Jump to content

Rippounet

Members
  • Content count

    2,866
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Rippounet

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

5,190 profile views
  1. Indeed. If the majority can easily define itself. It it can you're a patriot ; if it can't "at all costs" makes you a terrorist.
  2. Rippounet

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    My bad. By "population control" I mean political control of the masses, not demographics.
  3. Rippounet

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    lol, it took me waaaay too long to get that joke. I had a brilliant Belarussian student a couple of years ago who wrote a splendid essay presenting progressive taxation as a means of population control. She told me such a perspective was rather standard in Eastern Europe.
  4. Rippounet

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    Well to be fair, the system is extraordinarily complex so very few people (if any) can claim to understand it perfectly. But Saez, Piketty... etc have a lot of data coming from previous decades when the rate of taxation on the highest income brackets was considerably higher than it is now (throughout the West at least). In fact, from a modern perspective (20th century) it's hard to understand why Western countries have moved away from progressive taxation... And difficult not to see it as a purely ideological move. I'll probably be more informed on all this once I finish Piketty's amazing latest book on the ideologies of inequality... in 2020 (I love Piketty but man, his books are loooooong reads...). I'm not enough of an expert but... 6% still sounds like a terribly small percentage to me. I agree that increasing tax rates should be done incrementally though. You could get to 6% in 4 years maybe? And then start moving to 15% in Warren's second term. A man can dream.
  5. Rippounet

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    And yet how the seizure is characterized matters a great deal if we are to at least attempt to use what little democracy we have. Fun fact: there's a... let's say "rumor" that when the yellow vests movement was at its peak the president got some phone calls from... let's say "prominent citizens" urging him to "give away" stuff to calm the masses. It's estimated that the measures subsequently taken by the government amount to 17 billion €. The rich fucks are acutely aware that they are the minority. Maybe they won't submit to parliamentary procedure, but they can definitely be scared enough to give a few more scraps to the masses...
  6. Rippounet

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    Nationalized... or quite simply broken up. I do believe such thinking used to be common sense.
  7. Rippounet

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    Being at the head of a corporation whose profits are higher than most countries' GDP isn't "doing something well." At some point super-wealth isn't about entrepreneurship anymore, it's only about power. Ok so let's get this right. According to this study, 14,7% of the wealth of members the top 1% is due to wealth transfer in a given year (with the authors focusing on 2007). This study supposedly destroys the myth that the wealthiest inherit their wealth. As in, when somebody dies. And indeed, the study clearly debunked that myth. But does that actually mean anyone can conclude that 85,3% of the wealth of the top 1% has been earned ? So what the authors are looking at is the proportion of wealth coming from wealth transfers in any given year. Their study says nothing about aggregate wealth transfers. And if the top 1% gets a wealth transfer that averages 14,7% of their net worth every year, the aggregate percentage could well be consideraby higher. Which means that the conclusion... ... can only be considered true for a given year. But since richer households have more to transfer, wouldn't it make sense to assume that wealth is transferred over more than a year? Imho one should be very very careful about drawing sweeping conclusions from limited data...
  8. Rippounet

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    That is an excellent question/argument. I only realized a few months ago that the attention given to self-made billionaires like Musk, Bezos, Gates in the media... was an extremely efficient way of having people forget that most rich fucks inherit their wealth. Someone like Gates is the exception, not the rule. And then, even Gates certainly doesn't deserve to be as rich as entire countries.
  9. Rippounet

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    That's a different sentence. Because now I can ask you to prove that the wealth taxes were in fact "ineffective or counter-productive". There's been tons of debates, discussions, and analyses about this since Macron's -partial- abolition of the French wealth tax and I still haven't seen an authoritative study demonstrating that wealth taxes are "ineffective or counter-productive." OTOH I've read many articles by eminent economists (Piketty again, of course, but he was far from being the only one) saying that it was a purely ideological measure with very real adverse consequences (like the state losing 3 billion € a year in revenue), and that considering the growing inequalities (and the worsening of France's GINI coefficient) the very opposite of what should have been done.
  10. Rippounet

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    With all due respect this is not an argument.
  11. Rippounet

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    Agree 100%. Though since this is the internet I have to point out that the negative effects of wealth taxes tend to be exaggerated, even if you only judge them on their own merits. The billions they generate (3billion€/year in France until Macron intervened) is nothing to scoff at methinks, especially when the benefits of their absence remain to be soundly demonstrated. Of course, as Piketty never tires of repeating, what is required for any system of truly progressive taxation is a concerted effort on a global scale, something that seems as likely as genetically engineering unicorns for jousting. Yet, the US moving in that direction would obviously be a big deal. Among other things it could conceivably allow higher taxes on capital gains, which should be the actual objective at this point. It's all a PR battle. In itself the wealth tax is just the tip of the iceberg. If that idea gains traction then even better measures become possible. I wasn't actually trying to correct you though, just providing the -most obvious- footnote. Spot on.
  12. Rippounet

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    Yet? It's been more or less official for years now. See this famous study: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf Gee, it almost sounds as if the markets themselves are the problem...
  13. Rippounet

    A Super Necessary And All Important Survey Question

    (m) I had to google it to know what you were talking about.
  14. Rippounet

    What shouldn't be done...about climate change

    Thanks, it's an interesting list. I mostly agree with Altherion though: not only is the rejection of nuclear energy counterproductive, but much on that list sounds too partisan to be popular. Of course, I'm the first to think the consumer society is the root cause of the problem, and that dealing with climate change will require a lot of pain. But not having read the book, just looking at the list makes it seem like some measures are only on it by opportunism, for instance: - Develop a better social safety net system - Achieve a more equitable distribution of resources via taxation, public works, affordable housing - whatever will do the job I'm all for that, but if one is to convince everyone, it should be showed why social and economic justice can help tackle climate change. So I wonder: does the book manage to demonstrate that? Anyway, it goes back to the question of whether we can address climate change within the current socio-economic framework. We probably could if we were already doing that. But imho, since we're basically doing nothing, a different socio-economic framework seems inevitable. In other words I tend to think that we could have kept modern capitalism and some parts of the consumer society. But ironically, much of the current elite, in their greed and foolishness, opted to prevent significant measures from being taken. So yeah, a better society will be needed eventually, more equal, more democratic. Thing is, it's still important to focus on the technical non-partisan measures that could be or could have been taken now first and foremost. Because sadly enough, capitalism will have to fail to implement them before we have any chance of getting rid of it. And even then, there will be many who will still cling to their personal SUVs, shouting stupid stuff like "over my dead body" when they are finally made illegal and replaced by publicly subsidized green transportation systems.
×