collected the FICA taxes, it must honor the payments to the people that paid those taxes up front and with no option. We werent asked if we wanted to pay FICA, we were required. It would be unrealistic to not pay SS beneficiaries.

[Eggegg]

On 02/01/2018 at 1:30 AM, GAROVORKIN said:

One Where common sense and critical  thinking  predominate ?

Ain't nobody got time for that! All hail the reactionary future and social media led policy making! 
 

[GAROVORKIN]

11 hours ago, Eggegg said:

Ain't nobody got time for that! All hail the reactionary future and social media led policy making! 
 

Your right , im asking for too much