This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Peter Schiff Slams PikettyMania
It's all the rage... Pikettymania is sweeping the nation and liberal economists are throwing their academic panties on his theoretical stage...
So here is Peter Schiff to debunk the euphoria...
Submitted by Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific Capital,
There can be little doubt that Thomas Piketty's new book Capital in the 21st Century has struck a nerve globally. In fact, the Piketty phenomenon (the economic equivalent to Beatlemania) has in some ways become a bigger story than the ideas themselves. However, the book's popularity is not at all surprising when you consider that its central premise: how radical wealth redistribution will create a better society, has always had its enthusiastic champions (many of whom instigated revolts and revolutions). What is surprising, however, is that the absurd ideas contained in the book could captivate so many supposedly intelligent people.
Prior to the 20th Century, the urge to redistribute was held in check only by the unassailable power of the ruling classes, and to a lesser extent by moral and practical reservations against theft. Karl Marx did an end-run around the moral objections by asserting that the rich became so only through theft, and that the elimination of private property held the key to economic growth. But the dismal results of the 20th Century's communist revolutions took the wind out of the sails of the redistributionists. After such a drubbing, bold new ideas were needed to rescue the cause. Piketty's 700 pages have apparently filled that void.
Any modern political pollster will tell you that the battle of ideas is won or lost in the first 15 seconds. Piketty's primary achievement lies not in the heft of his book, or in his analysis of centuries of income data (which has shown signs of fraying), but in conjuring a seductively simple and emotionally satisfying idea: that the rich got that way because the return on invested capital (r) is generally two to three percentage points higher annually than economic growth (g). Therefore, people with money to invest (the wealthy) will always get richer, at a faster pace, than everyone else. Free markets, therefore, are a one-way road towards ever-greater inequality.
Since Piketty sees wealth in terms of zero sum gains (someone gets rich by making another poor) he believes that the suffering of the masses will increase until this cycle is broken by either: 1) wealth destruction that occurs during war or depression (which makes the wealthy poorer) or 2) wealth re-distribution achieved through income, wealth, or property taxes. And although Piketty seems to admire the results achieved by war and depression, he does not advocate them as matters of policy. This leaves taxes, which he believes should be raised high enough to prevent both high incomes and the potential for inherited wealth.
Before proceeding to dismantle the core of his thesis, one must marvel at the absurdity of his premise. In the book, he states "For those who work for a living, the level of inequality in the United States is probably higher than in any other society at any time in the past, anywhere in the world." Given that equality is his yardstick for economic success, this means that he believes that America is likely the worst place for a non-rich person to ever have been born. That's a very big statement. And it is true in a very limited and superficial sense. For instance, according to Forbes, Bill Gates is $78 billion richer than the poorest American. Finding another instance of that much monetary disparity may be difficult. But wealth is measured far more effectively in other ways, living standards in particular.
For instance, the wealthiest Roman is widely believed to have been Crassus, a first century BC landowner. At a time when a loaf of bread sold for ½ of a sestertius, Crassus had an estimated net worth of 200 million sestertii, or about 400 million loaves of bread. Today, in the U.S., where a loaf of bread costs about $3, Bill Gates could buy about 25 billion of them. So when measured in terms of bread, Gates is richer. But that's about the only category where that is true.
Crassus lived in a palace that would have been beyond comprehension for most Romans. He had as much exotic food and fine wines as he could stuff into his body, he had hot baths every day, and had his own staff of servants, bearers, cooks, performers, masseurs, entertainers, and musicians. His children had private tutors. If it got too hot, he was carried in a private coach to his beach homes and had his servants fan him 24 hours a day. In contrast, the poorest Romans, if they were not chained to an oar or fighting wild beasts in the arena, were likely toiling in the fields eating nothing but bread, if they were lucky. Unlike Crassus, they had no access to a varied diet, health care, education, entertainment, or indoor plumbing.
In contrast, look at how Bill Gates lives in comparison to the poorest Americans. The commodes used by both are remarkably similar, and both enjoy hot and cold running water. Gates certainly has access to better food and better health care, but Americans do not die of hunger or drop dead in the streets from disease, and they certainly have more to eat than just bread. For entertainment, Bill Gates likely turns on the TV and sees the same shows that even the poorest Americans watch, and when it gets hot he turns on the air conditioning, something that many poor Americans can also do. Certainly flipping burgers in a McDonald's is no walk in the park, but it is far better than being a galley slave. The same disparity can be made throughout history, from Kublai Khan, to Louis XIV. Monarchs and nobility achieved unimagined wealth while surrounded by abject poverty. The same thing happens today in places like North Korea, where Kim Jong-un lives in splendor while his citizens literally starve to death.
Unemployment, infirmity or disabilities are not death sentences in America as they were in many other places throughout history. In fact, it's very possible here to earn more by not working. Yet Piketty would have us believe that the inequality in the U.S. now is worse than in any other place, at any other time. If you can swallow that, I guess you are open to anything else he has to serve.
All economists, regardless of their political orientation, acknowledge that improving productive capital is essential for economic growth. We are only as good as the tools we have. Food, clothing and shelter are so much more plentiful now than they were 200 years ago because modern capital equipment makes the processes of farming, manufacturing, and building so much more efficient and productive (despite government regulations and taxes that undermine those efficiencies). Piketty tries to show that he has moved past Marx by acknowledging the failures of state-planned economies.
But he believes that the state should place upper limits on the amount of wealth the capitalists are allowed to retain from the fruits of their efforts. To do this, he imagines income tax rates that would approach 80% on incomes over $500,000 or so, combined with an annual 10% tax on existing wealth (in all its forms: land, housing, art, intellectual property, etc.). To be effective, he argues that these confiscatory taxes should be imposed globally so that wealthy people could not shift assets around the world to avoid taxes. He admits that these transferences may not actually increase tax revenues, which could be used, supposedly, to help the lives of the poor. Instead he claims the point is simply to prevent rich people from staying that way or getting that way in the first place.
Since it would be naive to assume that the wealthy would continue to work and invest at their usual pace once they crossed over Piketty's income and wealth thresholds, he clearly believes that the economy would not suffer from their disengagement. Given the effort it takes to earn money and the value everyone places on their limited leisure time, it is likely that many entrepreneurs will simply decide that 100% effort for a 20% return is no longer worth it. Does Piketty really believe that the economy would be helped if the Steve Jobses and Bill Gateses of the world simply decided to stop working once they earned a half a million dollars?
Because he sees inherited wealth as the original economic sin, he also advocates tax policies that will put an end to it. What will this accomplish? By barring the possibility of passing on money or property to children, successful people will be much more inclined to spend on luxury services (travel and entertainment) than to save or plan for the future. While most modern economists believe that savings detract from an economy by reducing current spending, it is actually the seed capital that funds future economic growth. In addition, businesses managed for the long haul tend to offer incremental value to society. Bringing children into the family business also creates value, not just for shareholders but for customers. But Piketty would prefer that business owners pull the plug on their own companies long before they reach their potential value and before they can bring their children into the business. How exactly does this benefit society?
If income and wealth are capped, people with capital and incomes above the threshold will have no incentive to invest or make loans. After all, why take the risks when almost all the rewards would go to taxes? This means that there will be less capital available to lend to businesses and individuals. This will cause interest rates to rise, thereby dampening economic growth. Wealth taxes would exert similar upward pressure on interest rates by cutting down on the pool of capital that is available to be lent. Wealthy people will know that any unspent wealth will be taxed at 10% annually, so only investments that are likely to earn more than 10%, by a margin wide enough to compensate for the risk, would be considered. That's a high threshold.
The primary flaw in his arguments are not moral, or even computational, but logical. He notes that the return of capital is greater than economic growth, but he fails to consider how capital itself "returns" benefits for all. For instance, it's easy to see that Steve Jobs made billions by developing and selling Apple products. All you need to do is look at his bank account. But it's much harder, if not impossible, to measure the much greater benefit that everyone else received from his ideas. It only comes out if you ask the right questions. For instance, how much would someone need to pay you to voluntarily give up the Internet for a year? It's likely that most Americans would pick a number north of $10,000. This for a service that most people pay less than $80 per month (sometimes it's free with a cup of coffee). This differential is the "dark matter" that Piketty fails to see, because he doesn't even bother to look.
Somehow in his decades of research, Piketty overlooks the fact that the industrial revolution reduced the consequences of inequality. Peasants, who had been locked into subsistence farming for centuries, found themselves with stunningly improved economic prospects in just a few generations. So, whereas feudal society was divided into a few people who were stunningly rich and the masses who were miserably poor, capitalism created the middle class for the first time in history and allowed for the possibility of real economic mobility. As a by-product, some of the more successful entrepreneurs generated the largest fortunes ever measured. But for Piketty it's only the extremes that matter. That's because he, and his adherents, are more driven by envy than by a desire for success. But in the real world, where envy is inedible, living standards are the only things that matter.
»
- 25330 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Fortunately, only liberals read, so no one of importance will get the message that 'The Commies are Back"
They never left. They've always been here, and always will be. We'll never be rid of the communists, because there will always be envious stupid people willing to be led to slaughter by dishonest intelligent people.
Hate to say it, but most of those people actually get excited about the chance to kill others. That is how depraved that philosophy is. Just look at the posts above to see what I mean. So many calling for the deaths of people they don't know.
God gives man free will and man is so willing to take that free will away from his fellow man
Just like my thoughts on global warming (wait, that failed the focus group...errr, Climate Change is all the rage now, right?), when the people who believe this fantasy start living it for real, then perhaps I am likely to pay attention. I notice Piketty is not giving away his book, nor is he pledging (and personally redistributing) the spoils of his sales to those less fortunate. He lives and dresses and acts like any other capitalist with a guilt complex about how fucking smart he thinks he is compared to his vision of the common man. Just another carnie barker selling pablum to the Marxists and the overtly gullible. Good critique for Schiff.
This class warfare stuff plays very well with the masses. It enables them to develop "evil rich" and "greedy capitalist" stereotypical villains and thus better paint themselves as "deserving victims"...thus legitimizing THEFT.
Well, maybe if the "conservatives" addressed to problems of "the masses" (those who are unable to complete and win because they are genetically inferior) the "liberals" wouldn't be able to "play" class-warfare.
The genetically inferior? And whom do you mean by that?
Re: And whom do you mean by that?
Those who aren't lucky enough to be smart-n-savvy predators.
And luck is genetic now?
If you have defective DNA, that's pretty unlucky, no?
"Those who aren't lucky enough to be smart-n-savvy predators".
Rhetorical non-sense. Great to hear from the participation trophy generation.
Those with IQs below, lets say 90. IQ or "G" is heritable to a correlation of .8
Recent huge twin studies of over 1000 sample size confirm the calculation of early pioneers such as Arthur Jensen and William Shockley.
Genes are the source of diversity which makes the human race as a whole more adaptable to changing conditions here on earth.
What people fail generally to understand or appreciate is that genetic variance is produced within distinct populations typically isolated geographically and genetically.
Mixing peoples and races thus reduces diversity of genetically similar human groups - tribes - races, the one form of diversity that actually matters in the long run.
IQ is overrated.
What matters is being smart-n-savvy: manipulative, confident, assertive, a predator, and being an asshole and a sociopath helps allot too.
We live in a society where the dumn-n-clueless get eaten alive by the smart-n-savvy. The only problem with this is when you (or your family) happen to be the dumbasses getting eaten. Most people don't like admiting they are food for the smart-n-savvy people.
When the plebes can't get a slice of an ever increasing pie because the pie stopped growing, the effect of the sociopaths is amplified in what has become a zero-sum game...
"When the plebes can't get a slice of an ever increasing pie because the pie stopped growing..."
This partial sentence destroys whatever thought you were going for.
Once upon a time the plebes benefited from getting a tiny slice of a pie that was growing... Now the pie has stopped growing...
Pretty clear to me...
EVER growing. Language is important.
EVER growing. Language is important.
Once upon a time, the Pie would thought to be able to grow for ever...
Is English your first language? It would appear not...
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
Warren Buffett
As much as I loath that fuck, please cite the source which you are quoting. The internet is full of bullshit.
Here it is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html?_r=0
PS: note the date of the article...well before the "crash".
Well played sir. I thank you for that.
The thing is, Piketty is new Keynes. Modern governments will love him or love him already. His theories are popular among "unions" and what I heard among over 51% of Americans. That simply means we are screwed in North America. I hope Canada will be new bastion of Capitalism. However "divide and redistribute" are very popular slogans during tough times. The war on private property starts in peoples minds first. Once there are more people "who does not own" vs "owners" we are all screwed. Politicians will use it.
Re: I hope Canada will be new bastion of Capitalism. However "divide and redistribute" are very popular slogans during tough times.
Canada? The place that's had Obama Care, like, forever?!
Thanks for your insightful comments. Dickens writes; "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" ... As now, as in 1780 France, it is the best of times for the elite and the worst of times for the masses.
The redistribution of the French Revolution resulted in death (or emigration) for the elite and abject poverty for the rest as a 'fascist' regime replaced the rule of law with anarchism and resulted in the rise of a dictator and guaranteed the masses head off to war.
I am afraid this will be our fate also.
Can't wait for the Thermidorean Reaction Redux.
There are always more people who do not own vs those that do. I guess what you are really getting at is people of influence (lets think of this as whats left of the middle class) who own nothing being greater in number than those who do. If this becomes the case, we are indeed all screwed. By the few who own it all. But I'm guessing by then we will already have had big problems.
"But for Piketty it's only the extremes that matter. That's because he, and his adherents, are more driven by envy than by a desire for success"
Yeah, they're so envious of Jamie Dimon and his hard earned humongous fortune... Schiff is so blinded by ideology, so much he claims that's what happens with the people he doesn't like. As expected, coming from the man who said housing regulators did a good job at not regulating the housing market before it blew up...
And you're blinded by "class warfare"...
"class warfare" is a funny. Its only negative when it comes from the bottom up. Meanwhile it happens daily from the top down.
I'm not advocating for wealth redistribution. But the focus should remain on those that create the environment of theft and corruption. Not the 'smart-n-savvy' that innovate and create. They are two vastly different species. Sadly, when it comes to this topic they get muddled together. But I guess that is the point. Classic redirection.
Re: Classic redirection.
It's also smart-n-savvy to manipulate dumbasses with bullshit. Bullshit adds value to anything:
government + bullshit = politics
morals + bullshit = religion.
paint + bullshit = splatter art
sex + bullshit = romance.
The smartest-n-savviest people aren't those that JUST innovate and create widgets. It's also those who create the best bullshit.
Yes, you've made it clear that you believe the "smart-n-savvy" are the best bullshitters. I have no problem with you thinking that, and do NOT disagree.
But what I want to know, is that what the author is talking about? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing the group he is advocating the redistribution from is the productive people that fall into the top. Because those other folks don't CREATE shit. They are ALREADY redistributing. To themselves and their cronies. And they are the ones that enable the machine to steal.
"...the focus should remain on those that create the environment of theft and corruption."
You're getting there...the real problem is government. Not this party government or that party...but the institution of GOVERNMENT.
Government, not Walmart or Jamie Dimon, has the guns, the monopoly on violence. They also have the responsibility to do something about things, but they don't...
Yes. The State is the problem. And yes, it has a legal monopoly on violence. But it would appear it has also be co-opted. But I get your point and agree. Which I guess was really my point. Those that create the environment of theft and corruption are/is the state and its various partners. Which are constantly redistributing wealth.
I refuse to believe it's as simple as "they've been co-opted". Campaign finance is not really that relevant: it's more like the interests of crony cartels and government happen to COINCIDE. They all want power and wealth...
These tax the rich schemes usually kill those in the luxury industry. Remember the yacht tax? ( I never knew anyone with a big boat but I remember the tax). Boat builders had to close shop and the rich just found other toys and better tax dodges.
Like our current discussion, some want more for the community pie (of which they see themselves getting a large slice). Unintended consequences and the complete inability of government to 'fairly' administer wealth redistribution are and always must be ignored.
All of this nonsense will go away when the buck crashes and society has to deal with real wealth. When the government can no longer spend (borrow) its way into voters hearts and must tax to spend....well then things will be different. They know they cannot raise taxes now but they can still borrow....so the madness of war and cradle to grave promises goes on....some butter with that gun mam?
The coming sudden demise of the Dollar bubble will reveal the lies our goverment has sold to Americans for generations. Maybe then, when Americans have to deal with reality can we become a great nation again.
.
So here we have a former fraudster from Lehman Brothers telling us what to think? Like anyone should care what a hack like Schiff has to say.
It is clear from the above rant that Schiff fraudster hasn't bothered to even read the book. He makes so many assertions that Picketty believes this that and the other it is just a character assasination attempt.
Bottom line on Picketty's work: We have a wealth distribution unseen since the 1920s.
When you wonder why people are broke yet Lamborghini's are flying off the lots and assets prices keep rising and rising and home prices keep rising and rising...It is the accumulation of wealth.
Is it bad to have a few people own YOU and all the power? Are oligarchies a bad thing? You decide that but Schiff has weighed in on the side of the oligarchs.
Too bad he does not have the honesty to just say so. I guess that was what he learned at Lehman Bros.
The loudest voices for redistribution are the richest ... who know they will avoid having to redistribute ... Except Donald Sterling
.
.
The loudest voices for ANYTHING are the richest.
We no longer live in a democratic Republic. This USA is now a OLIGARCHY.
Like Rome under the First Triumvirate (Marcus Crassus, Julius Caesar, Pompeius Magnus), we will see the end of the Roman (American) Republic.
We will see slave labor (cheap wage slaves from abroad) controlled by oligarchs displace US citizens from their jobs and homes. This certainly happened in Rome. After the expansion of the Empire into the entire Mediterranean, slaves were imported en masse while the Roman Citizen-Soldier-Farmer was forced to sell their farms to the well connected "Optimates" and Elites.
Slaves now worked the land once plowed by the Citizen Soldiers.
Consolidation in land and wealth lead to the displaced Romans adopting a system of patronage where the impoverished agreed to vote political power to their patron in return for life sustaining bread and occasional work.
Isn't this the USA of today? Aren't oligarchs in control of the politics and the trade policy and the media' bread and circuses?
Civil war becomes the means for politics. Ultimately, a power struggle leads to the Senate of Rome being a powerless body, just a rubber stamp for the triumphant emperors. Just think! Rome had always promised to NEVER have a King. Cincinnatus must have attempted to dig his way out of the grave when this all happened.
..this is already happening in the USA. Rome does provide a great example of what we all can look forward too as the Rich get Richer...too bad Schiff doesn't really understand the lessons from the fall of the Republic.
"Rome had always promised never to have a king"
God, I love that chapter out of the history books. Always good for a belly laugh.
Tarquin became Caesar in Italy when the Rubicon got raped; but the French went ONE BETTER than that.
Napoleon proclaimed he was Tarquin and Brutus all in one; son of Enlightenment and wearing the purple.
Now that is carrying it a bit far; all the way to Moscow and back on to Waterloo's Scarecrow morne plain where the rain is all redcoated.
As for Piketty he has just put the last nail in the coffin of Reaganomic's claim to immortality.
I can hear Maggie walking in the sacred corridors of Whitehall and House of P, singing : "you can all buy the Uk if you are rich and non-dom sheikhs".
If you like your Republic, you can keep your Republic.
Speaking of Schiff and bitcoin and gold.
Interesting interview considering he isn't into bitcoin but willing to accept bitcoin for people to buy gold from his company.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g31nLatyci4&feature=youtu.be
At least he is consistent about 'free markets' the people have it and will use it so he will accept it because the market has spoken even if he doesn't agree with it as being money.
He basically admits it's value as a form of facilitating commerce while saying it doesn't have value as such esssentially giving implicit consent while claiming otherwise.
He talks himself around in a circle which is fun to watch him dance. if you participate you give consent, simple as that regardless of whether you think it is big time winner or flash in the pan.
He says that fiat currencies and bitcoin have no intrinsic value but why then does he sell gold for bitcoin and dollars?
Ah yes, leave the 1% alone ... or you will be a galley slave! And btw, how did Crassus "earn" his fortune, v/s Gates?
Crassus amassed an enormous fortune through real estate speculation! Those were the real "sub-prime" days!
The simple question is who pays for what we want in our society. Those who don't want "socialism" should run for office and spell out how they will eliminate what "society" does not want to pay for. Since, in most cases, they have already got thier share socialist goodies!
Better to live in a democracy, than under Crassus, who could lash you to a galley with oars!
And how are Crassus's decendents doing these days? No one is immune from "history" nor can they escape it with words.
Yes, the rich must get richer. Poor? Who gives a shit?
Take comfort until the poor revolt and burn you and yours to the ground. Banksters, attorneys and wall street...best targets for a reason!
Funny to see people who defend the rich while licking their boots. Stooges!
the rich taxing the poor works really great (for them). why change?
Taxes are not the problem. Spending is the problem. All of our financial ills, public and private, derive from spending money we don't have. Profligate spending comes from the debt based, fiat money monetary system we have.
We've past the inflection point imho. We're fucked.
The ecomony is like a giant tree that's been cut through needing only to be given a gentle nudge before it falls.
So says Clyde, and a raven never lies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx7D8p-AoEs
hairball
As Yoda would say:
Bassackwards, have you it...
Fuck Yoda.
People have lost the connection between real wealth and money. Borrowing used to come from real wealth that was "saved". Borrowing now comes as the result of money printing--money from nothing--free money.
Trouble is that is an inherently unstable monetary system--and it will fail.
Re: and it will fail.
The smart-n-savvy people will survive. We're just participating in a survival-of-the-fittest game. The dumb-n-clueless get eaten by the smart-n-savvy, the weapon being used is bullshit. Those who create the best bullshit win.
Yoda was Libertarian, as George Lucas is and has been a Rothbardian for nearly 40 years. The same cam be said about Gene Roddenberry.
My question here is – what about intangible assets: Surely connections to politicians or movie producers are a form of wealth that help you succeed, so surely connections should be taxed, right? What about beauty – being beautiful helps you get ahead, should we tax the attractive more than the ugly?
I assume you left off your /sarc ?
If not, why is the answer always "more taxes"?
I was posing this question to Piketty, and thought that the ridiculousness of it would obviate the need for /s tags.
If this moron Piketty wants to tax "wealth", it's intellectually inconsistent not to tax all kinds of wealth - not just houses, cars, and bank accounts, but also personal relationships and physical attributes.
In a monetary system where there is no fractional reserve lending, no central bank, and real money(gold for example) is used:
If taxes or borrowing(interest rates rise) become excessive, the effect is immediately felt--and the sheep, even the dumb ones, revolt. The political system is forced to act. Cut spending or raise taxes(and/or borrow more). The system is transparent since the "real" choices stare one in the face.
I'm sorry. I didn't make it through the whole noble rich article. Did it mention anything about political/business corruption or bailout of the NINJA banks by the proletariat? I'm guessing no.
Get lost Schiff. This argument that average americans are better off than the rest of the world b/c of the prosperity of our rich is crap. The country is 17 trillion in debt. 50 million are on food stamps. Even more are on other government benefits.
This country is fucked up. And the Oligarchy that's been running it for the last X years bears the responsibility. F-off Schiff
He was pointing those things out well before you knew about them though...
We waste so much time on appeasing those that want what others have without earning it, sacrificing for it, or inheriting it.
Why is stealing it from others morally equilvalent to those three above?
Because some section of the population demands it?
Re: Why is stealing it from others morally equilvalent to those three above?
Predatory lending to dumbasses is also immoral, but with enough duplicity everything can be called moral.
The secret of success is duplicty, the secret of happiness is self-delusion. Both require lots of bullshit.
You said:
That may be a slight exaggeration of his point, but it's likely an impression many get anyway, and your counterargument is strong.
AND YET we *do* have a problem right now in income (and power!) distribution, mostly we have a disconnect between interests of the 1% and the 99%, and that is a bad thing no matter how it came about. Apparently Piketty's main claim to fame is that he thinks he can tell us how it came about, so that we should change some stuff and then it won't come about anymore. His "cause" is a mathematical thang. BULLCRAP. It's good old fashioned greed and power. Piketty's numbers are weak and his logic is weaker, it's just sort of a performance art piece on the topic of economics.
But the problem is still there, and I don't want to overlook the problem just because Piketty is a charlatan.
If you believe we can live in BOTH a meritocracy and a land where inherrited wealth provides the largest share of income then you believe in magic.
Hocus Pocus...look! I'm rich!
If you believe we can be a democratic Republic and yet have Oligarchs who control the media, the message, and the politicians...then you believe in Hogwarts.
Come and meet me at Platform Nine and Three Quarters...I'll help lauch you through the wall.
The notion that the poor and now middle class have nothing is not true. Yes, they have no assets. What they have plenty of is their share the federal (national) and their state's debts. Their share is so large, in fact, that they will never be able to pay their share back in their lifetime. That is where their children and grandchildren come in!
Let's review. Federal and state government employees, politicians, and their mother fucking chronies have been laughing all the way to the bank. And ya know what, the baby boomer pregressive liberal bastards have let them get away with it. The question is, while the baby boomers were asleep at the switch and letting government run wild, who the fuck is ultimately going to pay the final bill?
I am not a redistributionist. But I am a believer that if you got the goodies (at the expense of others and future generations), you fucking pay for it. It is high time for an age and wealth based tax in the US, Europe and Japan. We have a window of only 20 - maximum 30 years to get the money back - before they mother fucking die and create monster financial legacies for their families, and leave the rest of us, our children and grandchildren to pay the bill through higher taxes, higher prices and much less opportunity (ala Greece and Spain).
Ehhnt....wrong answer. The reason people are seeing less and less is because the size of government has grown (in the US anyway) to unbelieveable mass. By 2010 - the government had increased in size by 120%. That doesn't include the monstrosity of Obysmalcare, all these fucking DHS, TSA NSA and 'czar' deaprtments. Fuck, get rid of just the growth we've seen in the size of government since Obama took office (not that he in particular is responsible for everything but I hate giving him any leeway, he is a fucking moror who has no idea what's going on or how to fix it though he is defended as just the opposite by sycophants everywhere, why? I dunno, cuz he's black maybe? or he's on the right team?),,,but I digresss. Just 20 years ago, before the progressive 'Gingrich' revolution took hold, NAFTA, etc, simple workers (not a slight) guys that paint, or do plumbing or work in an auto shop, or worked at a 9-5 job, they could afford a house, vacation, car. But tno, that sucked waaay to much for the left in this country so they had to fuck it all up. So, here you go.
You cite Greece and Spain as examples of what we don't want yet you propose doing exactly what they've done. Restricting liberty (yes, cutting down on what I can make) is in violation of what we used to stand for, anyway.
Also, I think it's much different to say that these ceos, and connected people making millions for doing nothing are engaging in illegal activity bilking companies (shareholders) out of billions. I see no problem with pursuing the exorbitant pay ceos and the boards that approve the pay and create the comp packages. Crony capitalism....that is it.
My error was in only blaming Progressive liberal trash. I assure you I have no love for the neo con war mongers within the republican party. Certainly, they have worked together in bankrupting our children.
Slash and burn government programs. Hallelujah!
Schiff is not debunking, he is ranting (and shitting his pants), without showing any data that support his arguments.
One of Piketty's main points is that he shows that labor (i.e. working hard) does not pay off anymore in that it can improve your quality of life because incomes are not keeping up with rising prices (which are artificially inflated by oligarchs and types like Schiff, for example by offering tens of millions of dollars for residential properties), while holding capital assets does. Btw Piketty in his book does not condemn capitalism at all, even points out thta Marx was wrong. He mainly observes that the financial inequality that started several revolutions and wars looks a lot like the inequality we see are seeing today.
Schiff basically says to the sheeple: just keep flipping burgers until you are 75 years old as long as you have a trailer to live in, but don't bother me while I exchange my Beechjet 400A for a Gulfstream G550.
Cleeeeaarrrrrrrrrrrrly...you are a moron.
The reason that flipping burgers isn't paying off is because it never was mean to pay off. Further, the thing that is depressing wages now is the exact thing that persnickety is advocating. Government taxation and interference in the operations of businesses, rather, personal pursuits (formerly guaranteed under our constitution) with supreme interference.
Finally, Schiff does not need to provide 'hard data' of concepts and results that have been proven over the last 100 years. Thanks though, keep voting for idiots like ole Flap ears and backing a moron who writes a book. Dr Phil writes books, too. You should probably go back to Honey Boo Boo reruns.
Haha, you are right about taxes, as in that they are too high on labor and too low on wealth/capital gains/inheritances/etc. Only government is able to decrease taxes on labor, and should compensate that decrease with taxes on wealth among other measures like cutting spending. This way, labor will again be rewarding. Burger flipping may never be meant to make you rich, however at current wages you need 3 burger flipping jobs to support a family, which is morally reprehensible.
Why are you raising a family if you only have a job flipping burgers? What's morally reprehensible is the abandonment of personal responsibility and the reliance on theft via the state to intervene. Listen, I'm sensitive to the current economic outlook for the burger flipper not because I think he deserves more but because the system (through government intrusion) has stripped away the ability of upward mobility by destroying the free market through cronyism, corporatism and statism. Here's an idea- Get rid of 90% of the government, reduce taxes and regulation, and decentralize banking interests and you will see poverty raised like never before. This of course will take decades though as the de-programming of the mind will need time.
See, in a real free market the NBA wouldn't need to do anything about Donald Sterling. Players of moral character should refuse to play for him, fans in turn would stop supporting financially and pretty soon the dude would have to sell because of the ramifications of his actions. Let free people decide and vote with their feet instead of "telling" people how to feel through the power of the media. It's simple, principled players could force the issue and in turn season ticket holders could seek legal financial recourse the way it was designed.
You raise valid points, however I am unable to see how governments could enhance corporatism, since governments are the only entitities that can intervene in corporations or organizations like Americans for Prosperity running amok if they would desire to do so. For the ultimate goal of making a profit, it is sometimes in the interest of these organizations to abuse and/or misinform their workers or members on behalf of their own interests. IMHO, some corporations prevent individuals from moving up in life by not offering them opportunities to grow within the company, keep wages flat and act mainly on behalf of their shareholders. And who is going to take care of these often ambitious individuals when there is another financial crash with massive layoffs? Oh yeah, and who is going to bailout the beloved banks/insurance companies again?
When legal counterfeiters can steal value at will, wealth redistribution become a moot point. They will ALWAYS have more stolen wealth than everyone else who has to produce to have surplus.
Real money at a real interest cost won't prevent the clever from accumulating wealth but they will have to put that money somewhere in the production chain to realize a return on investment.
Any malinvestment would have it's day of reckoning and gamblers would face ruin from excessive risk.
Fractional reserve lending and monetizing Govt. debt is the pink slime of the economic world. If you blend it with real economic activity in small amounts it will pass as real meat.
We are well past the point where there is very little meat in the pink slime hot dog and people like Piketty are claiming the mustard is the problem.
Thomas Piketty: Capitalism in Its Current Form Undermines Democracyhttp://truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/23976-thomas-piketty-capitali...
Ya know, I am pretty sure that returning to constitutional government, reinstating equal protection under the law and removing the corporate veil that prevents corporate criminal from being personally prosecuted would pretty much fix the situation.
The ONLY reason that the elitest are able to increase the wealth disparity is because they are not prosecuted for their crimes and protected by the physicial force of government.
If that protection was taken away we would then see all of the naked (soon to be Bubba's best friend) asses when to tide went out.
However in an uncontrollably corrupt system, one gets uncontrollably corrupt results and no amount of stealing from the middle class (because seriously, the elitist criminals are not going to allow their spoils to be taken back) to give to the poor will help.
From your lips to God's ear, you wrote this as I wrote my rant below. God bless.
Whenever I start to feel stupid, all I need to do is read Zero Hedge comments. I feel so much better now. Thanks, all. Oh, and Peter Schiff can shine my shoes too.
" That's because he, and his adherents, are more driven by envy than by a desire for success. ... "
Intriguing, I've always thought that behind the desire for success, inevitably hid some form of envy. At least partially, and the proportion of which possibly depending on the kind of success desired.
I don't think it's envy that you're thinking of- It's Aspiration. I believe that envy has a counterparty philosophy that is rooted in il will. That is if you are envious then you have a "feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages". Aspirational desires on the other hand are in the positive. You reflect on the high value of the want, and place yourself desirous of those things.
There is a big difference so I just wanted to make a point of clarification. In a true free market aspiration not just of the byproduct (wealth, revenue, savings) but of the process (morals, ethics, style) is a huge driver.
" That is if you are envious then you have a "feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages". Aspirational desires on the other hand are in the positive. "
Ok. I think I get the nuance.
To me, it feels like the one who is "envious" (negative sentiment) and the one who has a "desire of success" (positive sentiment), very often are both motivated by some desire towards another's or others' perceived advantage(s)(wealth, fame, ...). The difference simply resides in the fact that one, for some reason, may feel powerless to fulfill his desire, and the other, perhaps under the delusion or the guise of a "noble aspiration", feels he can fulfill his'. And if, in the end, he can't, ... I guess he, too, may very well become "envious".
I'm fascinated by the hate that so many of you direct at Peter Schiff. There's nothing wrong with being wealthy.
Piketty is a moron, and idealist, a blatant socialist with his redistributionist ideas.
I agree that America now has a truly fucked up economic system skewed to the upper 1%.
I do not know what the solution(s) are but I do know that the answer is not more government.
Schiff is a pretty smart guy, but he's a bit confused about Gates and Jobs. We would all be a lot better off if they had stopped working. Some economist should calculate the amount of time that Gates has wasted--other people's time. Remember the blue screen of death? How about all the people who just got fucked out of XP and had to stop what they were doing to get a new operating system, not to mention the money Microsoft fucked them out of. I didn't think Schiff would say something so stupid. Computers work despite Gates and Jobs, certainly not because of Gates and Jobs.
The sheer absurdity makes me wonder if this is an ingenious satire that only a few would ever get.
I would say both Schiff and Picketty are asshole shills.