schmidtleonard

About 100 years ago, American capitalists drunk-drove the US economy into a ditch and the government had to jump-start it by allocating capital itself. The jobs were in national parks, schools, housing, and rural electrification. If you've ever been to a national park, chances are decent you walked by/over a plaque or stamp commemorating it.

It's reasonable to want most capital allocation to happen privately, thereby ensuring these decisions are made by people with a track record of success and skin-in-the-game. That's capitalism, it's good, and I'm a capitalist too. But the propaganda that the government is so inherently bad at this game that one should fight it even in an emergency is reductive, defeatist, and ahistorical.

Yes, they can print, but they can also tax capital. It's not actually impossible. We already do it a tiny bit, we've done it more in the past, and contrary to the dogma blasted from the billionaire-owned media outlets and drilled in billionaire-think-tank-approved Econ 101 curricula the universe will not actually explode if we do it again.

Can we stop with pushing all of the taxes into the work-consume economy and out of the invest-return economy? The latter is eating the world, would it really hurt it to help clean up its own messes for once?

Not if the gaggle of shell companies was difficult to invest into or had enough rights to make it a strategic threat. But sure, wave those infomercial-hands some more and maybe you'll convince me that I can't use a screwdriver.

And I'm sure these two goobers would call me a luddite for alleging that OpenAI had agency in allowing the terminator to get out and should therefore be held accountable. Is it some kind of mental block?

No, LLMs would be overkill for arguing with you.

Progressive corporate taxation could make it happen for reasons other than dodging the ghosts of chemical sins past!

Progressive corporate taxation would give the market an incentive to do spinoffs and undo the merger wave.

Or we could just roll antitrust policy back to what it was before Ronald Reagan and Robert Bork installed the Consumer Welfare Standard, the idea that companies must be allowed to merge if they can scribble a tall tale with crayons on butcher paper about how the merger will benefit consumers, for sure, pinky promise. This is obviously mega-rigged, it comes from the Robber Baron era, it was defeated before (look up Louis Brandeis) and it can be defeated again (look up Lina Khan). They didn't even change the talking points (dontcha know, the Standard Oil monopoly reduced the price of Kerosene by 70%?!) -- time is a flat circle when it comes to anti-trust policy. Let's spin it back to the part of the circle where we win.

No, the people with assets are the adjudicators. They investigate themselves and find nothing wrong. An honest process with an honest conclusion, if ever I saw one.

I agree with your point, just not with your numbers.

Even your new numbers: $10M NW, half of it goes to luxury housing, the rest gives you $500k/yr of passive income and that's pretty damn nice by any standard that doesn't involve employing others. I get that this is HN where many of us aspire to such things, but surely that's beyond the point where one should feel wealthy?

Quite the opposite. Whatever they did to earn the income with which they originally bought those assets was 100 times more honest than the relentlessly self-serving politics through which they pumped those assets by creating a living hell for their compatriots.

$10M at 10% returns is $1M/yr passive. That'll pay for an expensive apartment before you consider working.

In fact, that's sort of the problem: the massive "rich people get paid for being rich in proportion to how rich they are" cash flows run away exponentially from the "poor people get paid for working" cash flows, inflating the price of any inelastic good beyond their reach. The economy stops being about work and starts being about wealth. Which might be fine if most people were wealthy enough to not work, but that's overwhelmingly not the case so it's overwhelmingly not fine.

It annoys the heck out of many Americans as well.

Once you realize that 10% of households are getting $200k+/yr of unearned income and 1% of households are getting 1.3M+/yr of unearned income by virtue of owning lots of assets in an economic system geared to pump assets at the expense of literally everything else, it becomes very clear why the social contract experienced by the rest is undergoing rapid deterioration yet still has legions of influential staunch defenders that come out of the woodwork any time someone proposes even modestly pushing back on the worst of it.

Oops, did I say "unearned income"? Forgive me, I meant unrealized gains -- I didn't mean to imply that any taxes were due on those massive passive flows of money. Perish the thought!

He is the living, breathing stereotype of what I would expect from an "economics professor for almost 30 years":

"I got in early to the ponzi and life is good can't see what the ungrateful young'uns are whining about!"

Yep, in mid Febuary. The incident kicked off early July.