The Off Topic Topic

[Sheilbh]

Does that mean that European states that spend far more on social welfare secure even more governance advantage than residents of the US do?

I think you could definitely argue that for certain North European proper "welfare" states - Scandis, Netherlands (southern Europe starts in Belgium ), Germany etc.

[Admiral Yi]

I think you could definitely argue that for certain North European proper "welfare" states - Scandis, Netherlands (southern Europe starts in Belgium ), Germany etc.

To sustain DGuller's argument you would need to demonstrate that those states generate a higher ratio of filthy rich self-made entrepreneurs than the US.

[Sheilbh]

I think you could definitely argue that for certain North European proper "welfare" states - Scandis, Netherlands (southern Europe starts in Belgium ), Germany etc.

To sustain DGuller's argument you would need to demonstrate that those states generate a higher ratio of filthy rich self-made entrepreneurs than the US.

Germany's a bit of an outlier then. But I think the case is there on social mobility/"self-made":



Edit: I mean America's the country of Don Jr, Eric Trump and Armie Hammer. It's the home of the Failson.

[DGuller]

I consider both the military and the social welfare spending as part of our governance.  Both are necessary piece to secure our governance advantage.

Does that mean that European states that spend far more on social welfare secure even more governance advantage than residents of the US do?

Not necessarily, the spending has to be effective, but all else being equal, yes.  The less people you allow to go to waste, the more solid the economic base is.  I wouldn't quantify that by the percentage of filthy rich people, though, because you now have a chicken and the egg problem.  I would define it more as "successful enough that objectively speaking you shouldn't give a shit if your marginal rate is 70%".

[Admiral Yi]

Shelf, it seems to me you are going off on a tangent unrelated to what DGuller and I were discussing.  If there is a connection, please explain it to me.

[Sheilbh]

Shelf, it seems to me you are going off on a tangent unrelated to what DGuller and I were discussing.  If there is a connection, please explain it to me.

Governance helps you turn a good idea (and I'd add ability) into money rather than rely on inherited money.

That includes defence and social welfare spending. Ability and ideas are randomly distributed and as likely to occur across all income/wealth bands.

Several North European countries (and others) take less time for someone to move from low-income to average; or from low-income to high-income. I'd suggest that's because they're more able to turn a good idea (or ability) into money because of spending on governance (including social welfare).

[Admiral Yi]

Not necessarily, the spending has to be effective, but all else being equal, yes.  The less people you allow to go to waste, the more solid the economic base is.  I wouldn't quantify that by the percentage of filthy rich people, though, because you now have a chicken and the egg problem.  I would define it more as "successful enough that objectively speaking you shouldn't give a shit if your marginal rate is 70%".

And you are confident that high welfare states generate a higher ratio of those objectively shouldn't give a shit people than the US?

[Sheilbh]

Just watching the Nr 10 briefing and had one of those jolting moments of how fucking weird and quasi-dystopian everything is as the Prime Minister said "it's currently illegal to go on holiday"

[DGuller]

Not necessarily, the spending has to be effective, but all else being equal, yes.  The less people you allow to go to waste, the more solid the economic base is.  I wouldn't quantify that by the percentage of filthy rich people, though, because you now have a chicken and the egg problem.  I would define it more as "successful enough that objectively speaking you shouldn't give a shit if your marginal rate is 70%".

And you are confident that high welfare states generate a higher ratio of those objectively shouldn't give a shit people than the US?

Reasonably confident, but it's untestable, because this is one of those things that can have a billion confounding variables.

[garbon]

Andrew Lloyd Webber apparently has now created a musical ode to her.

Why is Britain so weird about everything like this?

See the BBC after reporting on the lawyer-cat video:
https://twitter.com/scottygb/status/1359514007678447616?s=20

[Admiral Yi]

Governance helps you turn a good idea (and I'd add ability) into money rather than rely on inherited money.

Yeah, I don't see how this fits.  He and I were discussing successful entrepreneurship as a function of good governance.  Inherited wealth doesn't enter into the function.

That includes defence and social welfare spending. Ability and ideas are randomly distributed and as likely to occur across all income/wealth bands.

Several North European countries (and others) take less time for someone to move from low-income to average; or from low-income to high-income. I'd suggest that's because they're more able to turn a good idea (or ability) into money because of spending on governance (including social welfare).

Do you need a good idea to become a salaried professional such as a doctor or lawyer?  I say no.

[Admiral Yi]

Reasonably confident, but it's untestable, because this is one of those things that can have a billion confounding variables.

I only see two variables: level of welfare spending and % of self made rich people.  What other variables do you think apply?

I think it would be hard to find a Wiki article that gives us a definitive answer, but I offer as evidence the fact that the US has far more billionaires than Europe, and that the US has generated far more world dominating new companies than Europe.

[Josquius]

They look alright to me.

The main problem is that he jumbles progressivity with a whopping high rate on fat cats and billionaires(c).  If he wanted to advocate for a whopping high rate on fats cats and billionaires(c) he should have done that, instead of falsely trying to frame opposition to whopping high rates on fat cats and billionaires(c) as opposition to progressivity.  Only flat-taxers oppose progressivity in toto.

There's also a bait and switch in the second pair of panels.  He starts out in the first of the pair talking about taxes in general then switches in the second "rebuttal" panel to talk about whopping high rates on fat cats and billionaires(c).

Its attacking common objections to high tax rates.
A big one of these you see is people who don't get that there is no way you'll be worse off than someone on $79k if you earn $81k and a higher tax rate kicks in at 80. A lot of people just don't get this. I suspect a lot of people pretend not to get it too.
The second is the temporarily embarrassed millionaire fallacy. A lot of people who will never earn anything near 80k are worried about the money they'll earn over that amount. They think of themselves as rich even if they are not and will never be.
The third is the fallacy that this is something new and never seen. Usually closely linked in with the "Everyone will just move to another country!" fallacy.

Series 2 seems questionable as that doesn't really seem like an answer to taxes taking your hard earned money. While it is true that we are in a negative place with wide wealth inequality and low social mobility, that isn't always the case. My parents started out their lives on food stamps.

Aren't your parents north of 60 though?

Yes?

My point is its pretty taken as fact that boomers lived in a time when opportunities were plenty and the poor could get rich with hard work and a bit of good luck. These days... you need major luck.

[Valmy]

It is kind of funny to see the 1960s and 1970s now romanticized as this great era of economic opportunity and social mobility considering the fact that, at the time, they were periods of incredibly self-doubt and hang wringing about our future.

[crazy canuck]

I think you could definitely argue that for certain North European proper "welfare" states - Scandis, Netherlands (southern Europe starts in Belgium ), Germany etc.

To sustain DGuller's argument you would need to demonstrate that those states generate a higher ratio of filthy rich self-made entrepreneurs than the US.

No you just have to show better social mobility than the US.