I no longer believe in capitalism. At all.

[Jaguar]

It was a nice write up, but it still feels like an excuse to move the tax burden onto the poor.

If I wanted to move the tax burden onto the poor, I would pursue vanity degrees at expensive grad schools with subsidized loans. I'd work less and take more leisure time. I'd work a job that was fun instead of high-paying (productive.) I'd have a Lexus IS instead of my Camry. I'd consume more and invest less. I'd buy a house for myself with government-subsidized mortgage interest payments.

I don't do any of these things, but you probably wish I did, because muddled folk economics teaches you to want me to take lots of society's resources and contribute fewer.

[kentonio]

I have no idea why you'd think I wanted you to do those things. I'm against taxing heavily on consumption, so why would I care about you consuming more? I'm very tired however of hearing wealthy people argue about different ways of avoiding paying a fair share of the tax burden and trying to make it sound like they are on the side of good. Seriously, why not just admit that you like your shiny piggy bank and don't want to hand it over to those scruffy poor folk? At least it'd be honest.

[Hauldren Collider]

What makes you think Jaguar doesn't actually want good things to happen to poor people? Or that his policy proposals are driven by personal greed? Do you have anything other than stereotyping of Republicans to base this on?

[Kidlicious]

BOJ actions are contractionary they never let any inflation take place.

No they aren't. You're basically calling the policy makers insane, because that's what insane people would do.

There is no contradiction with market monetarism.

Economists cannot predict how a certain CB will **** up at a specific time. They can predict the results of said **** up.

Basically macroeconomics is a study of the ways central banks mess things up. If all central banks around the world were doing a proper job nobody would ever talk about macro.

Central bank economists are the best economists. If you haven't made any actual monetary policy that was put into effect you don't really know what you're talking about. It's the same in economics as in everything else. That said central banks do not generally follow the advice of monetarists, and for good reason.

[Jaguar]

I have no idea why you'd think I wanted you to do those things. I'm against taxing heavily on consumption, so why would I care about you consuming more?

This is precisely your problem. You should care about my consumption. I could make a few phone calls, take a day off from work tomorrow, and drive away from a dealership with a Porsche Panamera - and you wouldn't care about it, apparently.

Here's why you should: The phone calls I would have to make would be to sell off some equities in companies like Procter and Gamble - it makes stuff like soap and laundry detergent.

What I would be doing with my money is saying to the world: "Hey, world, stop making factories that provide everyone with cleaning supplies. Concentrate your production on building me an expensive car instead." Your derision towards my "shiny piggy bank", and your indifference towards my consumption, suggest that you would approve of this.

[kentonio]

What makes you think Jaguar doesn't actually want good things to happen to poor people? Or that his policy proposals are driven by personal greed? Do you have anything other than stereotyping of Republicans to base this on?

Read that article I linked for you in the other thread and you may understand a bit more why I think what I think.

This is precisely your problem. You should care about my consumption. I could make a few phone calls, take a day off from work tomorrow, and drive away from a dealership with a Porsche Panamera - and you wouldn't care about it, apparently.

Here's why you should: The phone calls I would have to make would be to sell off some equities in companies like Procter and Gamble - it makes stuff like soap and laundry detergent.

What I would be doing with my money is saying to the world: "Hey, world, stop making factories that provide everyone with cleaning supplies. Concentrate your production on building me an expensive car instead." Your derision towards my "shiny piggy bank", and your indifference towards my consumption, suggest that you would approve of this.

Why would I want every expensive car manufacturer to close and be replaced with cleaning supplies companies? You also said you would be selling your equity, which would mean would it not that someone else would have to be buying it, thus sending their own message that they have faith in the future of cleaning companies and their fortunes.

[Kuciwalker]

Why would I want every expensive car manufacturer to close and be replaced with cleaning supplies companies?

Because only rich people get to use expensive cars, while everyone gets to use cleaning supplies.

[kentonio]

It's not an all or nothing proposition. Why wouldn't I want expensive items to exist for rich folk to spend their money on and therefore provide incentive for people to earn increased wealth? A porsche does not use a quantity of physical resources equivilent to it's increased cost over a normal car, so why would I have a problem with it's existence?

[Jaguar]

Why would I want every expensive car manufacturer to close and be replaced with cleaning supplies companies?

Because it would be just a little bit easier for poor people to afford Tide, or Crest, or Dawn, or whatever other basic needs they have.

You also said you would be selling your equity, which would mean would it not that someone else would have to be buying it, thus sending their own message that they have faith in the future of cleaning companies and their fortunes.

It's a very small nudge in the direction of the question you asked me about above. If many Porsche buyers stopped purchasing Porsches in favor of middle-class-goods equities, society would replace luxury car factories with soap factories, and vice versa.

[Kidlicious]

If I wanted to move the tax burden onto the poor, I would pursue vanity degrees at expensive grad schools with subsidized loans. I'd work less and take more leisure time. I'd work a job that was fun instead of high-paying (productive.) I'd have a Lexus IS instead of my Camry. I'd consume more and invest less. I'd buy a house for myself with government-subsidized mortgage interest payments.

I don't do any of these things, but you probably wish I did, because muddled folk economics teaches you to want me to take lots of society's resources and contribute fewer.

Ohhhhhhh really?

[kentonio]

Because it would be just a little bit easier for poor people to afford Tide, or Crest, or Dawn, or whatever other basic needs they have.

There is a vastly higher demand for cleaning products than there is for expensive cars. Isn't supply and demand already keeping that cost down?

It's a very small nudge in the direction of the question you asked me about above. If many Porsche buyers stopped purchasing Porsches in favor of middle-class-goods equities, society would replace luxury car factories with soap factories, and vice versa.

I just really don't see why we would want the market to go completely in either direction. Without luxury goods there is less incentive for wealth creation, and without affordable basic goods, the poor get ****ed. Why not just tax on income and let people spend their money how they see fit?

[Jaguar]

A porsche does not use a quantity of physical resources equivilent to it's increased cost over a normal car, so why would I have a problem with it's existence?

Yes, it does. It uses more peoples' time and effort. And those people need to be fed and housed and clothed. Toyota produces 20 cars per employee per year. Ferrari produces about three.

[Kidlicious]

I think some right wingers need to read the Wealth of Nations.

[kentonio]

Yes, it does. It uses more peoples' time and effort. And those people need to be fed and housed and clothed. Toyota produces 20 cars per employee per year. Ferrari produces about three.

I guessed that you'd refer to human resources, but to me there is a world of difference between human and material resource. Although nothing is infinite, human time and effort is at least renewable. Human time translates into wages which then feed back into the economy, surely this is a great direction for consumer spending to take? The housing and food those workers need are paid for by the worker using the money they receive for their work. That then pays for builders and farmers etc to sustain themselves. How is this not a positive?

[Hauldren Collider]

Human resources are among the most valuable on the planet. For many/most businesses, human resources represent a huge majority of the operating cost.