Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
Obviously they weren't too far off the nose, as the USA is the most powerful/wealthy country ever to have been in recorded history.

I'm not sure this is quite accurate. Powerful... that's a hard word to quantify. Certainly militarily, but are we as "powerful" as, say, when England or Rome ruled a great proportion of the known world?

Easier to quantify would be wealth, and I don't think we've ever been the wealthiest country in history, per capita at least. Our GDP per capita is like half of Luxembourg or Norway, only a little more than a third of Qatar.

Yeah, it's really hard to say. Wealthier then the Mongolians, who controlled most of Eurasia, and probably some of the largest precious metal stocks in the world at the time?

tneva82 wrote:
You are flat out wrong. Evidence speaks for itself. Year after year after year gap between rich and poor keeps getting bigger with poverty being still fact of life for most of the people.

About 65% of the world was in extreme poverty in 1900. Today it is less than 20%.

While it is true that in this time the rich have gotten very rich, it is also irrelevant. If a man had no food on Monday and has food today, then it does not matter if the guy over the road went from from a Civic to a Bentley.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not sure this is quite accurate. Powerful... that's a hard word to quantify. Certainly militarily, but are we as "powerful" as, say, when England or Rome ruled a great proportion of the known world?

I guess it depends whether you define power in absolute terms or relative to the rest of the world. I mean, the US today can put undertake a strike anywhere in the world in a few hours, it can deploy and supply troops to any spot on earth in a small number of days. The Roman Empire was powerful, but it didn't have that kind of capacity even within its own borders, let alone outside them. And of course, the US can blow up the whole world if it wants.

But on an issue of relative power, there's a couple of other countries that can also blow up the planet. And given the way war works these days, it is a less critical element of national policy. Rome wanted a city, it found a reason then it took the city. The US hasn't figured out quite what to do with places it captures in this day and age

On wealth, the issue is objective vs relative again. The US has an economy producing $14 trillion worth of stuff every year. That's basically bigger than all the production in the world in 1970. So in that objective sense the US is the most productive the world has ever seen. Relative to other countries, though, the US' high point was 1960, when it had 29% of world GDP (the US is currently 22%). The EU peaked at 32% in in 1980, but they don't really count. China has been at 33% during the Qing dynasty. India was about 33% of the world economy when Jesus was getting stuff done. At the same time the Roman Empire was about 7% of world GDP. France, Spain and Britain never get in to double figures throughout the colonial era, though I'm not sure how much the figures I drummed up allocated colony income back to the colonising power.

But yeah, the US never quite reached the place in the world economy that India and China have both held. But I'm not sure how much raw GDP alone really matters - China had vast GDP on account of its massive population, and the countries of Europe still turned up, showed China to be weak and took what they want. GDP only really matters if it produces surplus wealth that can in turn be transformed in to other capabilities. Simply having a vast interior of subsistence farmers isn't really doing anyone any good.

with ref. to an earlier part of the thread



"Henry Ford receiving the Grand Cross of the German Eagle from Nazi officials, 1938."

 sebster wrote:


While it is true that in this time the rich have gotten very rich, it is also irrelevant.

I disagree with this. As we've seen with US political process over the past 60 some-odd years, we're currently in a time where wealth most definitely equates to power. It's a problem when you have people who were financial executives taking over a government post responsible for overseeing the financial industry. The same would be true of the lumber, clothing, automotive, or any other industry. I've read recently that late last year, or early this year, the "income gap" between the US's top 1% and bottom 90% is now wider than it was before the stock market crash of 29. What is similar about the times of then and now? Well, back before the Rockefellers were busted up, and even afterward, you had J.P. Morgan controlling huge swaths of US money, to the point where he could largely say he "owned" the country. The stock market crash of 1878 (the largest one until the 1929 crash) was almost directly caused by the leaked information that railroad bosses had bought politicians, who were granting no-bid contracts to certain RR companies, as well as other various forms of collusion, bribery, and things that have been made illegal since.

We tried fixing the problems post-1929 with trickle-down economics. It didn't work. We tried it with Reaganomics, and Bush Jr. And it didn't work.


The problem with the wealth inequality that we have in the US today, isn't so much that the rich are getting richer, it's that they are getting rich at the expense of workers, AND they are ensuring the system remains rigged in their favor. It's one of many reasons why federal minimum wage hasn't changed in quite some time, and isn't tied to interest rates, worker productivity rates, inflation, or any other possible metric to demonstrate that the cost of living has increased. It's also why we've increasingly given more and more tax "breaks" (aka, kickbacks) to companies like Ford, who all have CEOs who line their pockets with that money, then pull stunts like this one where they continue the long-term harm that this factory shift will have.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I disagree with this.

My comment was made in context. In this context we had an actual socialist arguing against any kind of market economics, claiming that capitalism had produced rich people but there were still poor people. Against that broad position then an equally broad response is required, one that points out that the 20th century, the capitalist century, has produced the greatest decrease in poverty in human history.

But if we are to move back to more sensible economics, as you have, then it is worth pointing out that the current level of inequality is an issue. I agree with you completely. Not so much for the power effects (whether the top 1% have 50%, 25% or 10% of incomes, they will still have excessive influence on politics). But rather, distribution is important because if you leave a rich person with low taxes and they take home 2,000,000 they might buy a very nice sports car. But if you tax them more heavily then they will only take oem 1,500,000, and that $500,000 can be used to provide resources to tens of thousands of kids living in poverty. It's a basic utilitarian function.

We tried fixing the problems post-1929 with trickle-down economics. It didn't work. We tried it with Reaganomics, and Bush Jr. And it didn't work.

Don't worry. I mean sure, Reaganomics didn't produce the economic growth it was meant to, and blew out the budget. Then Bush's Reaganomics 2: Electric Boogaloo Paul Ryan has a Reaganomics 2: Electric Boogaloo plan. It does away with the tax cuts for the middle class, and gives 99.6% of the new cuts to the top 1%. I mean, sure, tax cuts didn't generate GDP growth the first time, didn't generate GDP growth the second time, so this time lets make it tax cuts for the wealthiest alone, it's bound to work third time around.

 reds8n wrote:

with ref. to an earlier part of the thread

Spoiler:

"Henry Ford receiving the Grand Cross of the German Eagle from Nazi officials, 1938."

He also dabbled in creative writing.

Anyone found a source for the accusation in this thread that Ford supplied the NVA?

 Ouze wrote:
He also dabbled in creative writing.

I was on a stop over on a flight from Brunei around 2008. It was a pretty small bookstore, but that was the most prominently displayed English language book.

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I disagree with this.

My comment was made in context. In this context we had an actual socialist arguing against any kind of market economics, claiming that capitalism had produced rich people but there were still poor people. Against that broad position then an equally broad response is required, one that points out that the 20th century, the capitalist century, has produced the greatest decrease in poverty in human history.

But if we are to move back to more sensible economics, as you have, then it is worth pointing out that the current level of inequality is an issue. I agree with you completely. Not so much for the power effects (whether the top 1% have 50%, 25% or 10% of incomes, they will still have excessive influence on politics). But rather, distribution is important because if you leave a rich person with low taxes and they take home 2,000,000 they might buy a very nice sports car. But if you tax them more heavily then they will only take oem 1,500,000, and that $500,000 can be used to provide resources to tens of thousands of kids living in poverty. It's a basic utilitarian function.

Gotcha... misunderstanding on my part that you were responding in equally broad terms.


Personally, I think taxes need to be reformed, and done in such a way as to create an environment where a business owner/CEO/top 1%er seek to lower their personal tax liabilities, and company tax liabilities by actually reinvesting in their company. What we've seen for a good while now is tax policy which lowers taxes in "hopes" that the money will be reinvested, but it isn't. To provide a crude example of what I'm talking about, let's say there's a lawyer company that makes a ton of profits from their time. Now, the partners wish to lower their taxes, so to decrease their "profits" they begin paying the monthly payments on the junior employee's student loans. A Mom and Pop sporting goods store has had an excellent year, and while they don't have enough money to open a new store, they of course wish to lower their taxable income, so before the year rolls around, they a few new clothing racks and new shoe racks, thereby improving the look of the facility AND lowering what they pay in taxes (without actually lowering taxes).

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I disagree with this.

My comment was made in context. In this context we had an actual socialist arguing against any kind of market economics, claiming that capitalism had produced rich people but there were still poor people. Against that broad position then an equally broad response is required, one that points out that the 20th century, the capitalist century, has produced the greatest decrease in poverty in human history.

But if we are to move back to more sensible economics, as you have, then it is worth pointing out that the current level of inequality is an issue. I agree with you completely. Not so much for the power effects (whether the top 1% have 50%, 25% or 10% of incomes, they will still have excessive influence on politics). But rather, distribution is important because if you leave a rich person with low taxes and they take home 2,000,000 they might buy a very nice sports car. But if you tax them more heavily then they will only take oem 1,500,000, and that $500,000 can be used to provide resources to tens of thousands of kids living in poverty. It's a basic utilitarian function.

Gotcha... misunderstanding on my part that you were responding in equally broad terms.


Personally, I think taxes need to be reformed, and done in such a way as to create an environment where a business owner/CEO/top 1%er seek to lower their personal tax liabilities, and company tax liabilities by actually reinvesting in their company. What we've seen for a good while now is tax policy which lowers taxes in "hopes" that the money will be reinvested, but it isn't. To provide a crude example of what I'm talking about, let's say there's a lawyer company that makes a ton of profits from their time. Now, the partners wish to lower their taxes, so to decrease their "profits" they begin paying the monthly payments on the junior employee's student loans. A Mom and Pop sporting goods store has had an excellent year, and while they don't have enough money to open a new store, they of course wish to lower their taxable income, so before the year rolls around, they a few new clothing racks and new shoe racks, thereby improving the look of the facility AND lowering what they pay in taxes (without actually lowering taxes).

Well, that would also assume that the goal of the current system is to encourage investment, and it's not just a political talking point to justify a system that sits on the backs of the working class to protect the top end. You can look at income taxation since the 50s to see that there is no correlation between lowering taxes at the top and economic growth. Quite the opposite.

Which is not surprising. Locking up vast amounts of capital in the hands of a few who have no incentive to deploy it productively is hardly a recipe for economic success and is much more reminiscent of feudal lords or oligarchy than a functional, productive economy.

 jmurph wrote:
You can look at income taxation since the 50s to see that there is no correlation between lowering taxes at the top and economic growth. Quite the opposite.

Which is not surprising. Locking up vast amounts of capital in the hands of a few who have no incentive to deploy it productively is hardly a recipe for economic success and is much more reminiscent of feudal lords or oligarchy than a functional, productive economy.

That's basically what I've been saying.. there was a user earlier in this thread espousing a belief in trickle-down (horse and cart, or more eloquently: horse and sparrow) economics, and it's an argument that I consistently get sucked in to, because through even a brief study of history, one can see that it clearly does not work, and in some cases, it makes things actively worse.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
You can look at income taxation since the 50s to see that there is no correlation between lowering taxes at the top and economic growth. Quite the opposite.

Which is not surprising. Locking up vast amounts of capital in the hands of a few who have no incentive to deploy it productively is hardly a recipe for economic success and is much more reminiscent of feudal lords or oligarchy than a functional, productive economy.

That's basically what I've been saying.. there was a user earlier in this thread espousing a belief in trickle-down (horse and cart, or more eloquently: horse and sparrow) economics, and it's an argument that I consistently get sucked in to, because through even a brief study of history, one can see that it clearly does not work, and in some cases, it makes things actively worse.

Trickle down has been a con job from day one. There was never any serious economic work that ever suggested that shifting the tax burden away from the rich would drive economic growth. It was speculative idea on the fringes of economics, that got latched on to by wealthy people and business interests that quite liked the idea of paying less tax.

And now, after 30 years of experiments in putting trickle down in to place, and no decent growth emerging anywhere it’s been tried, it is incredible that the scam keeps getting sold. I mentioned in the politics thread that in 2012 Romney ran with a new tax policy where big cuts to welfare were needed to pay for tax cuts to the rich, which he argued was the only way he could deliver economic growth and lots of new jobs. Except his projections for growth and new jobs were almost identical to the existing forecasts for the jobs and growth that would be created if policies remained exactly as they were. And 4 years on, with none of Romney’s policies in place, jobs and growth ended up delivering close to what Romney had promised.

The con really should be very obvious to everyone. Cutting taxes on the rich doesn’t create more growth or more jobs. But it keeps getting sold because some very wealthy people want to pay as little tax as possible.

Meanwhile, we are moving in to a new world where high income earners are going to earn more and more, and low income earners are going to continue to see stagnant wages. The obvious response is to rebalance the tax burden, with low income earners paying less tax and even getting direct income subsidy, while rich people pay more tax. But most countries seem to be going in the opposite direction.

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
You can look at income taxation since the 50s to see that there is no correlation between lowering taxes at the top and economic growth. Quite the opposite.

Which is not surprising. Locking up vast amounts of capital in the hands of a few who have no incentive to deploy it productively is hardly a recipe for economic success and is much more reminiscent of feudal lords or oligarchy than a functional, productive economy.

That's basically what I've been saying.. there was a user earlier in this thread espousing a belief in trickle-down (horse and cart, or more eloquently: horse and sparrow) economics, and it's an argument that I consistently get sucked in to, because through even a brief study of history, one can see that it clearly does not work, and in some cases, it makes things actively worse.

Trickle down has been a con job from day one. There was never any serious economic work that ever suggested that shifting the tax burden away from the rich would drive economic growth. It was speculative idea on the fringes of economics, that got latched on to by wealthy people and business interests that quite liked the idea of paying less tax.

And now, after 30 years of experiments in putting trickle down in to place, and no decent growth emerging anywhere it’s been tried, it is incredible that the scam keeps getting sold. I mentioned in the politics thread that in 2012 Romney ran with a new tax policy where big cuts to welfare were needed to pay for tax cuts to the rich, which he argued was the only way he could deliver economic growth and lots of new jobs. Except his projections for growth and new jobs were almost identical to the existing forecasts for the jobs and growth that would be created if policies remained exactly as they were. And 4 years on, with none of Romney’s policies in place, jobs and growth ended up delivering close to what Romney had promised.

The con really should be very obvious to everyone. Cutting taxes on the rich doesn’t create more growth or more jobs. But it keeps getting sold because some very wealthy people want to pay as little tax as possible.

Meanwhile, we are moving in to a new world where high income earners are going to earn more and more, and low income earners are going to continue to see stagnant wages. The obvious response is to rebalance the tax burden, with low income earners paying less tax and even getting direct income subsidy, while rich people pay more tax. But most countries seem to be going in the opposite direction.

Living next door to a trickle-down believer I can tell you flat out, it isn't obvious to everyone.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Living next door to a trickle-down believer I can tell you flat out, it isn't obvious to everyone.

Yes, my emphasis was on "really should be"

I'm at the point where the only thing I can think to do is to make people feel stupid for continuing to get conned. Hope maybe some pride will kick in sooner or later.