Author Topic: Re: open borders  (Read 2186 times)

Cardboard

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2719
Re: open borders
« Reply #30 on: October 23, 2018, 07:47:27 PM »
And frankly I don't see how raising taxes and regulations to hurt the already-rich, and eliminating a giant wall around the problem (literally!), are going to fix it.

Cardboard


LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
Re: open borders
« Reply #31 on: October 23, 2018, 08:18:04 PM »
And frankly I don't see how raising taxes and regulations to hurt the already-rich, and eliminating a giant wall around the problem (literally!), are going to fix it.

Cardboard

Regulations are generally in place to protect consumers from abuse. For example the fiduciary responsibility of investment advisers. Or environmental protection to prevent OilCo from drilling upstream and dumping their shit down the stream into your drinking water.

The rich can afford clean water. They can afford investment advisers who will not steal from them (or at least can afford the due diligence beforehand, and the lawsuit to ruin the other guy's life, afterwards). The poor cannot.

Taxes are used to pay for public goods/services, and to repair public destruction (externalities). The rich are not dependent on public goods or services. Nor do they have to deal with (or at least are much better equipped to) the externalities caused by public or private affairs.

Ignoring a problem by building a wall around it does not solve the problem. This is common sense.



Maybe to appease you, we need smarter regulations. I think we can agree that in some cases deregulation causes problems. And that in other cases regulation causes problems.

We can argue which side of the scale dips lower.

But I think in the worst cases (say for equality's sake the student loan bubble on the "overregulated" side, and the mortgage crisis on the "underregulated" side), we have stupidity reigning.

"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | cash

Gregmal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 989
Re: open borders
« Reply #32 on: October 23, 2018, 09:03:34 PM »
Regulation can be good and bad.

For instance I think we will have to get to a point were technology is massively regulated. Google and FB have so much information about people, that most people themselves do not even realize, and it is incredibly dangerous.

For employment and wages, you will likely see a universal income. The problem is if you want to tackle this, you have to be fair. Giving $10,000 to the unemployed just encourages someone working for $12,000 to stay home. It's not even fair to someone who's making $50,000 or $100,000. If you make $500,000 it's different. But the way these moron politicians do things, it's as if they are inviting leeches. And that's part of the problem too. There are always dishonest people looking to exploit the system. If you say everyone making under $500,000 gets a $10,000 check from Uncle Sam(which is the fair way to do it), you will almost certain get some piece of shit executive finding a way to write down his $500k income to $490k. It's largely the same as all these (fill in the blank) women who use their vaginas as ATM's because the government gives them a check for having kids. Totally unfair to the single mother who's partner bailed and now works 2 jobs to make ends meet while still getting a little help.

In summary, the way to fix this is simple. Take from the obscenely wealthy, stunt or even halt technology that disrupts jobs, and aggressively punish and criminalize those that exploit the system. All of the above are either way too hard, too complicated, or would cost sleezebag politicians too many votes or too much lobbyist funding and thus it is my opinion the problem is unfixable.

Cardboard

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2719
Re: open borders
« Reply #33 on: October 24, 2018, 05:53:29 AM »
"Take from the obscenely wealthy..."

Please define? You will have to pick a level and as you mentioned people will cheat around it.

Moreover, how do you take it? Do you tax unrealized gains past a certain level of wealth? Because I don't know how you tax a rich like Buffett or Bezos unless they cash in their stock? Taxing their salaries is meaningless.

At a certain point, this becomes asset confiscation. Another thing that has never worked throughout history and has led to poverty. Capital simply flees to a safer destination.

Regarding income inequality in the West, Buffett and Gates don't seem to really believe in it or it is someone else problem as it is usually the case with this question. Their actions seem to imply that inequality is greater elsewhere. By giving their wealth away, they pay no tax in the country in which they have made it and this money goes tax free to help Africans.

Look, there are two things in life that you cannot get away from: competition and envy.

If you are alive this morning, it is because your body has competed all night to keep you alive: a very complex system functioned properly, fought bacteria and multiple threats. Competition is everywhere. Who doesn't want a better future for their children? Them succeeding? What does that really mean?

Buffett has mentioned previously that envy is what drives the world. Probably the original sin, built in our genes. Look at two kids at one's birthday. One gets gifts, the other doesn't...

You cannot take anything for granted. We are living in a peaceful society because we are rich. Not because we are better people than those in poorer countries. Cut the power off for a few weeks and you will see barbarian signs come out in most if not all of us.

Cardboard

rukawa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 827
Re: open borders
« Reply #34 on: November 03, 2018, 04:07:39 PM »
Regulations are generally in place to protect consumers from abuse. For example the fiduciary responsibility of investment advisers. Or environmental protection to prevent OilCo from drilling upstream and dumping their shit down the stream into your drinking water.

The rich can afford clean water. They can afford investment advisers who will not steal from them (or at least can afford the due diligence beforehand, and the lawsuit to ruin the other guy's life, afterwards). The poor cannot.

Taxes are used to pay for public goods/services, and to repair public destruction (externalities). The rich are not dependent on public goods or services. Nor do they have to deal with (or at least are much better equipped to) the externalities caused by public or private affairs.

If the streets are filled with shit and you are rich....you will still get shit on your shoes. Everyone benefits from public goods. I would actually argue that in many cases the rich benefit far more....e.g. the interstate highway system, the internet, public schools. Where would Sergey Brin be if there were no internet. The rich have a huge dependence on public services and goods. 

And I disagree that regulations are there to protect consumers. The stated purpose of regulations and their ostensible reason is to protect consumers....whether they succeed in that goal or whether they were even intended to in the first place is a separate question. Regulations exist:

1) Because there was a real problem and the regulation geniunely was created to address it
2) Some politician was trying to advance his career and hyped a fake problem
3) Special interests lobbied for the regulation and even funded campaigns to promote public awareness of fake problems to advance their own interests
4) Bureaucrats wanted to justify increased budgets and higher management salaries

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
Re: open borders
« Reply #35 on: November 03, 2018, 05:21:11 PM »
Quote
If the streets are filled with shit and you are rich....you will still get shit on your shoes. Everyone benefits from public goods. I would actually argue that in many cases the rich benefit far more....e.g. the interstate highway system, the internet, public schools. Where would Sergey Brin be if there were no internet. The rich have a huge dependence on public services and goods. 

I can understand the argument rich get more use from public goods, but I disagree about dependence. Regardless, all the more reason for a progressive tax system.

On regulations, I mean, yes? #1 is their stated reason as you mentioned. Yes people abuse regulations. People also abuse a lack of regulations. Need intelligence when enacting them.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | cash