But not to worry, as there are plenty of billionaires out there who are far tastier than David. Who are simply crying out to be slathered with barbeque sauce.
This Gilded Age is not going to end in violence as the wealthy really have vast control over the police and surveillance states in the US, throughout Europe and in Asia. What I think will eventually happen is that when science finally overtakes scarcity, it won't matter. In Star Trek everybody can use the same replicator to make a Stradivarius or a bottle of wine that sells for five figures today. The question will be, "do people want Ferraris because they are excellent cars or do they want them because not everybody can have one?" What will we value in a world where everything is available to everybody?
Anyone being a customer at am*z*n can tell that the *whole thing* is cold as ice. As a customer you cannot attain any real human person, cannot solve any real problems. It´s all fabricated and the people working there are dressaged.
There IS NOT "(the)capitalism".
Not only "the Rich", but also everyone else, and "Capitalism" can only be as good as citizens and customers are educated, capable of critical thinking and get an influential chance.
Tell me, how many people REALLY WANT that from the bottom of their heart ...?
That´s not only the last thing people like Bezos would want. No wonder he´s getting bad press.
Customers can only refuse the honey trap and look out for becoming customers elsewhere they are appreciated.
People who earnestly "criticize capitalism" are mostly just not trained, too lazy, too dumb to get a life and make the best of it. And "see" the "guilt" for that everywhere else - just not in themselves.
Instead of realizing and admitting it and fight their lazy self, they "fight capitalism". But "capitalism" can change and has changed and developed over the years, decades and centuries.
Any "socialism" will and can never because for developing you have to be a free person allowed to think about and say basically everything.
But if the individual has no freedom and only "the collective" is allowed to decide, everyone eventually sinks into resignation.
In fact, this IS what Marx originally had intended in his "early works": to give any individual the possibility to develop itself, thinking critically about the things he produces etc.
But he had little success with this, "because" what he envisioned placed high demands on every individual...
"We The People" rather chose a "convenient" way - up until today ... -, diverting the gaze away from themselves to "others" who allegedly were "guilty" of their situation.
It was/is "easier" to blame "the rich", "the system", "the Jews", "The Elite" a.m.o. ... for everything.
As true as that maybe has been at least at that time of Marx - "a Jew" - and "early socialism", the result was/is a system in which workers earned more, but remained dumbed down and without responsibility and independence.
And not only many "capitalists," but even more "unions" prevented "wage earners" from becoming more.
But if the individual has no freedom and only "the collective" is allowed to decide, everyone eventually sinks into resignation.
Something completely "unnatural" because not a single child is born with that attitude.
Meanwhile, however, there are so many incredibly horrific real-life experiences with "socialism," and every experience with "capitalism" shows that even in the worst-run capitalistic system, overall there is still enough, and much more, for the poorest than in "socialism." Because when it´s the last thing allowed to get enriched, the inevitable consequence is (all) getting poor.
One of the great riddles is why things completely clear like this aren´t understood by "the masses" - just like, if they follow entrepreneurs like Bezos then "the capitalism" inevitably will be like that, though there are alternatives - just not that "convenient" ...
But insights can only ever be as good and widespread as people allow them to be, and how critically capable, educated, and independent-thinking they are...
They follow a dumbass like Trump `coz of his "promises" just like their alleged fiends, "the socialists", do. That´s the "Crown of Creation".
So round and round we go ... until ...?
The ones who break these endless dull circles will not be named "Zohran Mamdani" or similar apes.
Yeah, capitalism has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be the only solution. All those poor lazy bastards who just don't have the drive...or the right gender or skin color or sexual preference etc. Glad to see you're doing so well!
How will this Gilded Age end? Hmm... Probably in fire and ice. On one side, we’re criminalizing poverty into oblivion; on the other, we’re dismantling the very safety nets that help people get back on track. If you ask those already caught in this spiral, the number-one thing they’ll tell you they need isn’t a miracle, it’s an address. Without one, you can’t keep a job, stay sober, or manage a chronic condition. An address is the passport to adult life.
Take that away, and you don’t just create homelessness, you create hopelessness. You create a country where the poor are no longer climbing, but vanishing. The danger is that we become another India at its starkest: a beggar nation with a chasm so wide between classes there’s no bridge left to build.
So yes—fire and ice. But mostly fire, if we keep burning the very ground people stand on.
But, gosh, I don't mean to sound so grim and soapboxy, but I just worry about humanity. When we lived in the EU, we didn't notice the taxes, to be honest. We were too busy being happy... if that makes sense. But if I had a billion to change things, I'd start with housing because this empowers a person from the ground up. A good night's sleep, in a comfy place. I wouldn't do it through government, there's far too much grift, but through strategic philanthropy, because right now, this is where you can still make an impact on a community level.
I'm more interested in your thoughts on this topic than what was presented here.
A national sales tax is a very bad idea. The example given in this conversation that it could be applied to houses is really not intelligent within the frame work of addressing income inequality in the US. Houses are taxed when sold and forever subject to property taxes. Housing (home ownership & renting) is already out of reach for far too many working US citizens.
Property taxes are a horrible way to fund anything (especially schooling!) Why should expensive houses (and thus expensive property taxes) mean those neighborhoods get nice things (like good schools), while inexpensive houses (and inexpensive property taxes) don't. But if the state was earning all of those consumption taxes, it could have good schools throughout the state.
(The federal government could theorhetically do this, but they aren't good at spending money).
",,, those already caught in this spiral, the number-one thing ...they need isn’t a miracle, it’s an address. Without one, you can’t keep a job, stay sober, or manage a chronic condition. An address is the passport to adult life."
Upon first reading this my reaction was "yes, another example of something so obvious that we often overlook it, so it is good to have it restated periodically". But a little further reflection now leads me to suggest, as have others, that the provision of "housing" is not the real solution for addicts and the mentally ill (who presumably are the bulk of the real homeless population), but instead is their getting and staying sober or treatment so they can then in fact acquire or responsibly manage living with a specified address.
Was it in the 1970's that many (bad, but also some good?) institutions were closed down, with promises of more localized and dispersed, smaller scale, replacements - replacements that have generally not materialized? So now the thinking is to bring those "consolidated" institutions back, but of course with better run staffing and appropriate governmental oversight.
I currently believe that path is the better answer, with applicable caveats about checking on who is watching the watchers, etc.
Yeah, I wonder about that too. I have a daughter who requires full-time adult-assisted living, and I believe there are ways to do it in the community, so that it's both inclusive and nurturing.
Best wishes to you and your daughter in those circumstances.
When my widower father finally needed to go to assisted living, he was not really happy about it, although he did adapt somewhat. I sometimes wonder if we had pursued a path of more in-home nurse or aide attendance, then he could have remained in his home with his tools, etc., and been happier. But at some point if they forget and are inclined to leave the stove top on, then alternatives still need to be considered.
Institutional care is becoming a big business, and will surely expand as the Boomers and X'ers retire/ expire. Good thing robots and related networked automation [Apple watches, etc.] may help out here.
No offense but you both come across as entitled rich people! Even defending the rich! The way he struggles to answer the Bezos nonsense is very telling. . I grew the son of the owner of Grove Press for the first ten years I wasn't poor but haven't had the same experience since. When people who have the incredible privilege of being able to walk their puppy by the beach want to talk about wealth inequality it gives me pause. You guys have no idea what it's like to be poor. I'm guessing or what most non white people or immigrants have to go through. Really not trying to be argument I've but this is just more neoliberal garbage which is why so many illnguided Americans hate the left .the air of smugness and self satisfaction Emanating from you scares me. You need to dig a little deeper miss because you are totally missing the point. So glad to know there are good rich people out there!
Everyone should be thinking about how we can change wealth inequality—“entitled rich people” and not. Entitled rich people were part of nearly every revolution that won us independence and democracy and an end to slavery. That’s the point of this conversation. We’re picking the wrong enemy if we blame the rich rather than the system that benefits them at the expense of everyone else.
I am agree with that to some extent (take the NYC mayoral candidate for example) but who creates the system? Rich people. Implying that people like Trump and Bezos and Musk are not part of the problem is ridiculous. As we post comments on here these people are reaping in millions and millions of dollars and enacting policies that will make it only more difficult to create change. I'm not rich but I grew up in a very wealthy world and I feel like I can see it from both perspectives. A good rich person would take some of their billions and instead of spending it to install a dictator and build private towns with their own schools would spend their money doing public works projects. How many billions does one need to be happy and why do the ultra rich by and large have such a hard time paying their taxes? what happens to a human when they become a billionaire? Do they lose the ability to have compassion and empathy? Sure seems that way. And all those who profess to follow the christian faith and are filthy rich are they really adhering to the precepts of christianity? The audience for this stuff is not poor people but a bunch of fake democrats trying to assuage their guilt which they will forget about anyway when they are enjoying their walks on the beach with their puppy. By the way that sounds absolutely wonderful! Rich people refuse to make sacrifices to help those who are less well off, those who have significantly less opportunities and that is a fact. Giving to a charity to get a tax write off does not count.
When you give to charity you do get a deduction, but you are spending real after tax dollars. Since the highest marginal rate is 37%, a dollar given costs about $0.63 in after tax dollars.
i said that or i meant to say that and I said that making a donation to charity and getting a tax deduction is not what i would call giving back or really helping the messed up society in which we live. maybe you missed the point?
I'm not implying that people like Trump and Bezos and Musk are not part of the problem—they absolutely are! Some rich people are using their wealth and power to influence politics to their best benefit, and that is the problem we are discussing here.
But that is not all rich people! And that was the point of our conversation here. We need other rich people to do exactly what you said, use their money, not to install private services but public ones! And what is the best way to do that?
But that's your only response? whether you want to believe it or not my goal is not to argue with you (something tells me you don't believe that however)but I do find it upsetting to listen to some of this stuff. I'm not saying your intentions are bad but most Americans do not live in the rarified air you do. The vast VAST majority of Americans live in poverty or near poverty. Many have been incarcerated or at the very least knows someone who has been incarcerated, went to a school (in urban settings) where there is a permanent police presence and they must go through metal detectors just to go to class, are at times food insecure, housing insecure, can't get adequate healthcare, etc. "The system" is not a living entity. It is created and run by human beings specifically mostly very wealthy human beings. Hey, maybe I am completely wrong but I can't help but get the impression that you are almost defending wealthy people in a very strange and unnecessary way. Or maybe it's just a question of who came first the chicken or the egg.
Have you actually considered that you *are* wrong? Because your argument seems very confidently based on the idea that you're not. I mean, the whole point of this conversation between Elle & David was to challenge an extremely one-sided argument, and you're pushing back with firmly defending that argument, that "rich people" are automatically contemptible human beings and it's out of touch & privileged to suggest otherwise? Where is your curiosity about what you don't yet understand?
I'm only a quarter of an hour into watching this, David, but when early on you mentioned you love Dickens for his even-handed portrayals of "good" and "bad" rich people, I realised that's a big part of what I find compelling about his work, its fairness, across all layers of society. Thank you for this moment of clarity!
I mean, Dickens is now seen as a pioneer for standing up for the poor & the working class, and rightly so, but he was also rich from the very start of his career as a novelist. By the time his great experiment with the Pickwick Papers ended (as a newsletter! He was basically inventing Substack hundreds of years ago) he was a very wealthy man, and a half-decade later he was plunged into financial difficulties. There's a wealth of personal experience with personal wealth there, and the way he brings that into his writing is fascinating.
If we're lucky, it will end the way the original Gilded Age ended: with a second Progressive Era characterized by the breaking up of monopolies, decreased tolerance for political corruption, and increasing empowerment of ordinary people. It might also come with some with some nonsense equivalent to Prohibition. (At this point it looks like it's going to be pornography that we'll ban but be unable to actually get rid of.) In place of eugenics, I predict efforts to raise the birth rate.
If we're not so lucky, it will end like the Roaring Twenties ended, with a horrible crash that plunges the world into a decade of depression, finally forcing the investing classes to accept some guardrails on their shenanigans. Yes, I'm talking about the guardrails the federal government has been taking down since the Reagan Administration.
You bring up a good point, we've done this before and were fortunate enough to engineer a labor movement that curtailed our past Gilded Age. We can do it again! (Though it might come with some weird stuff too!)
1. Child care-- in the old days if the mom was working, generally, family or a church community helped out. Today, orthodox Jews who typically have more than 5 kids rely on their community for help. I would imagine it's the same for Muslims. It's also true in the Asian and Latino communities. Family is first. Culture makes a difference and the lack of a community has changed in the US.
2. I'm one who believes states should have more power. Here in MA the gov spent a billion on illegals. That money should have gone to struggling Americans.
3. I always chuckle when I hear billionaires say they should be taxed more. No one is stopping them from writing a check to the IRS. Go for it, Bill!
4. It's easy to make judgments and assumptions of the wealthy. Personally, I wouldn't spend 500 million on a yacht like Bezos but we don't know how much he's given to charity. And what if he's given nothing? Who are we to tell him how to spend his money? That's between him and his maker.
5. Hi Elle-- I hate paying taxes because we are taxed on everything. ie: We pay 40 years into social security only to be taxed again when we get our checks as seniors. Taxed many times on cars too...
6. Elle-- I guess you didn't meet any Jews in the EU. The anti semitism is rabid. I'm surprised you didn't mention this, David. I see comments from zionists around the world who wish they had Trump as their leader instead of their Hamas supporting leaders.
Thanks Carissa. I'm going to stay away from politics. I don't begrudge Bezos his money but I do begrudge his lack of taste and decorum and his cheesy and cliched social behavior. The wealthy who are celebrities are generally not good role models. And that includes Gates who had an affair and hung out with Epstein when he was a known sex offender.
1. In the old days, the cost of living wasn't so high. It was easier for a whole family to survive on one salary, and thus there was more family around to help. That is not the case anymore in the US.
3. If our governments aren't going to tax people more, then sending that money to the IRS isn't a good use of funds. The system isn't raising enough money to spend on social services so even if every millionnaire decided to start sending checks to the IRS, it would be enough to cover those things, nor would those things be in the planning and budget! It's a better use of funds for wealthy people to spend their money on organizations that provide and support social services locally.
4. No one knows whether they would buy a yacht or not until they have the money to. And while we shouldn't moralize how other people use their money, I think we can fight against the wealth gap that gives some people so much and others so little.
5. Social security is horribly run in the US!
6. Anti-semitism is bad everywhere. This is a real problem!!!
1) This is an issue related more to morality, family formation, work-life balance, and recognition that our medical or some other factors are better now that "back then". Not fully a money distribution issue.
3) Sending their excess money to the Treasury to pay down the national debt would have a (very modest) impact on the need to pay as much in interest, so freeing other tax receipts for your identified purposes, plus remove money from the system so possibly providing a slight contribution to reducing inflation.
4) Yacht builders deserve to make a living, too. A few years ago this fact was ignored in some policy change, the details of which I don't recall.
6) even as an ignorant non-religious 8-year-old, I knew that "give us Barabbas!!" was a stupid allocation of blame to a whole community Jews when it should have only been leveled at the 30 or 40 (probably paid off) people in the crowd. Without Judaism, Christianity has no basis for belief or existence. And Islam is a bastardization of both of the other Abrahamic scriptures. Muhammad is portrayed as more Moses than Moses. [getting off topic - sorry].
1. True. But there are large religious families who have their helpful community.
2. Will read. Thx!
3. I hear you. I just think the mega wealthy will move from a high tax state— Bezos and Musk left WA and CA. Federally— maybe the tariffs would prevent huge companies from moving overseas?
4. 👏 If I win a billion dollar lottery I will set up a charity that helps families pay off medical bills. There are so many charities one could initiate with money.
He forces sellers to charge every store what Amazon charges, so we all pay more even if we don’t shop with him. Another thing is if you start selling a gizmo on amazon and it takes off, Amazon immediately starts making its own version and you’re cut out. His drivers have to pee in bottles because they aren’t allowed bathroom breaks … I could go on.
In addition, billionaires like him have successfully lobbied/bribed our elected officials to arrange all the tax and employment laws etc to serve them. It’s a rigged system.
In some cases one can fight fire with fire but the 1B (or whatever amount proposed) won't fix wealth inequality. It takes a drastic change in cultural values. Classical Greece did not have lots of baubles/material possessions one could show off. Democracy worked there (for a while) because the culture valued/bestowed status on the person who could benefit that society. The goal was to be well remembered. Today's powerful do seem to think along those lines somewhat- in Careless People, Zuckerberg ponders about his legacy yet even after all these scandals, FB continues with predatory practices. The Sacklers wanted their named pasted on museums but pushed narcotics. The greater good does not seem to matter to many of these gilded age types.
One of the countries where the traffic fine is a percentage of your income is Switzerland. I lived there for five years. A short period in Zürich and then rest of it in Basel. Punitive measures should be based on the offense and not the person’s ability to pay. Scaling fines based on income creates different punishments for the same crime, which violates the principle of equal treatment under the law. I believe universal healthcare, affordable housing and minimum living wages would go a long way toward righting our ship. Those are the big three that make European social democratic countries what they are. I was hoping to hear your opinions on how AI complicates everything. Thank you for an interesting conversation.
I would choose the federal government over the state of Texas in every aspect of taxation and funding resources. This is especially true of when the federal government is led by a non Trump president and a democratic congress.
"we need to focus on the systems that primarily benefit the rich"
Absolutely right, David. We have a monetary system that issues all money as interest-bearing debt which systematicaly concentrates wealth to the wealthiest in several ways. One is that 50% of the prices we pay for goods and services is accumulated "capital costs", interest going to the bank shareholders. Another is, as the 1912 Pujo Committee Investigation proved, banks are in a position to create monopolies for themselves, controlling every industry. Another is when loan payments (money destroyed) exceed loans being made (money created) we have an "economic crisis" (the boom/bust cycle) because there is not enough money so that loans default allowing the real wealth collateral to be picked up for pennies on the dollar by those who do have money. Monetary Reform proposals have been called for ever since Lincoln issuedf the Greenbacks, debt-free, permanently circulationg asset money that eliminates debt. The Chicago Plan, The 1939 program for Monetary Reform, the 2011 NEED Act (hr2990) were all basically the same. They removed the power of banks to create credit (used for money) in favor of government created debt-free money. Today there are groups world-around advocating this. monetary.org - monetaryalliance.org - and monreform.org, an international org of 30 monetary reform orgs. Money is power and it ontrols our public policy which is why all the issues people care about are not being taken care of. As Benjiman Franklin said, the Americna Revolution was fought over this very question as well. Please help us, David, at monetaryalliance.org.
I have captured your comment into MS Word to explore the monetary alliance site more deeply later on.
I am aware of the Chicago Plan but am not sure I really understand "debtless money".
I view money as an "AGREEMENT" to provide the 3 core functions of money:
1. as a medium of account,
2. a medium of exchange, and (equally importantly),
3. a store of value (or else it has no value/merit in reference to future exchanges).
This is abstract but goes outside of typical thinking related to a commodity base or basis for money and does accept fiat money if/when properly managed. [ha ha ha ].
When the alliance web site says: "Transfer control of the U.S. money supply from the banks to the U.S. government", I am not sure that provides the market awareness flexibility concerning the demand for money to pursue new business opportunities, or the decline in demand to reduce an excess of the money supply when innovations are not yet in evidence [see F A Hayek? distributed market information complexity vs. centralized ignorance, etc.].
I understand the feeling that we need to take "control" away from the "mean selfish" banksters, but Elle and Robert are here exploring how to incentivize the super wealthy to be less unequal with their wealth, not deny them a legal and sometimes clever means to acquire it in the first place.
Hope to improve my own understanding of your scheme going forward (especially an appreciation of past history in this area).
Thank you for giving monetary reform some thought. I will try and answer your concerns.
I agree with you that money is an agreement, it is an agreement embodied by law or custom. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says there are two competing theories of money; the Commodity Theory, where a commodity is used for money, and the Credit Theory of money where credit is used for money, One might ask, where is the theory where money is used for money?
“Debtless money” refers to how money is created. Today, the money supply is created by the commercial banking system as interest-bearing debt in the process of making loans. Unlike any other business, banks are allowed to create money. What we propose is that money be created not as a debt by private banks but as a permanently circulating asset created by the government, which is what Lincoln’s Greenbacks were. When they were issued, they created a prosperous cash economy that began eliminating debt. The ancient Greeks recognized this as the most vital prerogative of democratic self-governance. We propose a public money system issuing all new money exclusively for common good public purposes as its first use.
Once government-created money is issued or spent into the economy then it circulates in the private sector, but unlike the current money, it was not issued as an interest-bearing debt making its way back to the bank that created it …with interest. In fact 50%, on average, of the price we pay for goods and services are due to “capital costs”, interest being paid to the banks. Instead, we propose money be issued as a permanently circulating asset that creates wealth and eliminates debt. Banks would only lend existing money they had on deposit for that purpose.
Banks only create the principal of the loan and as the principal is paid off, that money is extinguished while the interest, which must come from the principal of another loan, goes to profit the bank shareholders. This is the economic growth imperative as people compete to pay interest on their debts and not lose their collateral. However, when loan payments (money destroyed) exceed loans being made (money created), or banks just stop lending, the system crashes into recession or depression for lack of money and loans default. This happens every 10 years or so, often called "the business cycle" but it is more of a monetary/finance system cycle. When the system crashes for lack of money, loan defaults explode and the real wealth collateral used to secure the loan is picked up for pennies on the dollar by those with money, further concentrating wealth to the top.
Any government that does not control the money is controlled by those who do. Money is the governing factor so we have an unelected government. As Frederick Soddy, who inspired the Chicago Plan, wrote in The Role of Money,1934:
“To allow money to become a source of revenue to private issuers is to create, first, a secret and illicit arm of the government and, last, a rival power strong enough ultimately to overthrow all other forms of government.”
This is where we are and why we need to change the system.
Americans will rise up and bring back a government that we love! A government that cares for the poor, the marginalized, the disadvantaged, the disenfranchised - oh - and let's not forget God! When the founding fathers separated church and state, the didn't want to villainize God. Why can't school kids say "One Nation, under God"? The Bible has such a rich trove of stories taken from everyday lives. Let the children learn about the Bible. Go to Church! Worship God!
Americans will rise up and bring back a government that we love! A government that cares for the poor, the marginalized, the disadvantaged, the disenfranchised - oh - and let's not forget God! When the founding fathers separated church and state, the didn't want to villainize God. Why can't school kids say "One Nation, under God"? The Bible has such a rich trove of stories taken from everyday lives. Let the children learn about the Bible. Go to Church! Worship God!
We are entitled to equal rights. We are not entitled to equal stuff. Whatever you produce is yours. Whatever I produce is mine. We can trade our production if we both want to.
Yes, it really is that simple. We have Fords, because Henry Ford produced them. They were his until he sold them. What about the workers? they were paid good money; that's why they chose to work there. Did anybody steal anything from anybody? No. Did the entire country benefit? Yes. That's how free market capitalism works, and it works better than any other system.
On the other hand, if you want to be paid for whatever work you want to do, regardless of what, if anything, people are willing to pay for it, you may want socialism/communism. Then you can have your friends in your political party create government programs that force people to pay you to provide things that they don't want. But what self-respecting person would do that?
David, I consider you a "good rich person" and appreciate your insights.
But also good in the sense of being very tasty.
But not to worry, as there are plenty of billionaires out there who are far tastier than David. Who are simply crying out to be slathered with barbeque sauce.
this gilded age will shift when Mamdani becomes the face of socialism in the U.S. and rises to national prominence in the 2032 presidential election
Bold prediction.
Scary thought.
Takes more than one person but hope he is the beginning of something.
This Gilded Age is not going to end in violence as the wealthy really have vast control over the police and surveillance states in the US, throughout Europe and in Asia. What I think will eventually happen is that when science finally overtakes scarcity, it won't matter. In Star Trek everybody can use the same replicator to make a Stradivarius or a bottle of wine that sells for five figures today. The question will be, "do people want Ferraris because they are excellent cars or do they want them because not everybody can have one?" What will we value in a world where everything is available to everybody?
That is an optimistic take with regard to material abundance. I hope you're right.
Anyone being a customer at am*z*n can tell that the *whole thing* is cold as ice. As a customer you cannot attain any real human person, cannot solve any real problems. It´s all fabricated and the people working there are dressaged.
There IS NOT "(the)capitalism".
Not only "the Rich", but also everyone else, and "Capitalism" can only be as good as citizens and customers are educated, capable of critical thinking and get an influential chance.
Tell me, how many people REALLY WANT that from the bottom of their heart ...?
That´s not only the last thing people like Bezos would want. No wonder he´s getting bad press.
Customers can only refuse the honey trap and look out for becoming customers elsewhere they are appreciated.
People who earnestly "criticize capitalism" are mostly just not trained, too lazy, too dumb to get a life and make the best of it. And "see" the "guilt" for that everywhere else - just not in themselves.
Instead of realizing and admitting it and fight their lazy self, they "fight capitalism". But "capitalism" can change and has changed and developed over the years, decades and centuries.
Any "socialism" will and can never because for developing you have to be a free person allowed to think about and say basically everything.
But if the individual has no freedom and only "the collective" is allowed to decide, everyone eventually sinks into resignation.
In fact, this IS what Marx originally had intended in his "early works": to give any individual the possibility to develop itself, thinking critically about the things he produces etc.
But he had little success with this, "because" what he envisioned placed high demands on every individual...
"We The People" rather chose a "convenient" way - up until today ... -, diverting the gaze away from themselves to "others" who allegedly were "guilty" of their situation.
It was/is "easier" to blame "the rich", "the system", "the Jews", "The Elite" a.m.o. ... for everything.
As true as that maybe has been at least at that time of Marx - "a Jew" - and "early socialism", the result was/is a system in which workers earned more, but remained dumbed down and without responsibility and independence.
And not only many "capitalists," but even more "unions" prevented "wage earners" from becoming more.
But if the individual has no freedom and only "the collective" is allowed to decide, everyone eventually sinks into resignation.
Something completely "unnatural" because not a single child is born with that attitude.
Meanwhile, however, there are so many incredibly horrific real-life experiences with "socialism," and every experience with "capitalism" shows that even in the worst-run capitalistic system, overall there is still enough, and much more, for the poorest than in "socialism." Because when it´s the last thing allowed to get enriched, the inevitable consequence is (all) getting poor.
One of the great riddles is why things completely clear like this aren´t understood by "the masses" - just like, if they follow entrepreneurs like Bezos then "the capitalism" inevitably will be like that, though there are alternatives - just not that "convenient" ...
But insights can only ever be as good and widespread as people allow them to be, and how critically capable, educated, and independent-thinking they are...
They follow a dumbass like Trump `coz of his "promises" just like their alleged fiends, "the socialists", do. That´s the "Crown of Creation".
So round and round we go ... until ...?
The ones who break these endless dull circles will not be named "Zohran Mamdani" or similar apes.
Yeah, capitalism has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be the only solution. All those poor lazy bastards who just don't have the drive...or the right gender or skin color or sexual preference etc. Glad to see you're doing so well!
How will this Gilded Age end? Hmm... Probably in fire and ice. On one side, we’re criminalizing poverty into oblivion; on the other, we’re dismantling the very safety nets that help people get back on track. If you ask those already caught in this spiral, the number-one thing they’ll tell you they need isn’t a miracle, it’s an address. Without one, you can’t keep a job, stay sober, or manage a chronic condition. An address is the passport to adult life.
Take that away, and you don’t just create homelessness, you create hopelessness. You create a country where the poor are no longer climbing, but vanishing. The danger is that we become another India at its starkest: a beggar nation with a chasm so wide between classes there’s no bridge left to build.
So yes—fire and ice. But mostly fire, if we keep burning the very ground people stand on.
But, gosh, I don't mean to sound so grim and soapboxy, but I just worry about humanity. When we lived in the EU, we didn't notice the taxes, to be honest. We were too busy being happy... if that makes sense. But if I had a billion to change things, I'd start with housing because this empowers a person from the ground up. A good night's sleep, in a comfy place. I wouldn't do it through government, there's far too much grift, but through strategic philanthropy, because right now, this is where you can still make an impact on a community level.
I'm more interested in your thoughts on this topic than what was presented here.
A national sales tax is a very bad idea. The example given in this conversation that it could be applied to houses is really not intelligent within the frame work of addressing income inequality in the US. Houses are taxed when sold and forever subject to property taxes. Housing (home ownership & renting) is already out of reach for far too many working US citizens.
Well, and this is why I would also put states in charge of taxation rather than the federal government (as outlined here: https://www.elysian.press/p/us-states-should-work-like-eu-countries)
Property taxes are a horrible way to fund anything (especially schooling!) Why should expensive houses (and thus expensive property taxes) mean those neighborhoods get nice things (like good schools), while inexpensive houses (and inexpensive property taxes) don't. But if the state was earning all of those consumption taxes, it could have good schools throughout the state.
(The federal government could theorhetically do this, but they aren't good at spending money).
Property taxes reinforce income inequality.
I think there's something to be said for doing it not through government. Another way we could do it is through business. Like this company: https://www.elysian.press/p/mondragon-as-the-new-city-state
",,, those already caught in this spiral, the number-one thing ...they need isn’t a miracle, it’s an address. Without one, you can’t keep a job, stay sober, or manage a chronic condition. An address is the passport to adult life."
Upon first reading this my reaction was "yes, another example of something so obvious that we often overlook it, so it is good to have it restated periodically". But a little further reflection now leads me to suggest, as have others, that the provision of "housing" is not the real solution for addicts and the mentally ill (who presumably are the bulk of the real homeless population), but instead is their getting and staying sober or treatment so they can then in fact acquire or responsibly manage living with a specified address.
Was it in the 1970's that many (bad, but also some good?) institutions were closed down, with promises of more localized and dispersed, smaller scale, replacements - replacements that have generally not materialized? So now the thinking is to bring those "consolidated" institutions back, but of course with better run staffing and appropriate governmental oversight.
I currently believe that path is the better answer, with applicable caveats about checking on who is watching the watchers, etc.
Yeah, I wonder about that too. I have a daughter who requires full-time adult-assisted living, and I believe there are ways to do it in the community, so that it's both inclusive and nurturing.
Best wishes to you and your daughter in those circumstances.
When my widower father finally needed to go to assisted living, he was not really happy about it, although he did adapt somewhat. I sometimes wonder if we had pursued a path of more in-home nurse or aide attendance, then he could have remained in his home with his tools, etc., and been happier. But at some point if they forget and are inclined to leave the stove top on, then alternatives still need to be considered.
Institutional care is becoming a big business, and will surely expand as the Boomers and X'ers retire/ expire. Good thing robots and related networked automation [Apple watches, etc.] may help out here.
No offense but you both come across as entitled rich people! Even defending the rich! The way he struggles to answer the Bezos nonsense is very telling. . I grew the son of the owner of Grove Press for the first ten years I wasn't poor but haven't had the same experience since. When people who have the incredible privilege of being able to walk their puppy by the beach want to talk about wealth inequality it gives me pause. You guys have no idea what it's like to be poor. I'm guessing or what most non white people or immigrants have to go through. Really not trying to be argument I've but this is just more neoliberal garbage which is why so many illnguided Americans hate the left .the air of smugness and self satisfaction Emanating from you scares me. You need to dig a little deeper miss because you are totally missing the point. So glad to know there are good rich people out there!
Everyone should be thinking about how we can change wealth inequality—“entitled rich people” and not. Entitled rich people were part of nearly every revolution that won us independence and democracy and an end to slavery. That’s the point of this conversation. We’re picking the wrong enemy if we blame the rich rather than the system that benefits them at the expense of everyone else.
I am agree with that to some extent (take the NYC mayoral candidate for example) but who creates the system? Rich people. Implying that people like Trump and Bezos and Musk are not part of the problem is ridiculous. As we post comments on here these people are reaping in millions and millions of dollars and enacting policies that will make it only more difficult to create change. I'm not rich but I grew up in a very wealthy world and I feel like I can see it from both perspectives. A good rich person would take some of their billions and instead of spending it to install a dictator and build private towns with their own schools would spend their money doing public works projects. How many billions does one need to be happy and why do the ultra rich by and large have such a hard time paying their taxes? what happens to a human when they become a billionaire? Do they lose the ability to have compassion and empathy? Sure seems that way. And all those who profess to follow the christian faith and are filthy rich are they really adhering to the precepts of christianity? The audience for this stuff is not poor people but a bunch of fake democrats trying to assuage their guilt which they will forget about anyway when they are enjoying their walks on the beach with their puppy. By the way that sounds absolutely wonderful! Rich people refuse to make sacrifices to help those who are less well off, those who have significantly less opportunities and that is a fact. Giving to a charity to get a tax write off does not count.
When you give to charity you do get a deduction, but you are spending real after tax dollars. Since the highest marginal rate is 37%, a dollar given costs about $0.63 in after tax dollars.
i said that or i meant to say that and I said that making a donation to charity and getting a tax deduction is not what i would call giving back or really helping the messed up society in which we live. maybe you missed the point?
I'm not implying that people like Trump and Bezos and Musk are not part of the problem—they absolutely are! Some rich people are using their wealth and power to influence politics to their best benefit, and that is the problem we are discussing here.
But that is not all rich people! And that was the point of our conversation here. We need other rich people to do exactly what you said, use their money, not to install private services but public ones! And what is the best way to do that?
With any comment that starts off "no offense," I always know what to expect.
Glad to know you're so sharp!
But that's your only response? whether you want to believe it or not my goal is not to argue with you (something tells me you don't believe that however)but I do find it upsetting to listen to some of this stuff. I'm not saying your intentions are bad but most Americans do not live in the rarified air you do. The vast VAST majority of Americans live in poverty or near poverty. Many have been incarcerated or at the very least knows someone who has been incarcerated, went to a school (in urban settings) where there is a permanent police presence and they must go through metal detectors just to go to class, are at times food insecure, housing insecure, can't get adequate healthcare, etc. "The system" is not a living entity. It is created and run by human beings specifically mostly very wealthy human beings. Hey, maybe I am completely wrong but I can't help but get the impression that you are almost defending wealthy people in a very strange and unnecessary way. Or maybe it's just a question of who came first the chicken or the egg.
Have you actually considered that you *are* wrong? Because your argument seems very confidently based on the idea that you're not. I mean, the whole point of this conversation between Elle & David was to challenge an extremely one-sided argument, and you're pushing back with firmly defending that argument, that "rich people" are automatically contemptible human beings and it's out of touch & privileged to suggest otherwise? Where is your curiosity about what you don't yet understand?
I'm only a quarter of an hour into watching this, David, but when early on you mentioned you love Dickens for his even-handed portrayals of "good" and "bad" rich people, I realised that's a big part of what I find compelling about his work, its fairness, across all layers of society. Thank you for this moment of clarity!
I mean, Dickens is now seen as a pioneer for standing up for the poor & the working class, and rightly so, but he was also rich from the very start of his career as a novelist. By the time his great experiment with the Pickwick Papers ended (as a newsletter! He was basically inventing Substack hundreds of years ago) he was a very wealthy man, and a half-decade later he was plunged into financial difficulties. There's a wealth of personal experience with personal wealth there, and the way he brings that into his writing is fascinating.
(I have a leatherbound 18-volume set of everything by Dickens which I'm working my way through, printed in 1910 - the same as these: https://onlineshop.oxfam.org.uk/charles-dickens-library-books-1213-15-published-by-the-educational-book-co-ltd-1910/product/HD_302650526 I love ebooks, but reading Dickens in paper form feels like the only way to go.)
OK. I'll shut up and keep watching now. :)
Wow! That collection! 🤩
If we're lucky, it will end the way the original Gilded Age ended: with a second Progressive Era characterized by the breaking up of monopolies, decreased tolerance for political corruption, and increasing empowerment of ordinary people. It might also come with some with some nonsense equivalent to Prohibition. (At this point it looks like it's going to be pornography that we'll ban but be unable to actually get rid of.) In place of eugenics, I predict efforts to raise the birth rate.
If we're not so lucky, it will end like the Roaring Twenties ended, with a horrible crash that plunges the world into a decade of depression, finally forcing the investing classes to accept some guardrails on their shenanigans. Yes, I'm talking about the guardrails the federal government has been taking down since the Reagan Administration.
You bring up a good point, we've done this before and were fortunate enough to engineer a labor movement that curtailed our past Gilded Age. We can do it again! (Though it might come with some weird stuff too!)
Lots of topics!
1. Child care-- in the old days if the mom was working, generally, family or a church community helped out. Today, orthodox Jews who typically have more than 5 kids rely on their community for help. I would imagine it's the same for Muslims. It's also true in the Asian and Latino communities. Family is first. Culture makes a difference and the lack of a community has changed in the US.
2. I'm one who believes states should have more power. Here in MA the gov spent a billion on illegals. That money should have gone to struggling Americans.
3. I always chuckle when I hear billionaires say they should be taxed more. No one is stopping them from writing a check to the IRS. Go for it, Bill!
4. It's easy to make judgments and assumptions of the wealthy. Personally, I wouldn't spend 500 million on a yacht like Bezos but we don't know how much he's given to charity. And what if he's given nothing? Who are we to tell him how to spend his money? That's between him and his maker.
5. Hi Elle-- I hate paying taxes because we are taxed on everything. ie: We pay 40 years into social security only to be taxed again when we get our checks as seniors. Taxed many times on cars too...
6. Elle-- I guess you didn't meet any Jews in the EU. The anti semitism is rabid. I'm surprised you didn't mention this, David. I see comments from zionists around the world who wish they had Trump as their leader instead of their Hamas supporting leaders.
Just sayin'
Thanks Carissa. I'm going to stay away from politics. I don't begrudge Bezos his money but I do begrudge his lack of taste and decorum and his cheesy and cliched social behavior. The wealthy who are celebrities are generally not good role models. And that includes Gates who had an affair and hung out with Epstein when he was a known sex offender.
Huh? You just talked a bit of politics. 🤷♀️
I think more of a social and ethical comment.
1. In the old days, the cost of living wasn't so high. It was easier for a whole family to survive on one salary, and thus there was more family around to help. That is not the case anymore in the US.
2. I'm with you that states should have more power. I've written about that before! https://www.elysian.press/p/us-states-should-work-like-eu-countries
3. If our governments aren't going to tax people more, then sending that money to the IRS isn't a good use of funds. The system isn't raising enough money to spend on social services so even if every millionnaire decided to start sending checks to the IRS, it would be enough to cover those things, nor would those things be in the planning and budget! It's a better use of funds for wealthy people to spend their money on organizations that provide and support social services locally.
4. No one knows whether they would buy a yacht or not until they have the money to. And while we shouldn't moralize how other people use their money, I think we can fight against the wealth gap that gives some people so much and others so little.
5. Social security is horribly run in the US!
6. Anti-semitism is bad everywhere. This is a real problem!!!
1) This is an issue related more to morality, family formation, work-life balance, and recognition that our medical or some other factors are better now that "back then". Not fully a money distribution issue.
3) Sending their excess money to the Treasury to pay down the national debt would have a (very modest) impact on the need to pay as much in interest, so freeing other tax receipts for your identified purposes, plus remove money from the system so possibly providing a slight contribution to reducing inflation.
4) Yacht builders deserve to make a living, too. A few years ago this fact was ignored in some policy change, the details of which I don't recall.
6) even as an ignorant non-religious 8-year-old, I knew that "give us Barabbas!!" was a stupid allocation of blame to a whole community Jews when it should have only been leveled at the 30 or 40 (probably paid off) people in the crowd. Without Judaism, Christianity has no basis for belief or existence. And Islam is a bastardization of both of the other Abrahamic scriptures. Muhammad is portrayed as more Moses than Moses. [getting off topic - sorry].
1. True. But there are large religious families who have their helpful community.
2. Will read. Thx!
3. I hear you. I just think the mega wealthy will move from a high tax state— Bezos and Musk left WA and CA. Federally— maybe the tariffs would prevent huge companies from moving overseas?
4. 👏 If I win a billion dollar lottery I will set up a charity that helps families pay off medical bills. There are so many charities one could initiate with money.
5. 👍
6. 😢
That charity exists! Highly recommend Undue Medical Debt: https://unduemedicaldebt.org/
OMG! That’s awesome. I wonder if a few billionaires know about it.
Bezos didn’t earn his fortune so much as extort it.
Interesting. How? Seriously asking. I have no idea.
You truly are unaware?
He forces sellers to charge every store what Amazon charges, so we all pay more even if we don’t shop with him. Another thing is if you start selling a gizmo on amazon and it takes off, Amazon immediately starts making its own version and you’re cut out. His drivers have to pee in bottles because they aren’t allowed bathroom breaks … I could go on.
In addition, billionaires like him have successfully lobbied/bribed our elected officials to arrange all the tax and employment laws etc to serve them. It’s a rigged system.
In some cases one can fight fire with fire but the 1B (or whatever amount proposed) won't fix wealth inequality. It takes a drastic change in cultural values. Classical Greece did not have lots of baubles/material possessions one could show off. Democracy worked there (for a while) because the culture valued/bestowed status on the person who could benefit that society. The goal was to be well remembered. Today's powerful do seem to think along those lines somewhat- in Careless People, Zuckerberg ponders about his legacy yet even after all these scandals, FB continues with predatory practices. The Sacklers wanted their named pasted on museums but pushed narcotics. The greater good does not seem to matter to many of these gilded age types.
One of the countries where the traffic fine is a percentage of your income is Switzerland. I lived there for five years. A short period in Zürich and then rest of it in Basel. Punitive measures should be based on the offense and not the person’s ability to pay. Scaling fines based on income creates different punishments for the same crime, which violates the principle of equal treatment under the law. I believe universal healthcare, affordable housing and minimum living wages would go a long way toward righting our ship. Those are the big three that make European social democratic countries what they are. I was hoping to hear your opinions on how AI complicates everything. Thank you for an interesting conversation.
I would choose the federal government over the state of Texas in every aspect of taxation and funding resources. This is especially true of when the federal government is led by a non Trump president and a democratic congress.
"we need to focus on the systems that primarily benefit the rich"
Absolutely right, David. We have a monetary system that issues all money as interest-bearing debt which systematicaly concentrates wealth to the wealthiest in several ways. One is that 50% of the prices we pay for goods and services is accumulated "capital costs", interest going to the bank shareholders. Another is, as the 1912 Pujo Committee Investigation proved, banks are in a position to create monopolies for themselves, controlling every industry. Another is when loan payments (money destroyed) exceed loans being made (money created) we have an "economic crisis" (the boom/bust cycle) because there is not enough money so that loans default allowing the real wealth collateral to be picked up for pennies on the dollar by those who do have money. Monetary Reform proposals have been called for ever since Lincoln issuedf the Greenbacks, debt-free, permanently circulationg asset money that eliminates debt. The Chicago Plan, The 1939 program for Monetary Reform, the 2011 NEED Act (hr2990) were all basically the same. They removed the power of banks to create credit (used for money) in favor of government created debt-free money. Today there are groups world-around advocating this. monetary.org - monetaryalliance.org - and monreform.org, an international org of 30 monetary reform orgs. Money is power and it ontrols our public policy which is why all the issues people care about are not being taken care of. As Benjiman Franklin said, the Americna Revolution was fought over this very question as well. Please help us, David, at monetaryalliance.org.
I have captured your comment into MS Word to explore the monetary alliance site more deeply later on.
I am aware of the Chicago Plan but am not sure I really understand "debtless money".
I view money as an "AGREEMENT" to provide the 3 core functions of money:
1. as a medium of account,
2. a medium of exchange, and (equally importantly),
3. a store of value (or else it has no value/merit in reference to future exchanges).
This is abstract but goes outside of typical thinking related to a commodity base or basis for money and does accept fiat money if/when properly managed. [ha ha ha ].
When the alliance web site says: "Transfer control of the U.S. money supply from the banks to the U.S. government", I am not sure that provides the market awareness flexibility concerning the demand for money to pursue new business opportunities, or the decline in demand to reduce an excess of the money supply when innovations are not yet in evidence [see F A Hayek? distributed market information complexity vs. centralized ignorance, etc.].
I understand the feeling that we need to take "control" away from the "mean selfish" banksters, but Elle and Robert are here exploring how to incentivize the super wealthy to be less unequal with their wealth, not deny them a legal and sometimes clever means to acquire it in the first place.
Hope to improve my own understanding of your scheme going forward (especially an appreciation of past history in this area).
Thank you for giving monetary reform some thought. I will try and answer your concerns.
I agree with you that money is an agreement, it is an agreement embodied by law or custom. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says there are two competing theories of money; the Commodity Theory, where a commodity is used for money, and the Credit Theory of money where credit is used for money, One might ask, where is the theory where money is used for money?
“Debtless money” refers to how money is created. Today, the money supply is created by the commercial banking system as interest-bearing debt in the process of making loans. Unlike any other business, banks are allowed to create money. What we propose is that money be created not as a debt by private banks but as a permanently circulating asset created by the government, which is what Lincoln’s Greenbacks were. When they were issued, they created a prosperous cash economy that began eliminating debt. The ancient Greeks recognized this as the most vital prerogative of democratic self-governance. We propose a public money system issuing all new money exclusively for common good public purposes as its first use.
Once government-created money is issued or spent into the economy then it circulates in the private sector, but unlike the current money, it was not issued as an interest-bearing debt making its way back to the bank that created it …with interest. In fact 50%, on average, of the price we pay for goods and services are due to “capital costs”, interest being paid to the banks. Instead, we propose money be issued as a permanently circulating asset that creates wealth and eliminates debt. Banks would only lend existing money they had on deposit for that purpose.
Banks only create the principal of the loan and as the principal is paid off, that money is extinguished while the interest, which must come from the principal of another loan, goes to profit the bank shareholders. This is the economic growth imperative as people compete to pay interest on their debts and not lose their collateral. However, when loan payments (money destroyed) exceed loans being made (money created), or banks just stop lending, the system crashes into recession or depression for lack of money and loans default. This happens every 10 years or so, often called "the business cycle" but it is more of a monetary/finance system cycle. When the system crashes for lack of money, loan defaults explode and the real wealth collateral used to secure the loan is picked up for pennies on the dollar by those with money, further concentrating wealth to the top.
Any government that does not control the money is controlled by those who do. Money is the governing factor so we have an unelected government. As Frederick Soddy, who inspired the Chicago Plan, wrote in The Role of Money,1934:
“To allow money to become a source of revenue to private issuers is to create, first, a secret and illicit arm of the government and, last, a rival power strong enough ultimately to overthrow all other forms of government.”
This is where we are and why we need to change the system.
Americans will rise up and bring back a government that we love! A government that cares for the poor, the marginalized, the disadvantaged, the disenfranchised - oh - and let's not forget God! When the founding fathers separated church and state, the didn't want to villainize God. Why can't school kids say "One Nation, under God"? The Bible has such a rich trove of stories taken from everyday lives. Let the children learn about the Bible. Go to Church! Worship God!
You might want to read this book — should be required reading for all Americans:
One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America
By: Kevin Kruse - Princeton Historian
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/one-nation-under-god-kevin-m-kruse/1120177220
Thx for the tip! I'll check it out! (I got your reply on my email, and I replied but it didn't go through...grrrr Substack)
Let me know what you think about it!
Americans will rise up and bring back a government that we love! A government that cares for the poor, the marginalized, the disadvantaged, the disenfranchised - oh - and let's not forget God! When the founding fathers separated church and state, the didn't want to villainize God. Why can't school kids say "One Nation, under God"? The Bible has such a rich trove of stories taken from everyday lives. Let the children learn about the Bible. Go to Church! Worship God!
We are entitled to equal rights. We are not entitled to equal stuff. Whatever you produce is yours. Whatever I produce is mine. We can trade our production if we both want to.
Yes, it really is that simple. We have Fords, because Henry Ford produced them. They were his until he sold them. What about the workers? they were paid good money; that's why they chose to work there. Did anybody steal anything from anybody? No. Did the entire country benefit? Yes. That's how free market capitalism works, and it works better than any other system.
On the other hand, if you want to be paid for whatever work you want to do, regardless of what, if anything, people are willing to pay for it, you may want socialism/communism. Then you can have your friends in your political party create government programs that force people to pay you to provide things that they don't want. But what self-respecting person would do that?
https://individualistsunite.substack.com/p/dont-you-just-hate-rich-people