hodgy0_2

c'mon Trout - put some intellectual rigor to this

why is the US bust?, why has Buffet decided to give his fortune away (remember for every Buffet there is a 1000 people who do not give a cent away)

you talk about your family and that fine- my parents are rich my children will be rich

but as I have really tried to point out it is not about your or my situation -- it goes much bigger than that

do you see social and economic mobility getting better or worse in the next 50 years?

ps I have a massive amount of respect for you and what you have achieved - and in essence thats what it is all about "ability" pure and simple

GlesgaKiss

America, despite trade tarrifs etc, was the centre of free market capitalism. What its success had to do with inheritance or the lack thereof boggles the mind really. Intellectual rigour? Hodgy, your arguments here are intellectually redundant - drawing completely unfounded links between the prevention of inheritance (which as far as I know has never been a U.S. Govt policy: certainly not in the boom times you'd be talking about) and America's enormous success based on individual rights and capitalism.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

+1. Hodgy's argument has to be one of the most confused and bizarre logical leaps I think I've ever encountered in a discussion about economics.

hodgy0_2

explain to me what this success is -- America is bust?

they will default in 3 weeks

"The US' sovereign credit rating is likely to be downgraded regardless of whether the US Congress reaches an agreement on raising its statutory debt limit. "If the debt limit is raised and the public debt continues to grow, it will further damage the US' debt-paying ability, which is a key factor in Dagong's evaluation, and we will consider lowering its ratings accordingly,"

From the China Daily

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Even if it's true, where have you shown that it has the slightest bit to do with inherited wealth?

hodgy0_2

Eaxplain to me what Americas success is -- if you cant -- fvck off

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

LOL, cat p!ss in your cornflakes again this morning?

hodgy0_2

D17 people for lunch today -- a stressfull time, and Delilah our cat has been useless

hodgy0_2

the adults had BBQ'd Trout with a sasla verdi sauce, the children, chicken kebabs

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Wow, MaccieD's has really moved upmarket since I was last in there, impressed

JTaylor

I like children, but I have to say I've never tried one with fish and a kebab.

vindaloo

I'll take news of USA going bust more seriously when it comes from a serious American source. China/Chinese know the US has to come begging more. They're merely setting the scene that their representatives can bask in icy air-con'd cool aloofness whilst the Yanks sweat more about it!

J.

GlesgaKiss

19th century - Arguably the fastest economic growth and improvement of living standards in history.

20th century - Highest living standards in the world, average working person has never been so well off/had such an easy life.

All the result of Liberal principles which include a right to leave your wealth to whoever you wish.

You could easily make an argument that the downfall of the U.S. has been its misguided belief in a welfare state of the kind of proportions it now has, and the monetary policies that go along with it.

A great deal of this has to do with the politics of relative wealth, of course. People don't like others being much richer than them, whether through merit and free trade or not. That will always be the case.

hodgy0_2

you can argue that -- but I was not aware the US had a welfare state that was in anyway comparable (relatively) which other western countries

btw none of my children have ever been in a MaccieD's let alone eaten one

GlesgaKiss

Well you couldn't be further from the truth. The welfare I'm talking about isn't just benefits and the minimum wage etc. There has been a huge distortion of the market in America (and all developed economies) - so much so that you'd be better calling it a mixed rather than a market economy. What is annoying is that the typical first reaction from everyone is to blame capitalism or the free market, when no such thing exists.

Now, a truly free market has never existed, but governments of the day have mainly used prudence when it comes to interest rates/monetary policy. Therefore, there was never a situation in the past where you had guarantees on a substantial part of the mortgage market or the idea that, whenever the stock market falls, the central bank (the Fed) will step in and save the day. Capitalism needs failure to function - you deal with the bad and move on. There is no way to remedy that by putting it off, it can only be delayed. And delaying increases liabilities.

Basically for at least a decade now no one has had the backbone to 'do the right thing'. That is a welfare state, because it's pure political control of the economy. Of course politics and economics are linked, but the attitude in the past has always been that things should be managed as prudently as possible to give people the best chance to get on with things - prudence = wealth. But now the attitude is that people should be helped at any cost. The problem with that is that the only way they can help people is by using taxes, which come from the people who need to be helped. The govt can do f*ck all about the wealth in this country. They certainly create nothing. Their only job is to enable it to happen with a good legal framework and prudent monetary policy.

The U.S. has been the worst for this with Greenspan and now Bernanke at the Fed.

The worst thing that could happen now IMO is that there is increased govt intervention in economic matters and individual freedom - which is what inheritance comes down to - in the erroneous belief that capitalism/the market is to blame for this mess. That is what appears to be happening, as there is a great deal of anti-capitalistic mentality going around now, partly out of ignorance of cause and effect, and partly out of emotion/envy. It's the same old story, as, if you read history, countless dictators have risen to power simply because people believe that's what is best for them. Godwin's law in action here - that's how Hitler gained popularity: just because of the sheer incompetence of what went before him.

We're not exactly in a situation like that, but we have to be careful what we give away (in terms of rights), and that we don't make things even worse for ourselves in a much milder form of the same thing.

hodgy0_2

could you not argue that inherited wealth skews the (human) market in merit and ability

GlesgaKiss

No. You receive wealth through the market, you've got the right to decide what to do with it, it's as simple as that. Give it to whoever you like.

If you prevent inheritance it's just plain theft. You're taking something away which the owner had designated to go somewhere else. I don't even believe inheritance tax should exist.

Another thing - putting law and fairness aside, and assuming that inheritance is prevented by the state, who then deserves to receive it based on merit and ability? They sure as hell won't be getting it in a free transaction, so it's hardly merited.

JTaylor

My old Political Science lecturer used to argue hodgy's point (he also, and this is absolutely true, wore a Che Guevara t-shirt). To be fair his presentation was cogent, he was the real deal - no champagne socialist.

GlesgaKiss

They are usually nice enough people as well - i.e. not power crazed lunatics of the Nu Labour variety. Just misguided IMO.

But then there are the people who fully understand the logic behind the market but think private property is criminal, etc. At that stage it becomes more about philosophy I guess.