Oxfam looks at global wealth inequity

Easier system: allow vote-buying. Rich people can buy whatever number of votes they want; poor people get money.

I can tell you right now, it's very, very ugly. You do not want that going on.

LarryC wrote:

Easier system: allow vote-buying. Rich people can buy whatever number of votes they want; poor people get money.

I can tell you right now, it's very, very ugly. You do not want that going on.

We have a different variant of that.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...

Paleocon wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Easier system: allow vote-buying. Rich people can buy whatever number of votes they want; poor people get money.

I can tell you right now, it's very, very ugly. You do not want that going on.

We have a different variant of that.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...

I was just about to post that. The GOP also does this too but differently.

The whole SuperPAC fiasco every election cycle is sometimes little more than a thinly veiled pay for political influence scheme. I can't help but wonder if some of the GOP led indignation about ambassador appointments to large political donors is legitamite, even if it is hypocritical.

I was just about to post that. The GOP also does this too but differently.

I dunno, I don't see it as a big problem... are people volunteering their time to help you supposed to starve while doing it?

And, heck, politicians give away buttons and bumperstickers all the time, why not doughnuts? As long as people still feel free to vote their conscience, I'd say let the Koch brothers give away all the doughnuts they want.

But, I do draw the line in a specific place: bagels. That's just unethical.

Malor wrote:
I was just about to post that. The GOP also does this too but differently.

I dunno, I don't see it as a big problem... are people volunteering their time to help you supposed to starve while doing it?

And, heck, politicians give away buttons and bumperstickers all the time, why not doughnuts? As long as people still feel free to vote their conscience, I'd say let the Koch brothers give away all the doughnuts they want.

But, I do draw the line in a specific place: bagels. That's just unethical.

If it were just pastries they were giving away I don't think there would be much of an issue...

I don't see how you equate more votes with being better people,nor does the lack of a vote doesn't make you a bad person.
What I'd ideally want is a way to keep people from simply electing people that are the best at taking money from someone that cannot vote them out and paying it to the people that can. Until that happens though, I feel the people footing the bill should have some influence on how it is spent.
I don't want the rich people making the laws work for their sole benefit either. Then again I'm not a fan of the current taxation system to begin with, so I'm not sure what an ideal situation is.

Malor wrote:
I was just about to post that. The GOP also does this too but differently.

I dunno, I don't see it as a big problem... are people volunteering their time to help you supposed to starve while doing it?

And, heck, politicians give away buttons and bumperstickers all the time, why not doughnuts? As long as people still feel free to vote their conscience, I'd say let the Koch brothers give away all the doughnuts they want.

But, I do draw the line in a specific place: bagels. That's just unethical.

Simple because both sides think that the other one is full of evil mind controlling asshats who are playing dirty pool, and that they are giving money only to people they know will vote for them... Unlike those in their party who only do it to encourage people to vote and are completely free to vote their conscience.

To be clear: Both sides think very poorly of the other guys and immediately assign the worst of motivations (typically either greed or for power), meanwhile their guy doing the same thing is him simply doing what he feels is best for the people.

Nosferatu wrote:

I don't want the rich people making the laws work for their sole benefit either.

Then perhaps a system that gives the rich the force-multiplier of having more votes in addition to being able to outspend the poor in campaign donations and lobbying isn't the best idea.

I understand where Nosferatu is coming from but we can't equate running the government to running a business. Yes, the Rich pay the vast majority of the taxes, but this isn't a board where they get to become the controlling members. The government should be in the interests of the society as a whole. And as was stated, the rich who pay all those taxes do so because of the society that enabled them to be rich in the first place.

I think this issue stems from the rampant overspending of the government, both federal and state level, and the assumption that if only those who contribute taxes, or those who contribute more getting more say, then there would be less voting up debt (bonds) at the elections because the people would want the government to be better stewards of their money. However, in reality it doesn't seem to work that way; as was pointed out, the rich are also the ones pushing the government to invest in their pet projects, not cut spending. Giving them more power would likely only make this effect worse.

[edit]

Apparently I'm incorrect! Looks like the US works differently than the other countries I'm familiar with. Carry on!

A good article from the old fivethirtyeight.com on the nature of government spending. Our debt is just about the least of our spending problems.

The primary reason that the debt isn't as big a problem right now is the fiction of low interest rates, from too much money being made available by the Fed. Sane interest rates would be closer to six or seven percent, meaning that the debt would suddenly have four or five times the impact it does now.

This, by the way, is why I keep harping about Federal debt to GAAP standards. Just looking at today's fiscal position, the cash accounting mechanism, is so useless it's fraudulent. You also have to look at all the fiscal promises we've made.... they are so many, and so large, that we cannot possibly keep them.

The Fed's interest rates are *fictional*? Wait until that news hits the markets... Unless what you mean is that the Fed is *manipulating* interest rates, which is one of the reasons it exists in the first place.

Interest rates are being held low by the supply of phantom money from nowhere. This is an imposed fiction on the market, and it's doing gigantic damage. Your savings are being stolen, and being transferred to banks.

You should be able to get interest in exchange for forgoing consumption in the present.... that income is being stolen from you. You have to compete with your dollars against unlimited supplies of the same stuff from nowhere.

A few things I've read recently:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...

In the past, I've thought that there was a large component of luck involved in becoming wealthy, but that it was generally mirrored by something meritorious: hard work, innate intelligence, creativity, etc. More and more, I'm beginning to wonder if that merit isn't just a complete illusion for the vast majority of the people that are making these exorbitant salaries.

Malor wrote:

Interest rates are being held low by the supply of phantom money from nowhere. This is an imposed fiction on the market, and it's doing gigantic damage. Your savings are being stolen, and being transferred to banks.

You should be able to get interest in exchange for forgoing consumption in the present.... that income is being stolen from you. You have to compete with your dollars against unlimited supplies of the same stuff from nowhere.

Funny, I thought all of our debt was issued in bonds bought by other countries, ergo, it's not phantom money, it's other countries money. There's a big difference between selling bonds to raise funds and printing money. Ask Zimbabwe.

Shoal07 wrote:
Malor wrote:

Interest rates are being held low by the supply of phantom money from nowhere. This is an imposed fiction on the market, and it's doing gigantic damage. Your savings are being stolen, and being transferred to banks.

You should be able to get interest in exchange for forgoing consumption in the present.... that income is being stolen from you. You have to compete with your dollars against unlimited supplies of the same stuff from nowhere.

Funny, I thought all of our debt was issued in bonds bought by other countries, ergo, it's not phantom money, it's other countries money. There's a big difference between selling bonds to raise funds and printing money. Ask Zimbabwe.

HAHAHA you guys got it all wrong.

The money is spent then saved as bonds.

I saved through my retirement plan... It gained something like 15% last year. I think I have doubled my money in 4 years, through both contributions and earnings. But those are phantom since I am not going to spend until I am old. It might lose value too.

goman wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:
Malor wrote:

Interest rates are being held low by the supply of phantom money from nowhere. This is an imposed fiction on the market, and it's doing gigantic damage. Your savings are being stolen, and being transferred to banks.

You should be able to get interest in exchange for forgoing consumption in the present.... that income is being stolen from you. You have to compete with your dollars against unlimited supplies of the same stuff from nowhere.

Funny, I thought all of our debt was issued in bonds bought by other countries, ergo, it's not phantom money, it's other countries money. There's a big difference between selling bonds to raise funds and printing money. Ask Zimbabwe.

HAHAHA you guys got it all wrong.

The money is spent then saved as bonds.

I saved through my retirement plan... It gained something like 15% last year. I think I have doubled my money in 4 years, through both contributions and earnings. But those are phantom since I am not going to spend until I am old. It might lose value too.

Hmmm, I don't think I do. I also don't know how you think the government issuing treasury bonds, bought by third parties, at weekly auctions held on Tuesdays, is in anyway like your 401k.

In most years, the federal government spends more money than it takes in from tax revenues. To make up the difference, the Treasury borrows money by issuing bonds. Anyone can buy Treasury bonds, and, in effect, lend money to the Treasury by doing so. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government is expected to borrow $616 billion in fiscal 2014. Borrowing constitutes a major source of revenue for the federal government. Down the road, however, the Treasury must pay back the money it has borrowed, and pay interest as well. For more on this topic, see Federal Budget 101: Borrowing and the Federal Debt.