I vary from filthy rich to excessively rich. But for this group, I toned it down. I think history speaks for itself. Richard
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 5:39 PM, John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Richard, excellent reverberation. I just frown when I read "rich" > - who are they? lately the word "millionaire" lost it's taste: with a > middle-class family home of - say - 700K value and some cash set aside: an > average retiree is a millionaire. > Billionaire is not so easy: there is a gap in between (at ~some hundred > millions?), to be fixed if it refers to net worth of a person (or of a > family) or includes ALL (also what is hidden from the IRS). > It came up when some irate writer mentioned the 'millionaires' in the > legislation. > I try: "super-rich", or "ultra-rich". (I frequented a group of retired > professors of good witts when I said something about 'rich' and one jumped > me: "Whom do you call 'rich'?" and another quipped: "whoever has more money > than himself".. > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Bruno, >> >> The rich have been trying to take over the US govt to reduce their tax >> burden for over 100 years. >> >> >> Every time they have succeeded the result has been an economic crash >> usually followed by war. >> >> That happened in 1857 after a decade of prosperity and then the crash was >> followed by the Civil War within a decade. >> >> >> Crash and Clash was repeated in 1893->WWI, >> >> and again in the real estate crash of 1926 and the Wall Street crash of >> 1929->WWII. >> >> >> In each case the very rich accumulated so much wealth that they caused >> investment/debt bubbles resulting a crash. After the real estate crash of >> 1926, rich investors then switched to stocks and caused the 1929 crash. We >> have already experienced a real estate crash in 2008. and today we see >> the stock exchange reaching never before heights. >> >> So we again are ripe for a crash which and if the lessons of the 1920s >> are repeated, >> >> the crash will be much more severe than the 2008 Great Recession. >> >> >> The roaring 20s prosperity came about when the top tax rate was reduced >> to 25% along with finance deregulation. Since WWII and up to Reagan, the >> top tax rates were between 90% and 70%, and at those rates the rich tended >> to turn profits back into their companies and the recessions were rather >> mild. But after Reagan reduced the top rates to 28%, the incentive to >> accumulate wealth was strong resulting in a series of investment bubbles. >> Recall the internet bubble at the turn of the century. And deregulation >> resulted in the invention of derivatives. >> >> >> So I think, and many bankers do as they are hoarding cash, that we are >> headed for a serious stock market crash, and apparently just because the >> very rich are making so much money, especially in derivatives which >> continue to exist despite being the cause of the real estate crash. It is >> said that the value of the derivative debt is orders of magnitude bigger >> than the value of the entire world. >> >> >> That sounds like a form of comp (;<) >> >> >> Richard >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> On 21 Nov 2013, at 13:41, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>>> <snip> >>>>> If nobody complains on his local decentralized power, the central power >>>>> should have nothing to say, but if the locals complain about their >>>>> local >>>>> powers, the central power can be used as an arbiter. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I agree that this is a risk. I don't claim that there is any system >>>> that could be implemented and would solve all the problems, that's the >>>> danger with ideologies. >>>> >>> >>> I agree. >>> >>> >>> >>>> My belief is that "human evolution" -> "better forms of governance", >>>> not the other way around. So democracy, with all its flaws, was made >>>> possible by a new level of human development. Here I mean evolution >>>> and development in the broad sense, not the biological sense. This is >>>> made clear by the attempts to force democracy on less developed >>>> societies. >>>> >>> >>> OK. >>> >>> >>> My point is that, as we evolve further, maybe the >>>> decentralized system can exist without incurring so much on the risks >>>> that you mention, and at the same time being much more resilient to >>>> sociopathic manipulations. >>>> >>> >>> About this I am not sure. With local powers you augment the risk of the >>> "little bureaucratic sort of bosses". >>> With some level of "spiritual maturity", I can conceive that you are >>> right, but since sometimes I am not sure such spiritual maturity exists, >>> nor even that it is on a near horizon. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are unwilling >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> think by themselves, and they confuse "p -> q" and "q -> p" all the >>>>>>> times. >>>>>>> The (human, but not only) sciences are still driven by the appeal to >>>>>>> authority. We have never been "modern". >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm happy to read this. I thought this confusion was a central problem >>>>>> in society for a long time, without being an expert in logic. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that "p <-> q" is far better than nothing, in the short >>>>> run, >>>>> so our brains are hardwired to "reason" by association, instead, of >>>>> logical >>>>> validity. Logic is by essence counter-intuitive (which explains the >>>>> logician's sense of humor). >>>>> The short term/long term conflict is unavoidable. Humans face it all >>>>> the >>>>> time, like when hesitating to stop smoking, or to stop producing CO2, >>>>> etc. >>>>> It is even more complex today due to globalization. With the 20th >>>>> century, >>>>> earth has become a finite space, and this has to be taken into >>>>> account, and >>>>> it is not a simple task, as we have to change habits that we have >>>>> since a >>>>> very long time. In the long run, we will have to escape the planet and >>>>> continue to run forward. But meanwhile, we have to accommodate with the >>>>> finite resourcing, with or without global warming. That's a reason >>>>> more to >>>>> fight against corporatism, special private interests, international >>>>> white >>>>> collar criminality, etc. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right, but the hope of some people who propose a radically free market >>>> is that it would work more like the immune system, and that it would >>>> allocate resources in a more efficient way than central control. >>>> >>> >>> I am for a free market. The market should be independent of the >>> (central) power, except for the modalities of the contracts, the selling >>> technic, etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The >>>> long term view is not foreign to markets. This is precisely what >>>> investments are. Warren Buffet became extremely rich by taking a long >>>> view on investments, not by doing high-frequency trading. But again, I >>>> say this with the human evolution caveat in mind. >>>> >>> >>> Local powers can easily design laws against foreigners, and develop >>> selfish local profits method. In the UD this could enlarge the gap between >>> black and white, or between middle class and lower classes. >>> I would favor a stable central power, which would enforce few but basic >>> important laws and rules, on which everyone agrees. Then the local powers >>> can implement special politics and experiences. >>> Somehow I do believe that the Americans were close to this, but they >>> failed to prevent prohibition, and that remains a bit of a mystery for me. >>> I am open to the idea that there has been a real well prepared conspiracy, >>> not by "illuminati" but by by a collusion of special interests (paper, oil, >>> pharma, military, jails, and the black market, etc.). >>> >>> >>> >>>> I'm also strongly in favour of experiments. For example, and this >>>> would certainly annoy most libertarians, I am very excited by the >>>> Swiss plan to provide a base level of income to all citizens. >>>> >>> >>> I have always defended that idea. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I like >>>> it because it's so simple and non-intrusive. You just give everyone >>>> the same base income, no matter how poor or rich they are. >>>> >>> >>> Yes. That is what the communist never grasped. It makes no sense to >>> distribute the money from the rich to the poor, this makes the richer less >>> rich, and very quickly the poor even much less rich. As long as people >>> don't use lies and dishonest methods, people should be able to enrich >>> themselves as much as they want. But we must find a way to prevent the bad >>> use of money to enrich oneself. And this asks for very special laws against >>> the fake speculation. The problem is that with enough money, you can >>> multiplied your richness easily by dishonest means, and this perverts the >>> system. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hopefully >>>> it will remove unnecessary and even counter-productive jobs, free more >>>> people from meaningless lives and attack the entire "job mentality". >>>> One can hope... >>>> >>> >>> I agree. I believe that it will be more easy to avoid counter-productive >>> jobs if there is a minimal salary. It would stabilize the little markets, >>> and would annoy only those who are addicted to "more money at all price". >>> For the "job mentality", I'm afraid we will need a coming back to >>> seriousness in the human sciences, but this will take time, and some >>> catastrophes. The "job mentality" is not unrelated to the current >>> institutionalized religions, and the current conception of reality. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
