If it helps, I've heard Jordan Peterson make the same argument on Joe Rogan's podcast; that too much inequality destabilizes society and encourages "nothing-to-lose" revolutionaries.
If it helps, I've heard Jordan Peterson make the same argument on Joe Rogan's podcast; that too much inequality destabilizes society and encourages "nothing-to-lose" revolutionaries.
Thanks for that, Mike’s. I think JP does does a great job of trying to strike a balance view on the issue of inequality. Aiming for equality of outcome is obviously nonsense. But he recognizes that excessive inequality is destabilizing and potentially destructive.
We all know that we presently have a serious income inequality issue. This is obviously simplistic, but the mantra on the left seems to be “tax the rich”. That may well be the solution to the problem, but I doubt it.
It would be great to hear about other potential solutions (or mix of solutions) to the problem. Can we learn anything from the 1950s and 1960s when income inequality was at it’s lowest?
Well, tax rates WERE much higher post-WWII; they only started getting cut way back down in the Reagan era, and never went back up to those levels.
Tax the rich is a big part of it, but also, college has been sold as a false panacea to poverty. Young people take out massive loans to get degrees that don't really improve their job prospects, so they're stuck trying to pay them off while working at Starbucks.
Trades have been stigmatized as "low-class" jobs, even though a journeyman certificate is a far better career booster than a gender studies degree.
"Tax the rich, get the poor into trades" would do a great job of solving inequality. Then layer in repatriating supply chains back away from overseas sweatshops, and we'd be in good shape.
Thomas Piketty explained and documented in his 2014 book, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," how and why capitalism inexorably produces increasingly extreme inequality of wealth unless it is regulated and taxed or periodically disrupted by destructive wars and/or revolutions. (We now know that pandemics seem to have the opposite effects.) It seems to me that we may soon be testing the upper limit on wealth inequality. It may be that limiting factor will turn out to be resulting war or revolution. We'd be wiser if we tried some regulation and taxation before we get to that point, but it seems that the greater the inequality, the less chance we will have to try those methods.
Do you actually think people don't understand that basic concept? Do you think some get the warm & fuzzies because Peterson said it. Just listen to your specious choice of words "TOO MUCH inequality". Gee, is TOO MUCH of anything a good thing? Let's ask Mae West?
"Do you actually think people don't understand that basic concept?"
Yes, they're called libertarians.
"Do you think some get the warm & fuzzies because Peterson said it."
Yes, they're the people complaining that Tara's substack is a woke echo chamber. If Trump says 2+2=4, they'll believe it, but if Biden says 2+2=4, they'll say it's a liberal hoax.
So, you'll just pass on the specious use of the modifier "TOO MUCH". Typical of you. Words are a toy. They mean nothing. Slip one here. Slip one there. Yawn.
I know exactly what it means. You specialize in it. But, good job changing the subject away from your meaningless choice of words and jumping to pretending to have a unique grasp of the language. Laughable.
Yeah, that's me all right. Solid Marxist right here as I quote Jordan Peterson.
You've had some moments where you made decent points, but you've clearly drunk the right-wing kool-aid on wealth inequality, if you think it's driven by taxation.
If it helps, I've heard Jordan Peterson make the same argument on Joe Rogan's podcast; that too much inequality destabilizes society and encourages "nothing-to-lose" revolutionaries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bq3YrYjG-s
(start at about 4:11)
Thanks for that, Mike’s. I think JP does does a great job of trying to strike a balance view on the issue of inequality. Aiming for equality of outcome is obviously nonsense. But he recognizes that excessive inequality is destabilizing and potentially destructive.
We all know that we presently have a serious income inequality issue. This is obviously simplistic, but the mantra on the left seems to be “tax the rich”. That may well be the solution to the problem, but I doubt it.
It would be great to hear about other potential solutions (or mix of solutions) to the problem. Can we learn anything from the 1950s and 1960s when income inequality was at it’s lowest?
Well, tax rates WERE much higher post-WWII; they only started getting cut way back down in the Reagan era, and never went back up to those levels.
Tax the rich is a big part of it, but also, college has been sold as a false panacea to poverty. Young people take out massive loans to get degrees that don't really improve their job prospects, so they're stuck trying to pay them off while working at Starbucks.
Trades have been stigmatized as "low-class" jobs, even though a journeyman certificate is a far better career booster than a gender studies degree.
"Tax the rich, get the poor into trades" would do a great job of solving inequality. Then layer in repatriating supply chains back away from overseas sweatshops, and we'd be in good shape.
Thomas Piketty explained and documented in his 2014 book, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," how and why capitalism inexorably produces increasingly extreme inequality of wealth unless it is regulated and taxed or periodically disrupted by destructive wars and/or revolutions. (We now know that pandemics seem to have the opposite effects.) It seems to me that we may soon be testing the upper limit on wealth inequality. It may be that limiting factor will turn out to be resulting war or revolution. We'd be wiser if we tried some regulation and taxation before we get to that point, but it seems that the greater the inequality, the less chance we will have to try those methods.
"tax the rich" is not the only mantra on the left for eliminating income inequality. It is not even the #1 mantra.
#1 is use QUOTAS in the work-place in every decision.
#2 is Equal Pay Regardless of Merit.
#3 might be Tax The Rich, but that doesn't actually address INCOME. That addresses wealth, which is a different thing.
#1 driver of income inequality is GLOBALIZATION. You can learn that there was little globalization in the '50s & '60s.
Thanks for your input, Leo.
Do you actually think people don't understand that basic concept? Do you think some get the warm & fuzzies because Peterson said it. Just listen to your specious choice of words "TOO MUCH inequality". Gee, is TOO MUCH of anything a good thing? Let's ask Mae West?
"Do you actually think people don't understand that basic concept?"
Yes, they're called libertarians.
"Do you think some get the warm & fuzzies because Peterson said it."
Yes, they're the people complaining that Tara's substack is a woke echo chamber. If Trump says 2+2=4, they'll believe it, but if Biden says 2+2=4, they'll say it's a liberal hoax.
ps: you don't even understand the #1 focus of "libertarians". Dreadful.
It's a tie between tax cuts and deregulation
Not even close.
Would you prefer "get your government hands off my Medicare" as an encapsulation of the libertarian ethos?
So, you'll just pass on the specious use of the modifier "TOO MUCH". Typical of you. Words are a toy. They mean nothing. Slip one here. Slip one there. Yawn.
At this point, I'm not sure you even know what the word "specious" means. You just kind of throw it around like it's a magic spell to own the libs.
but you did say you're "not sure", which is the most honest thing you have said all day, most likely.
I know exactly what it means. You specialize in it. But, good job changing the subject away from your meaningless choice of words and jumping to pretending to have a unique grasp of the language. Laughable.
Lol tax policy doesn't create billionaires. I'm a CPA so this is my wheelhouse; you don't want to get into this discussion.
You said, and I quote, "The wealth divide of the ‘common’ person has a lot to do with the corrupt tax system and that is also by design."
That is just flat out dead-ass wrong.
Yeah, that's me all right. Solid Marxist right here as I quote Jordan Peterson.
You've had some moments where you made decent points, but you've clearly drunk the right-wing kool-aid on wealth inequality, if you think it's driven by taxation.