Wealth Disparity

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.12.1830)]

Martin Lewitt (Dec 12, 2010 0811 MST)--

ML: Markets, limited liability corporations, partnerships, a preference for low
transaction and information costs including low taxation and freedom of
speech that applies to commercial speech, support for freedom of association
including cooperatives, churches and tax exempt charities., reduced
regulatory barriers to cooperation such as licensing, inspections, etc.
Free trade agreements.

No concept of cooperation?

Not one. How about distributing the fruits of production more fairly
to management and labor? Advocating progressive taxation to support
investment in a common infrastructure? Having a single payer health
care system? Advocating public funding of elections?

RM: Greed and self-interest -- freedom from "coercion" -- seems to be the only
thing these people care about.

ML: Hardly the "only thing", but coercion does seem to be the antithesis of
"cooperation".

Coercion has to exist in any kind of society, cooperative or whatever.
You rail against coercion but it's only against the kind of coercion
you don't like. Taxes are coercive to you because you don't like taxes
and the government will punish you if you don't pay them. But coercion
is also necessary to maintain the low tax, high wealth discrepancy
society that you hold up as non-coercive. In your society you have to
have police to protect the wealth of the wealthy. If the police
weren't there to protect iwealth everyone who wanted it would take
what they wanted. You need Sheriff of Nottinghams to protect the rich
from Robin Hoods who want to be free to take from the rich and give to
the poor. Robin Hood didn't want to be coerced any more than the rich
people you admire want to be coerced. The only way to protect people
from the tax man or Robin Hood is through the use of stronger
coercion. Now that I think of it, maybe I'm the way I am because Robin
Hood was a favorite of mine (and I still look great in tights). And
the Sheriff of Nottingham; don't get me started.

It was the Republicans that tried to regulate and reform the Government
Sponsored Enterprises, FANNIE and FREDDIE, and reducing the leverage
favoring double taxation of equity financing, that distorted and
destabilized the markets.� Don't tell us they don't care about people
unemployed through no fault of their own.

The Fannie/Freddie thing is peanuts compared to the damage done by
mortgage backed derivatives (my wife calls them Gramm swaps after the
"man" who made them legal, with Clinton's sign off).

Principled Republicans
(conservatives and libertarians) firmly support "use taxes" being applied to
their "uses" and not diverted to all kinds of social engineering.

How sweet of them. But it seems like they support the biggest failure
of a social engineering program of all, the one that puts the real
dent in the budget: the military.The military is supposed to be for
_defense_, not nation building (social engineering).

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martin Lewitt Dec 13, 2010 0950 MST]

[From Bill Powers (2010.12.12.1715 MDT)]

Martin Lewitt Dec 12, 2010 1356 MST --
Yes, and sometimes that is appropriate. But as in lots of problems in physics and engineering, you can judge appropriateness by looking at boundary conditions. A person whose goal is to accumulate more money is limited only by the amount of money in existence (including credit, of course). When that limit is reached, and probably long before, the economy will come to a halt and the money will become worthless. So this goal is self-canceling: achieving it means it has failed.

The amount of money doesn't limit wealth, there only needs to be enough to support ongoing transactions. Stock, capital equipment and real estate are all material wealth.

Anyway, one has to ask why a person would want to spend a whole adult life doing nothing but accumulating more money for himself or herself. As they say, there's no accounting for tastes, but from where I sit it's a pretty wierd taste and my idea of terminal boredom.

You appear to a Dickensonian concept of wealth accumulation. The wealthy person may have little to do with the physical money, do you think being at the nexus of a technology R&D empire would be boring? Even the more mundane businesses probably involve investment, marketing and competitive decisions far more interesting, challenging, and rewarding than the games many people play. People go to Casinos almost certain to lose money, the stock market, as boring as it may seem to those who don't get the thrill of gambling, has the advantage of not being a zero sum game.

Perhaps you are so focused on the trees of the PCT hierarchy, that you forget that humans are curious, knowledge and power seeking animals that may find controlling enjoyable for its own sake. Many of us never have our reference values met and prefer it that way, or perhaps it is better said that our reference values are for a continuing process.

Does that make sense?

Martin L

···

On 12/12/2010 5:59 PM, Bill Powers wrote:

So --

It's time to back up and ask myself what is going on here. Obviously none of my clever rejoinders or propositions is going to budge you one inch and both of us know it. If I think of a crushing argument that destroys your whole position, you will just go away for a while and return with a better one that destroys my whole position. It is not your intention to back down on any of these ideas. Or mine. This is known as trench warfare, aka academia. It will end when at least one of us is dead. It's been tried, and proved pretty pointless.

Suppose we were to decide to do this another way. What if we just wiped the slate clean and started over with a simple question: how does an economy work? This has all been done before, but never starting with PCT and never using the facilities in a desktop computer. We can try to second-guess Adam Smith and start all over from scratch.

Now now, though. I have too many irons in the fire and my hammer arm is getting tired. Think about it for a while. Maybe you can launch the project, by writing a piece called "In the beginning was the Transaction ...". Chapter 1 of Economics for the 21st Century.

Best,

Bill P.

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martin Lewitt Dec 13 1011 MST]

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.12.1830)]

Martin Lewitt (Dec 12, 2010 0811 MST)--

ML: Markets, limited liability corporations, partnerships, a preference for low
transaction and information costs including low taxation and freedom of
speech that applies to commercial speech, support for freedom of association
including cooperatives, churches and tax exempt charities., reduced
regulatory barriers to cooperation such as licensing, inspections, etc.
Free trade agreements.

No concept of cooperation?

Not one. How about distributing the fruits of production more fairly
to management and labor?

I'm sure some businesses have tried that.

Advocating progressive taxation to support
investment in a common infrastructure? Having a single payer health
care system?

That involves coercion. Calling it "cooperation" is Orwellian doublespeak.

Advocating public funding of elections?

Eliminating public funding of elections would be far more cooperative. The purchasing of votes through earmarks and actuarially unsound promises of increases in entitlements is too much public funding of elections.

RM: Greed and self-interest -- freedom from "coercion" -- seems to be the only
thing these people care about.

ML: Hardly the "only thing", but coercion does seem to be the antithesis of
"cooperation".

Coercion has to exist in any kind of society, cooperative or whatever.
You rail against coercion but it's only against the kind of coercion
you don't like. Taxes are coercive to you because you don't like taxes
and the government will punish you if you don't pay them. But coercion
is also necessary to maintain the low tax, high wealth discrepancy
society that you hold up as non-coercive. In your society you have to
have police to protect the wealth of the wealthy.

Actually, the wealthy have to supplement the police with extra security measures, so it is other poor that appear to be the softer targets.

If the police
weren't there to protect iwealth everyone who wanted it would take
what they wanted. You need Sheriff of Nottinghams to protect the rich
from Robin Hoods who want to be free to take from the rich and give to
the poor. Robin Hood didn't want to be coerced any more than the rich
people you admire want to be coerced. The only way to protect people
from the tax man or Robin Hood is through the use of stronger
coercion. Now that I think of it, maybe I'm the way I am because Robin
Hood was a favorite of mine (and I still look great in tights). And
the Sheriff of Nottingham; don't get me started.

It was the Republicans that tried to regulate and reform the Government
Sponsored Enterprises, FANNIE and FREDDIE, and reducing the leverage
favoring double taxation of equity financing, that distorted and
destabilized the markets. Don't tell us they don't care about people
unemployed through no fault of their own.

The Fannie/Freddie thing is peanuts compared to the damage done by
mortgage backed derivatives (my wife calls them Gramm swaps after the
"man" who made them legal, with Clinton's sign off).

They are related. Fannie and Freddie were the unsound base of the pyramid, although in this case pyramid became an inflated tower.

Principled Republicans
(conservatives and libertarians) firmly support "use taxes" being applied to
their "uses" and not diverted to all kinds of social engineering.

How sweet of them. But it seems like they support the biggest failure
of a social engineering program of all, the one that puts the real
dent in the budget: the military.The military is supposed to be for
_defense_, not nation building (social engineering).

There is a diversity of opinion on the military among both libertarians and conservatives, witness the opposition to the wars by Buchanan and Paul and this doesn't distinguish them from the moderate and progressive politicians. The Iraq war was far more bipartisan than Obama's healthcare or stimulous packages. Recall that GW Bush had to campaign against "nation building" in 1999 to secure his base.

regards,
    Martin L

···

On 12/12/2010 7:33 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

Best

Rick

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.13.1750)]

Martin Lewitt (Dec 13 1011 MST)--

Rick Marken (2010.12.12.1830)--

Advocating progressive taxation to support
investment in a common infrastructure? Having a single payer health
care system?

That involves coercion. �Calling it "cooperation" is Orwellian doublespeak.

Coercion is involved in almost all cooperative social arrangement
because there are always some people who will try to take advantage of
those who are cooperating; people who, for example, are happy to take
advantage of the benefits of cooperation without cooperating
themselves.

Advocating public funding of elections?

Eliminating public funding of elections would be far more cooperative.

Got me there.

But it seems like they support the biggest failure
of a social engineering program of all, the one that puts the real
dent in the budget: the military.

There is a diversity of opinion on the military among both libertarians and
conservatives

But what's your opinion? Don't you agree that we should slash the
military budget?

�The Iraq war was far more bipartisan than Obama's healthcare or stimulous
packages.

That's because the fascists... er, Republicans... launched a demagogic
propaganda campaign that would have been the envy of Goebbels. If you
opposed the (obviously misguided) war you were unpatriotic. The
propaganda machine worked in exactly the opposite way on health care
and the stimulus (remember "death panels" and the sudden concern about
the deficit). Rethuglicans aren't very good at much but they excel at
demagogy. Which is a particularly ugly form of coercion, by the way.
What in the world would a libertarian see in these people?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martin Lewitt Dec 13, 2010 2008 MST]

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.13.1750)]

Martin Lewitt (Dec 13 1011 MST)--

Rick Marken (2010.12.12.1830)--
Advocating progressive taxation to support
investment in a common infrastructure? Having a single payer health
care system?

That involves coercion. Calling it "cooperation" is Orwellian doublespeak.

Coercion is involved in almost all cooperative social arrangement
because there are always some people who will try to take advantage of
those who are cooperating;

That is rather cynical. Part of humans social adaptation appears to be an ability to detect deception. If there is force or threat of force there is coercion. If there is deception there is fraud.

people who, for example, are happy to take
advantage of the benefits of cooperation without cooperating
themselves.

The government just doesn't seem as motivated to detect deception as the private sector, perhaps because the bureaucrats are being generous with other peoples money.

Advocating public funding of elections?

Eliminating public funding of elections would be far more cooperative.

Got me there.

But it seems like they support the biggest failure
of a social engineering program of all, the one that puts the real
dent in the budget: the military.

There is a diversity of opinion on the military among both libertarians and
conservatives

But what's your opinion? Don't you agree that we should slash the
military budget?

I think the cuts supported by Gates and McCain are reasonable, but face opposition from Congressmen whose districts are impacted.

  The Iraq war was far more bipartisan than Obama's healthcare or stimulous
packages.

That's because the fascists... er, Republicans... launched a demagogic
propaganda campaign that would have been the envy of Goebbels. If you
opposed the (obviously misguided) war you were unpatriotic.

The Iraq war does not seem unusual in that regard. I recall there being plenty of cover for politicians who wanted to oppose it, the claims of questionable legality, that it was pre-emptive, that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and that Saddam's sovereignty should be respected. Part of the jingoism came from senior democrats who had seen the intelligence. The liberals were hoisted on their own petard to some extent, since they were lamenting US failure to intervene in Rwanda at the time, so it was difficult to insist on respect for the sovereignty of someone with Saddam's record and character.

The
propaganda machine worked in exactly the opposite way on health care
and the stimulus (remember "death panels" and the sudden concern about
the deficit). Rethuglicans aren't very good at much but they excel at
demagogy.

I agreed with the death panel characterization, and thought the Republicans did a poor job of defending it. They also did a poor job of demagoging the opponents of social security reform and privatization. But it is too bad that reason alone isn't considered sufficient.

Which is a particularly ugly form of coercion, by the way.

How coercive was it, if the bill was able to pass without even being read?

What in the world would a libertarian see in these people?

It's the economy. Lower taxes, less regulation and a government constrained by checks, balances and enumerated powers are the areas libertarians and conservatives are able to agree upon.. The tea parties' need to maintain this narrow focus and not get diverted by social issues, in order for the compromise to hold.

regards,
      Martin L

···

On 12/13/2010 6:58 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

Best

Rick

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.14.0815)]

�Martin Lewitt (Dec 13, 2010 2008 MST)--

What in the world would a libertarian see in these people [Rethuglicans]?

It's the economy. �Lower taxes, less regulation and a government constrained
by checks, balances and enumerated powers are the areas libertarians and
conservatives are able to agree upon.

I see. Both libertarians and conservatives agree that ideology trumps
facts. No wonder you get along so comfortably with the religious
types. Libertarianism and conservatism are both religions. Their god
is money, their gospel is low taxes and their savior is less
regulation. And their faith was not shaken by the "Lisbon earthquakes"
that were the crashes of 1929 and 2008. Halleluja.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martin Lewitt Dec 14, 2010 0959 MST]

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.14.0815)]

  Martin Lewitt (Dec 13, 2010 2008 MST)--

What in the world would a libertarian see in these people [Rethuglicans]?

It's the economy. Lower taxes, less regulation and a government constrained
by checks, balances and enumerated powers are the areas libertarians and
conservatives are able to agree upon.

I see. Both libertarians and conservatives agree that ideology trumps
facts. No wonder you get along so comfortably with the religious
types. Libertarianism and conservatism are both religions. Their god
is money, their gospel is low taxes and their savior is less
regulation. And their faith was not shaken by the "Lisbon earthquakes"
that were the crashes of 1929 and 2008. Halleluja.

Facts? There is a strong historical foundation, confirmed rather than contradicted since the enlightenment, that government is the chief threat to our liberty. Faith in government and technocrats is dangerous. I would think the importance of being in CONTROL would not be lost on someone convinced that Perceptual CONTROL Theory was important. Having someone else in control, increases the risk that the one in control doesn't share your same reference levels, and history shows that when others are in control that they often develop such hubris that they convince themselves that coercion or extermination of you is necessary to achieve their reference values and bring general reference values into conformance with theirs. What part of 19th and 20th century history did you not get? You are not a eusocial animal, so what is it? Do you have the hubris to think you will be one those winning the battle for control over others? Or are you one of those feeling a void with the loss of a god or father in your life and looking to government as a replacement? Nothing we have learned about human nature in the last two centuries, suggests that constraining government was not or is no longer necessary.

My comfort with religious types is complicated. I think part of it is because their religion inocculates them from the competing faith in and worship of government. Some refuse to fly the American flag because of the "two masters" passage. There is also an interesting convergence of their view of human nature's vulnerability to evil and what we've learned about our evolutionary inheritance. Their god warned them against kings or those claiming spiritual authority. The small effective population size of humans, suggests that many groups were exterminated or pushed to extinction. Our evolutionary complement of mental states, don't stop at love and compassion, but include hate, anger, fervor, jealousy and dehumanization. They don't place their faith in man's situational judgement, and thus are prone to relying upon the simplification made possible by reliance upon principles. The principles that went into the development of the constitution aren't half bad, and conform well with their sense of personal moral responsibility. I don't see them as particularly focused on money, but on fairness, personal responsibility, hard work and stewardship. The wealth disparity is not really their concern, since they aren't particularly materialistic and they are admonished against covetousness. It should be no surprise they are suspicious of a covetous self-aggrandizing government.

Keep in mind, since there is no God, they have faith in nothing, and that is a faith I share with them. They do value family and personal responsibility and integrity, those are people i can engage in mutually beneficial cooperation with and who don't threaten my control of my own life.

If you demonize them, let that be a reminder of the evolutionary inheritance you share with them.

regards,
     Martin L

···

On 12/14/2010 9:15 AM, Richard Marken wrote:

Best

Rick

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.15.0945)]

Martin Lewitt (Dec 14, 2010 0959 MST)--

ML: It's the economy. �Lower taxes, less regulation and a government
constrained by checks, balances and enumerated powers are the areas
libertarians and conservatives are able to agree upon.

RM: I see. Both libertarians and conservatives agree that ideology trumps
facts.

ML: Facts? �There is a strong historical foundation, confirmed rather than
contradicted since the enlightenment, that government is the chief threat to
our liberty.

The facts I was referring to are those regarding lower taxes and less
regulation. The low tax/low regulation "quasi-experiment" has been
run twice, in the 1920s and from 1980 to the present and the result
was the same both times; a huge increase in wealth disparity and
speculative bubbles followed by disastrous recessions with high
unemployment. But I just realized that you may know these facts and
didn't consider them an indictment of the low tax/low regulation
approach to policy because, based on what you've been saying, you
apparently consider increasing wealth disparity, speculative bubbles
and recessions with high unemployment to be good things.

As far as the government being "confirmed" as the chief threat to
liberty, I would be convinced of that if you point me to a society
without a government (Somalia?) where liberty is not threatened. It
would also depend on what you mean by "liberty" (and "government", for
that matter). If by "liberty" you mean your freedom to do whatever the
heck you want, yes, government is almost by definition the chief
threat to liberty. People form governments specifically to limit your
liberty to doing things that are not detrimental to society as a whole
and/or to the individuals therein.

Faith in government and technocrats is dangerous.

Faith in anything is dangerous.

�I would think the importance of being in CONTROL would not be lost on
someone convinced that Perceptual CONTROL Theory was important.

You bet! It's all about being in control.

Having someone else in control, increases the risk that the one in control
doesn't share your same reference levels, and history shows that when
others are in control that they often develop such hubris that they convince
themselves that coercion or extermination of you is necessary to achieve
their reference values and bring general reference values into conformance
with theirs.

This is a problem of human nature, not of government. People are
controllers and among the things they try to control is the behavior
of other people. They do this on an individual basis (as when a
jealous husband kills controls his wife's presumed infidelity by
killing her) or on a community basis (as when the citizen's of Salem
decided to control the behavior of their witches by killing them).

The fact that people are controllers creates a paradox; we can't help
but try to act so as to try to make the world (including the behavior
of other people in that world) be the way we want it to be: we can't
help but control. But when the objects of this control are other
people then control can lead to conflict, which prevents control.
Given these facts, I think the "message" of PCT is simply that we have
to recognize the fact that we can't help wanting to be in control but
we have to understand that problems will arise when we try to
_arbitrarily_ control other controllers ("arbitrarily" in the sense of
not taking into account the fact that what we want the other person to
do may conflict with other goals in that person).

To say this is uniquely a problem of "government" is to miss the
fundamental problem: that we _are_ controllers. Since we are also
government functionaries, family members, religious leaders,
educators, managers, etc. the same problem (of conflict resulting from
efforts at arbitrary control) occurs in all of these situations. The
problem is that humans are controllers; the solution (I think) is to
understand what that means (that's what PCT Is about) and to learn how
to live in as conflict free a way as possible with all those other
controllers (that's what personal maturity and civilization is about).

Nothing we have learned
about human nature in the last two centuries, suggests that constraining
government was not or is no longer necessary.

Actually. something we learned about human nature in the last 50 years
-- PCT -- suggests otherwise. "Government" is just people;
controllers. The people "constraining" government are also controllers
who are trying to control the government controllers. If either the
government controllers or the anti-government controllers try to exert
this control arbitrarily we get conflict; like a violent revolution,
coups, that stuff. Very messy. Very ugly.

I think modern representative democracies do a reasonable (though
certainly not perfect) job of allowing non-arbitrary government
control with non-arbitrary public constraints: government that governs
by consent of the governed. I can't think of anything better. There
will always be the inclination of those in a government role to
control arbitrarily (it's so much more efficient) and for those not in
government to constrain arbitrarily (because it's so much more
efficient to do one's individual controlling without having to worry
about all those government rules). But, as in any relationship between
controllers (like husbands and wives) each party to these
relationships has to be willing to give up a little control so that
all parties can control better.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2010.12.15.13.53]

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.15.0945)]

As far as the government being "confirmed" as the chief threat to
liberty, I would be convinced of that if you point me to a society
without a government (Somalia?) where liberty is not threatened. It
would also depend on what you mean by "liberty" (and "government", for
that matter). If by "liberty" you mean your freedom to do whatever the
heck you want, yes, government is almost by definition the chief
threat to liberty.

I'm not convinced of that. It seems to me that the major constraint on my liberty is the power of large corporations. Just as government operations both provide opportunities for controlling perceptions I might otherwise not be able to control while at the same time constraining me from controlling other perceptions, so do the many corporations. But in North America, the corporations seem to have more power collectively than does the government, in part because they collectively control more money, and their actions are more the whims of the CEO than are those of non-dictatorial government.

No, I haven't enumerated perceptions I would like to be able to control but can't either because of government or because of the actions of corporations, nor have I enumerated those that I am now able to control only because those entities have collectively done what they have done. But my feeling is that the corporations are the greater "threat to liberty" in North America, just as the government was in Soviet Russia, and the lack of government is in Somalia, where warlord gunmen take the place of North American corporations as power wielders.

It seems to me to be a pointless argument to discover which between government and corporations provides the best balance between provision of means to control perceptions ("increased liberty") and constraints that prevent control of my perceptions ("threats to liberty"). What ought to be the focus of analysis is how to enhance the ability of most people (not just me) to control their perceptions. Who knows (other than ideologues) where such an analysis would lead? We all have our guesses, but that's all they are.

Martin T

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.16.1130)]

Happy Beethoven's Birthday!

Martin Taylor (2010.12.15.13.53)

Rick Marken (2010.12.15.0945)--

If by "liberty" you mean your freedom to do whatever the
heck you want, yes, government is almost by definition the chief
threat to liberty.

I'm not convinced of that. It seems to me that the major constraint on my
liberty is the power of large corporations...

It seems to me to be a pointless argument to discover which between
government and corporations provides the best balance between provision of
means to control perceptions ("increased liberty") and constraints that
prevent control of my perceptions ("threats to liberty")...

I agree. I shouldn't have spent so much time talking about
"government" in that post. My main point (which may have gotten lost
when readers left off after the first paragraph) was that focusing on
government as the source of human problems is missing what I think is
the most important "social" message of PCT, which is that people
themselves are the source of their problems simply because they are
controllers. Human problems arise when people exert their perfectly
natural inclination to control their world on those aspects of their
world that are also controllers: other people. The result is conflict.
It's the fact that people are controllers that is the problem, and it
is only a problem when people try to control other controllers
arbitrarily, whether the people doing this controlling are government
leaders, anti-government libertarians, teachers, students, tax
collectors, tax evaders, etc.

Control theory suggests that people have to figure out ways of getting
what they want or need from each other without resorting to arbitrary
control. I call that kind of non-arbitrary control -- the kind of
control where you take into account the fact that you are dealing with
control systems with their own wants and needs - "cooperative control"
and I think it's the basis of what we call "civil society".

What do you think?

Best

Rick

···

----
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson,2010.12.17.1015CST]

Regarding the wealth disparity discussion, there is an article titled, “Our Dickensian Economy,” by Alan S. Blinder, a former vice chairman of the Fed, and now an econ prof, in (surprise) the Wall Street Journal of Fri. 12/17 p. A19. After reviewing the current tax bill in the light of “unemployment is 15.7% among high school dropouts,” and other grim statistics he says, [the new tax bill] “offers 19% of its benefits to the richest 1% of taxpayers… Those of us who live near the top of the income pyramid are doing very nicely… Yet our government keeps showering us with Christmas presents. Meanwhile, economic life is pretty miserable for those near the bottom and is getting worse… Does this strike you as fair?”

He goes on to point out how this trend started under Reagan and has had only the brief pause under part of Clinton’s admin.

I was surprised WSJ even printed it. Do you think this means they don’t care whether people think it’s fair or not, because there’s nothing you can do about it, even if you think it’s not?

Best,

Dick R.

[Kenneth_Kitzke_Value]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.17)]

I do not have access to the cited WSJ Opinion article. I could go to the library I suppose, but there seems to be better things to do with my SELF’s time today.

I do ask you if you read any, much less all, of the over 200 comments regarding Mr. Blinder’s published opinion? If you would, as I started doing, I think you will find replies which poignantly contradict Mr. Binder’s opinions. And, it was not long before I decided that reading Mr. Binder’s opinions would probably be as irrelevant to improving the USA economy as Chairman Bernutty monetarizing our unprecedented national debt. Have you not noticed how our once respected and valued US $ as the world’s reserve currency as managed by the Federal Reserve and Treasury has steadily declined year after year?

As a PCTer, I would think these facts might disturb you? For, it is the poorest of our citizens who are hurt the most when the few bucks the government sends them that buy less and less reducing their quality of life. Even old folks, like you and me, have recoiled in fear as they observed the value of their paid-off home and their retirement accounts meant to provide security in their twilight years have drop significantly, for many even 40%!

Do you connect these declines in the wealth of the middle class to the “tax breaks” given to the rich? God forbid. The top 10% of USA income producers are already paying 90% of the income taxes. Does that sound fair to you? How much more blood can we get out of that turnip?

Or, do these observed phenomena of decline in my wealth through no action of my own, have more to do with government ineptitude among politicians and agencies like Freddie Mac and a government spending every taxpayer dollar they coerce plus another 10-20% more borrowed money (much from China) on activities that produce no economic gain, like wars and welfare?

Has Mr. Blind revealed that when income tax rates are reduced, tax revenue actually increases and not just for Reagan and Bush, but for Kennedy and Clinton.

I cherish my freedom to act as a purposeful self control system to try to maintain my assets and recover my dissipated and earned wealth. Yep, greedy ole Kenny reorganized and has converted some paper assets to precious metals. And, boy was that random luck. Why it might have even been a brilliant, creative act! No way, it must be a behavioral illusion.

Why, things were getting so bad, I was not sure I could afford new tennis balls any more. But, now I, my SELF, sleep easier imagining I can afford such luxury as playing tennis on a public court this summer like in the good ole days of Reagan and Clinton who cut tax rates on us wealthy tax payers.

Well, I could not resist having some sarcastic fun with you, my tennis buddy. But, all that glitters is not gold and I doubt that Mr. Blinder has laid any golden eggs. Perhaps you can relay more about the case he makes and get me to join his fan club…or at least play some tennis with him with a new can of balls.

In a message dated 12/17/2010 11:32:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, R-Robertson@NEIU.EDU writes:

···

[From Dick Robertson,2010.12.17.1015CST]

Regarding the wealth disparity discussion, there is an article titled, “Our Dickensian Economy,” by Alan S. Blinder, a former vice chairman of the Fed, and now an econ prof, in (surprise) the Wall Street Journal of Fri. 12/17 p. A19. After reviewing the current tax bill in the light of “unemployment is 15.7% among high school dropouts,” and other grim statistics he says, [the new tax bill] “offers 19% of its benefits to the richest 1% of taxpayers… Those of us who live near the top of the income pyramid are doing very nicely… Yet our government keeps showering us with Christmas presents. Meanwhile, economic life is pretty miserable for those near the bottom and is getting worse… Does this strike you as fair?”

He goes on to point out how this trend started under Reagan and has had only the brief pause under part of Clinton’s admin.

I was surprised WSJ even printed it. Do you think this means they don’t care whether people think it’s fair or not, because there’s nothing you can do about it, even if you think it’s not?

Best,

Dick R.

[Dick_Robertson]

[From Dick Robertson, 2010,12.17. 1727CST]

Hi Kenny,

and anyone else who’s on this topic, if any,

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.17)]
I cherish my freedom to act as a purposeful self control system to try to maintain my assets and recover my dissipated and earned wealth. Yep, greedy ole Kenny reorganized and has converted some paper assets to precious metals.

Me too, and I didn’t even see it as random luck. I considered it foresighted.

I do ask you if you read any, much less all, of the over 200 comments regarding Mr. Blinder’s published opinion?

Where did you find them? No, I didn’t read them because I didn’t know there were such.

As a PCTer, I would think these facts might disturb you? For, it is the poorest of our citizens who are hurt the most when the few bucks the government sends them that buy less and less reducing their quality of life. Even old folks, like you and me, have recoiled in fear as they observed the value of their paid-off home and their retirement accounts meant to provide security in their twilight years have drop significantly, for many even 40%!

Yes, I agree with all that. The question is, who has the power to manipulate the rules whereby that situation comes about?

Do you connect these declines in the wealth of the middle class to the “tax breaks” given to the rich? God forbid. The top 10% of USA income producers are already paying 90% of the income taxes. Does that sound fair to you?

Oh, come come. 10% of a billions is one hundred million. That’s not enough for your friends to live on? Compared to, let’s say, thirty thousand of those shrinking dollars you and I both despair of, who has it better? Seems like a no brainer to me (as well as Mr. Blinder, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and company.

How much more blood can we get out of that turnip?

it depends on what turnips you have in mind.

Or, do these observed phenomena of decline in my wealth through no action of my own, have more to do with government ineptitude among politicians and agencies like Freddie Mac and a government spending every taxpayer dollar they coerce plus another 10-20% more borrowed money (much from China) on activities that produce no economic gain, like wars and welfare?

Well, I think there is some action on our own parts that helped this situation over the long haul. I agree with you that there have been some rules made that seem stupid, unless you know the controlled variables of those who had the most effect in getting the rules that brought the situations about that you refer to.

Why, things were getting so bad, I was not sure I could afford new tennis balls any more. But, now I, my SELF, sleep easier imagining I can afford such luxury as playing tennis on a public court this summer like in the good ole days of Reagan and Clinton who cut tax rates on us wealthy tax payers.

I have seen some questions raised about this perennial claim. Like Ric’s finding about the correlation between domestic product and who was in office.

Well, I could not resist having some sarcastic fun with you, my tennis buddy. But, all that glitters is not gold and I doubt that Mr. Blinder has laid any golden eggs. Perhaps you can relay more about the case he makes and get me to join his fan club…or at least play some tennis with him with a new can of balls.

Hey, I just got home from tennis. Actually won a few games. But I’ll save my best serves for the next time we meet.

···

[From Dick Robertson,2010.12.17.1015CST]

Best,

Dick R.

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.17.1610)]

Dick Robertson (2010.12.17.1015CST)--

Regarding the wealth disparity discussion, there is an article titled, "Our
Dickensian Economy," by Alan S. Blinder, a former vice chairman of the Fed,
and now an econ prof, in (surprise) the Wall Street Journal of Fri. 12/17 p.
A19.� After reviewing the current tax bill in the light of "unemployment is
15.7% among high school dropouts," and other grim statistics he says, [the
new tax bill] "offers 19% of its benefits to the richest 1% of taxpayers...

He goes on to point out how this trend started under Reagan and has had only
the brief pause under part of Clinton's admin.

I was surprised WSJ even printed it. Do you think this means they don't care
whether people think it's fair or not, because there's nothing you can do
about it, even if you think it's not?

I think it means that the right (conservatives, libertarians, all of
'em) is now very certain that they will never be blamed for the social
and economic catastrophes that their policies create (they have only
two policies anyway; low taxes and slack regulation) . And based on
the results of the last election they can be certain about this with
very good reason.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Kenneth_Kitzke_Value]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.17)]

Dick,

If you go to the WSJ web site, there are now 361 comments on Blinders’s opinion. From the 20 or so I read, most were very negative about his views. One just said, “You’re an @sshole!”

I did have a hard time finding his article (its just the lead in as you have to be a subscriber to see the whole article) on the web site, but once I did,all the comments can be read. Not all were insults. Some have excellent counter points. I am sure you agree that when it comes to economists, its like psychologists, there are diverse and contradicting views of what they believe. For Rick, there is a thing about rabbi’s. Ask two rabbi’s and you’ll get three opinions.

I don’t know how long they carry the article or the hundreds of comments. So, I am writing you past my bed tiime hoping that you can scan them before they are deleted. Perhaps, it stays on over the weekend? I don’t know.

···

On the banner, I found the article and comments under the Opinion button: The Dickensian Economy. I don’t think this article will pass the smell test with other experts. It’s just the POV of a man with a purpose, a control system defending his beliefs. There is nothing new under the sun, according to a hero of mine named Solomon. In a message dated 12/17/2010 6:42:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, R-Robertson@NEIU.EDU writes:

I cherish my freedom to act as a purposeful self control system to try to maintain my assets and recover my dissipated and earned wealth. Yep, greedy ole Kenny reorganized and has converted some paper assets to precious metals.

Me too, and I didn’t even see it as random luck. I considered it foresighted.

I do ask you if you read any, much less all, of the over 200 comments regarding Mr. Blinder’s published opinion?

Where did you find them? No, I didn’t read them because I didn’t know there were such.

As a PCTer, I would think these facts might disturb you? For, it is the poorest of our citizens who are hurt the most when the few bucks the government sends them that buy less and less reducing their quality of life. Even old folks, like you and me, have recoiled in fear as they observed the value of their paid-off home and their retirement accounts meant to provide security in their twilight years have drop significantly, for many even 40%!

Yes, I agree with all that. The question is, who has the power to manipulate the rules whereby that situation comes about?

Do you connect these declines in the wealth of the middle class to the “tax breaks” given to the rich? God forbid. The top 10% of USA income producers are already paying 90% of the income taxes. Does that sound fair to you?

Oh, come come. 10% of a billions is one hundred million. That’s not enough for your friends to live on? Compared to, let’s say, thirty thousand of those shrinking dollars you and I both despair of, who has it better? Seems like a no brainer to me (as well as Mr. Blinder, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and company.

How much more blood can we get out of that turnip?

it depends on what turnips you have in mind.

Or, do these observed phenomena of decline in my wealth through no action of my own, have more to do with government ineptitude among politicians and agencies like Freddie Mac and a government spending every taxpayer dollar they coerce plus another 10-20% more borrowed money (much from China) on activities that produce no economic gain, like wars and welfare?

Well, I think there is some action on our own parts that helped this situation over the long haul. I agree with you that there have been some rules made that seem stupid, unless you know the controlled variables of those who had the most effect in getting the rules that brought the situations about that you refer to.

Why, things were getting so bad, I was not sure I could afford new tennis balls any more. But, now I, my SELF, sleep easier imagining I can afford such luxury as playing tennis on a public court this summer like in the good ole days of Reagan and Clinton who cut tax rates on us wealthy tax payers.

I have seen some questions raised about this perennial claim. Like Ric’s finding about the correlation between domestic product and who was in office.

Well, I could not resist having some sarcastic fun with you, my tennis buddy. But, all that glitters is not gold and I doubt that Mr. Blinder has laid any golden eggs. Perhaps you can relay more about the case he makes and get me to join his fan club…or at least play some tennis with him with a new can of balls.

Hey, I just got home from tennis. Actually won a few games. But I’ll save my best serves for the next time we meet.

> [From Dick Robertson,2010.12.17.1015CST]

> Best,

> Dick R.

[From Dick Robertson, 2010,12.17. 1727CST]

Hi Kenny,

and anyone else who’s on this topic, if any,

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.17)]

[Kenneth_Kitzke_Value]

From Kenny Kitzke

Dick,

I also noticed that you have to go to Today’s Paper (Dec. 17) and then hit Opinion and you will see the article about the fourth down.

BTW, I also noticed that I can send the article in email to you and did also including myself to read the thing even if I am not a subscriber. So, I hope it gets to you but even more so, the electronic comments.

Kenny

In a message dated 12/17/2010 6:42:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, R-Robertson@NEIU.EDU writes:

···

I cherish my freedom to act as a purposeful self control system to try to maintain my assets and recover my dissipated and earned wealth. Yep, greedy ole Kenny reorganized and has converted some paper assets to precious metals.

Me too, and I didn’t even see it as random luck. I considered it foresighted.

I do ask you if you read any, much less all, of the over 200 comments regarding Mr. Blinder’s published opinion?

Where did you find them? No, I didn’t read them because I didn’t know there were such.

As a PCTer, I would think these facts might disturb you? For, it is the poorest of our citizens who are hurt the most when the few bucks the government sends them that buy less and less reducing their quality of life. Even old folks, like you and me, have recoiled in fear as they observed the value of their paid-off home and their retirement accounts meant to provide security in their twilight years have drop significantly, for many even 40%!

Yes, I agree with all that. The question is, who has the power to manipulate the rules whereby that situation comes about?

Do you connect these declines in the wealth of the middle class to the “tax breaks” given to the rich? God forbid. The top 10% of USA income producers are already paying 90% of the income taxes. Does that sound fair to you?

Oh, come come. 10% of a billions is one hundred million. That’s not enough for your friends to live on? Compared to, let’s say, thirty thousand of those shrinking dollars you and I both despair of, who has it better? Seems like a no brainer to me (as well as Mr. Blinder, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and company.

How much more blood can we get out of that turnip?

it depends on what turnips you have in mind.

Or, do these observed phenomena of decline in my wealth through no action of my own, have more to do with government ineptitude among politicians and agencies like Freddie Mac and a government spending every taxpayer dollar they coerce plus another 10-20% more borrowed money (much from China) on activities that produce no economic gain, like wars and welfare?

Well, I think there is some action on our own parts that helped this situation over the long haul. I agree with you that there have been some rules made that seem stupid, unless you know the controlled variables of those who had the most effect in getting the rules that brought the situations about that you refer to.

Why, things were getting so bad, I was not sure I could afford new tennis balls any more. But, now I, my SELF, sleep easier imagining I can afford such luxury as playing tennis on a public court this summer like in the good ole days of Reagan and Clinton who cut tax rates on us wealthy tax payers.

I have seen some questions raised about this perennial claim. Like Ric’s finding about the correlation between domestic product and who was in office.

Well, I could not resist having some sarcastic fun with you, my tennis buddy. But, all that glitters is not gold and I doubt that Mr. Blinder has laid any golden eggs. Perhaps you can relay more about the case he makes and get me to join his fan club…or at least play some tennis with him with a new can of balls.

Hey, I just got home from tennis. Actually won a few games. But I’ll save my best serves for the next time we meet.

> [From Dick Robertson,2010.12.17.1015CST]

> Best,

> Dick R.

[From Dick Robertson, 2010,12.17. 1727CST]

Hi Kenny,

and anyone else who’s on this topic, if any,

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.17)]

[Martin_Lewitt]

[Martin Lewitt Dec 18, 2010 2330 MST]

  [From

Dick Robertson, 2010,12.17. 1727CST]

  Hi Kenny,



  and anyone else who's on this topic, if any,

  >       [From

Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.17)]

          >
          As a PCTer, I would think these facts might disturb

you? For, it is the poorest of our citizens who are hurt
the most when the few bucks the government sends them that
buy less and less reducing their quality of life. Even
old folks, like you and me, have recoiled in fear as they
observed the value of their paid-off home and their
retirement accounts meant to provide security in their
twilight years have drop significantly, for many even 40%!

The poorest are hurt in the same sense in which the wealth disparity

between them and billionaires is much less than the disparity
between US poor and third world poor, i.e., the disparity is greater
in terms of quality of life rather than nominal monetary
statistics. Monetarily the holders of dollar denominated assets are
hurt far more.

          Yes, I agree with all that. The question is, who has the

power to manipulate the rules whereby that situation comes
about?

Once again the answer is the government, the commerce clause appears

to have broken the reigns of any constitutional constraint.

          >
          Do you connect these declines in the wealth of the

middle class to the “tax breaks” given to the rich? God
forbid. The top 10% of USA income producers are already
paying 90% of the income taxes. Does that sound fair to
you?

          Oh, come come. 10% of a billions is one hundred million.

That’s not enough for your friends to live on? Compared
to, let’s say, thirty thousand of those shrinking dollars
you and I both despair of, who has it better? Seems like
a no brainer to me (as well as Mr. Blinder, Bill Gates,
Warren Buffet and company.

In almost every case, fortunately they are living on far less, the

wealth levels indicate how much they are managing rather than how
much they are living on. Warren Buffet appears to be a much better
manager of wealth than the government. I think what motivates the
classical liberals on the right, is not the idea that the wealthy
are their friends, many obviously are not, but, it is a matter of
fairness and limitations on mob rule. A majority voting to tax a
minority at a higher rate is just unfair, and one of the abuses of
power that democracies are prone to, and constitutional protections
should be provided to prevent. The fairest tax is a use tax, even
flat rate taxes make the wealthy pay far more than other citizens.

           How much more blood can we get out of that turnip?



          it depends on what turnips you have in mind.

An whether you want just blood or a pound of flesh.  Everyone might

get more blood with less government spending and interference.

Martin L

···

On 12/17/2010 4:48 PM, Robertson Richard wrote:

          >
          Or, do these observed phenomena of decline in my

wealth through no action of my own, have more to do with
government ineptitude among politicians and agencies like
Freddie Mac and a government spending every taxpayer
dollar they coerce plus another 10-20% more borrowed
money (much from China) on activities that produce no
economic gain, like wars and welfare?

          Well, I think there is some action on our own parts that

helped this situation over the long haul. I agree with you
that there have been some rules made that seem stupid,
unless you know the controlled variables of those who had
the most effect in getting the rules that brought the
situations about that you refer to.

          >
          Why, things were getting so bad, I was not sure I

could afford new tennis balls any more. But, now I, my
SELF, sleep easier imagining I can afford such luxury as
playing tennis on a public court this summer like in the
good ole days of Reagan and Clinton who cut tax rates on
us wealthy tax payers.

          I have seen some questions raised about this perennial

claim. Like Ric’s finding about the correlation between
domestic product and who was in office.

          >
          Well, I could not resist having some sarcastic fun

with you, my tennis buddy. But, all that glitters is not
gold and I doubt that Mr. Blinder has laid any golden
eggs. Perhaps you can relay more about the case he makes
and get me to join his fan club…or at least play some
tennis with him with a new can of balls.

          Hey, I just got home from tennis. Actually won a few

games. But I’ll save my best serves for the next time we
meet.

              [From

Dick Robertson,2010.12.17.1015CST]

              > Best,



              > Dick R.

[Shannon_Williams]

[Shannon Williams (19-dec-2010 09:30 CST)]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.08.8:45EST)]

I know of no rich people that have their $ sitting under their pillow. They invest it for a greater return down the road. And, that produces a gain in income and wealth whereas a trip to Disney World is a short term consumption expenditure that produces no return and no growth and increase in the economy.

Hi Kenny and Martin L,

Do you agree that if rich people did have extra $ sitting under their pillow or they did stop investing their extra money then this would negatively affect the economy? Also, do you agree that even if a significant number of poor people stop spending their income, this significantly affects the economy.

Thanks,

Shannon

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.19.1100)]

Martin Lewitt (Dec 18, 2010 2330 MST)--

Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.17)--

KK: Do you connect these declines in the wealth of the middle class
to�the�"tax breaks" given to the rich?� God forbid.� The top 10% of USA
income producers are�already paying 90% of the income taxes.�Does that sound
fair to you?

No, it's not fair; the top 10% should pay a much greater percentage of
the income taxes, given the proportion of GDP (income) that goes to
them. But that's irrelevant to your question about whether the decline
in the wealth of the middle class is related to the tax breaks given
to the rich. Since the decline of the middle has occurred exactly in
proportion to the decline in top marginal tax rate (and the
corresponding increase in the proportion of GDP going to the wealthy),
I would say that, yes, there is very strong evidence that the tax
breaks given to the rich are connected very intimately to the decline
of the middle class.

ML: In almost every case, fortunately they are living on far less, the wealth
levels indicate how much they are managing rather than how much they are
living on.

Yes, the rest is hoarded and, thus, reducing aggregate demand,
resulting in the economy producing far less than it is capable of
producing (as evidenced by the high unemployment rate).

ML: An whether you want just blood or a pound of flesh.� Everyone might get more
blood with less government spending and interference.

They might, if the world worked differently. But the evidence is
overwhelming that the overall quality of life for everyone (not just
the wealthy) is much better in social democracies (like those in
Europe, Canada and Japan) that tax the rich and spend on the common
good (ie. that have more government interference) than it is in those
that have a more laissez faire approach (like Mexico). But people are
pretty happy in Mexico so perhaps the coming third world status of the
US won't be so bad. Dirt roads and shanty towns can be charming.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Kenneth_Kitzke_Value]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.19.10:30EST)]

See my understanding below:

In a message dated 12/19/2010 10:15:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, verbingle@GMAIL.COM writes:

[Shannon Williams (19-dec-2010 09:30 CST)]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.08.8:45EST)]

I know of no rich people that have their $ sitting under their pillow.  They invest it for a greater return down the road.  And, that produces a gain in income and wealth whereas a trip to Disney World is a short term consumption expenditure that produces no return and no growth and increase in the economy.

Hi Kenny and Martin L,

Do you agree that if rich people did have extra $ sitting under their pillow or they did stop investing their extra money then this would negatively affect the economy?

I perceive that anyone (rich or poor) who puts $ reserve notes under their pillow (does not spend them or invest them) will remove those $ from future measured economic activity. This is not actually reducing or negatively affecting the economic activity that is otherwise occurring and being measured. At best, one could characterize this as a lost opportunity to add to the economy and therefore see this as a negative effect. But, that is more an imagined effect than an actual one.

Those $ under the pillow are still economic assets, as viewed by both the individual and society. Not spending them does not decrease the person’s wealth from the person’s viewpoint. To an outside observer, those $ may be viewed as being withdrawn from the economy and a negative. I prefer to see the person controlling for their own desired economic perception, in this case having the $ under their pillow. That is the kind of country I want to live in. If the government wants to tax me more to use that money for their purposes, or make me pay a penalty for not spending it (like the silly provision in the health care insurance law), I say I prefer to reorganize to become a legal citizen in a different country without such control.

Also, do you agree that even if a significant number of poor people stop spending their income, this significantly affects the economy.

I’ve already opined that whether a rich or poor person take some of their $ and puts them under a pillow, that $ can’t be used to grow the economy, but neither does it reduce the economy that otherwise goes on.

Now, Shannon, it is my turn to ask you a couple of questions.

1. If 10,000 poor people spend $10 on a carton of cigarettes, and a rich business man spends $100,00 on a new lathe that performs tasks in half the time (doubling productivity), do you agree that the rich man’s economic action can have a far more positive affect on the economy in the long run than the spending of the poor people of cigarettes?

2. If 1,000 poor people take $100 and pay down their credit card debt, will that have more of a negative long-run effect on the economy than the 10,000 buying those cigarettes?

Thanks in advance for your answers to my questions and your reaction to my answers. Also, I look forward to any considerations by Martin L.

KK

···

Thanks,

Shannon