concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The motive for billionaires to part with some money will increasingly be a growing Luigi factor

---

Well, that's obviously not the right motivation, threat or outcome

---

Self- preservation is often the best motive

socaltownie said:

---

Slammed at work today so not a ton of BI time now that in the office but I just want to point out that MOST US criticism of billionaires (not all but most) focuses not on a belief that the state is better but that the current crop of billionaires (and the structure of the economy stiffles, not enhances) competition. That again is a criticism heard during the gilded age.

Example?

Amazon third party resellers. Like farmers being squeezed by robber barons these small entrepreneurs are subject to the monopoly pricing of amazon and its "legal" ability to swoop in, after market interest has been established, and price in a predatory fashion. If, after driving out the competition from the platform, it decides that it wants to be the monopoly seller in that space it simply restricts new entrants. That isn't capitalism in a free market sense but the worst of what we saw in the 19th century.

Much like that time I expect a progressive backlash. But that isn't socialism (which, funny, was the charge the robber barons leveled at progressives in the 19th century) but rather a sophsticated understanding that in some markets there is a natural tendency toward monopoly and that the state power isn't to seize assests but to open up markets for more robust private sector competition.

---

Good point. Healthcare for all Americans would be a great way to bust open the entrepreneurial spirit. Many people stay chained to bosses because they need the healthcare.

socaltownie said:

---

Actually the 1% chart is misleading (and derives from what we have good census data on). There is a recent Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Paper (I will try to dig for it but you can google as well) that showed it isn't the 1% but the .0001% that really have bee driving the Gini scale (a measure of inequality) through the roof. Robert Riech (sp) has written on this a bunch in recent months.

Really the main parallel for this is the Gilded age. In a lot of ways the factors that drove inequality then (the value of vertical integration, amalgamation effects of railroads) are similar to what is driving inequality now (network effects). You also see parallels in the utter lack of self awareness (when Theil talks about captalism as being the purest form of philanthropy). I think the scary thing is that a mitigating effect of some of the worst things in the gilded age was good old fashioned Protestantism - where Carganie gives away his forturne because that is what good christians do. Not present in the current crop of oligarchs.

I don't disagree with WIAF that actually trying to do this is going to be impossible. Nor do I dispute that especially SEIU and the greed of public sector unions is a big reason for the mess this state is in (greed isn't precisely right, they are simply doing what they are designed to do - push for the interest of their members irrespective of any long term fiscal consequences). But the fact that this is resonating is not just stupidity or avarice - the billionaire class should look at a lot of revolutions in the past and recognize that it isn't abject poverty that drove them (French factory workers were actually experiencing a decent increase in standard of living from what we can tell) but rather a belief that the oligarchs had no concern with the rest of people and had divorced themselves from the social contract.

---

Good, interesting post.

Let's start with the GINI coefficient. IT DOESN'T MEASURE WEALTH. The Gini coefficient, while a popular measure of inequality which sometime I have even referred to, it has several key problems. Nevertheless is used by social scientists like Reich (who is not an economist and while a smart man says some absurdly stupid things when talking about economics), including its inability to distinguish between different income distributions that share the same coefficient, and the fact that it focuses exclusively on income rather than total accumulated wealth. , it means it places doctors, partners in large law and accounting firms and other professionals at the same level aa billionaires. And its partial reliance on taxable income is absurd. How many times do I have to say that when you read about billionaires paying little taxes, that means the don't have any taxable income, and that reliance on the GINI coefficient is absurd, because your really measuring the fact that the working class millionaires are making more higher salaries than the rank and file these days, and not talking about wealth concentration whatsoever. This gets to the issue some of us have about economic literacy and Reich is exhibit 1.

Just look at places like Arizona, Florida and Nevada if you want to see how bad GINI results can be. The coefficient does not adjust for aging populations or baby booms, where a higher number of people (such as retirees or children) may naturally have little to no income, inflating inequality figures. Take a drive through Paradise Valley, Sedona, Scottsdale, Henderson, Naples, Sarasota, Palm Beach, etc. known for exclusive luxury, high-end real estate for primarily retirement, and tell me how that all looks on the GINI coefficient.

Let's take this a step further and look at California and a fair number of blue states, where tax and other governmental policies raise the cost of living. A low Gini coefficient does not necessarily indicate a high standard of living, as it compares relative income, not absolute living standards. A professional making a couple hundred thousand dollars in the Bay Area really don't feel wealthy, even if GINI says they are.

If you want to have a valid discussion about wealth concentration, stop relying on GINI. It is admittedly hard to measure wealth concentration. When you get past the agenda burdened economists or want to be economists,, and narrative driven social scientists, you get people using wealth-to-income ratio to measure financial wherewithal by comparing total net worth to annual income, indicating how many years of income are stored in assets like well, appreciated stock (think Steve Jobs who had a $1 salary but billions in assets). Wealth is measured by the "value" of assets owned. It is not a perfect measure when you talk about valuation, but you find a better measure.

The wealth-to-net national income ratio in the U.S. has risen significantly from 1980. It was higher in the gilded age era and deprecation and post deprecation eras that preceded reductions in the ratio and economic growth (some likely due to war spending). It also has been higher at unique times for short periods. Clearly there is greater wealth concentration, but the claims made by many about the highest concentration ever by so much seems like propaganda to me.

Now the second and third paragraphs deserve huge praise. Part of the issue is the wealthy feel the need to move and isolate in Billionaire Bunkers and disengage. This occurs through creating exclusive social circles, relocating to gated communities, and prioritizing professional networking over broader social ties. Is it because the governmental workers in CA and NY have declared war on them? Crime is cities where they live is out of control and they don't feel safe? Privacy from an intrusive media? An "apocalypse insurance" against societal breakdown? A desire to get away from charaties and government that demand more and more?

There are some wealthy that don't do this like Buffet. And you guys can argue about ways to knock charitable pledges because in reality you just don't like the people making them. But in particular, the self-made younger wealthy tend to want to disengage. Why is that?

Again - not a lot of time but Gini coefficients can be used to measure EITHER the distribution of wealth or income. It is just math and data sets. I would agree that it is important not to mix apples and oranges. the fed study didn't and looked just at wealth.

NOT opining on the study - just the independent variable but here is a recent article on Gini WEALTH coefficients.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X25003365

And here is the data set/analysis fueling a few of the op eds recently about the .001%

https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/index.html

And here is a popular article that argues that todays wealth concentrattion exceeds that of the gilded age. Haven't dug into methods to see if flawed.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/super-richs-wealth-concentration-surpasses-gilded-age-levels-210802327.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJp8gOVKdS8XAYHSsHEiTWeJEgux6f4DCsm3Uu4zGOa-9p8xiQzIX3qNK-vX30RkrY5ELOzcxO6heg_gZkEJ2aU24LQaJX-MIbU-mIrQGi3ZIMK98fAouWrT1K9PLW5XH65ADGQdkJkrw1f6kKIWgaeD5Z2mTRquEdhjjCe3cPB4

Cites and sources important. And no, op eds by bloggers don't count ;-)

This is my favorite OT thread in some time. Excellent dialogue and info that is both informative and engaging.

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The motive for billionaires to part with some money will increasingly be a growing Luigi factor

---

Well, that's obviously not the right motivation, threat or outcome

---

Self- preservation is often the best motive

---

Pertinent to your comment, Luigi Mangione murder had nothing to do with self preservation.
Pertinent to the thread, controlling anything beyond $10M has nothing to do with self preservation.

DiabloWags said:

---

concordtom said:

---

The giving pledge can be reneged, and I suspect many will do so.

---

I'm aware.
It is a voluntary pledge.
I was simply pointing it out.
And people like Mackenzie Scott are well on their way having given away $26 Billion already since 2019.

---

Which is absolutely amazing.

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

You definitely need the reward system to remain. It drives effort, innovation, production - all of it.

My thought has simply to change the reward structure. Culturally you could have a wall of honor where if you made so much, your wealth could then be used for various social purposes.

Like, rather than individuals continuing to amass more than is needed, ungodly sums, they could give to feed the hungry, to build homeless shelters, to retrain or rehabilitate, to provide needed healthcare.

Instead of being "hated" as you say they become revered and millions being grateful to them for their productivity.

The donors could choose which area they wanted to fund.

You could start either those who voluntarily give: Buffett and gates. Then make it a club that others want to join. Eventually the culture could change.

What do you give someone who has everything? Honor, praise, gratitude.

So many rich complain about taxation. But the state could create something that they might actually strive to have their name on.
Levels of lifetime taxes paid: wall of honor.

Elizabeth Warren plan just wants to take, and those targeted get nothing on the backside.
Warren et al want to demonize those targeted as "not paying their fair share". She's got it all wrong. Don't attack them. Make them want to join the exclusive club.

---

I disagree with your desire for us to be dependent on billionaire philanthropy.

And nobody is talking about getting rid of the reward system. It's not even part of the discussion.

Having billions of dollars even after paying a wealth tax is plenty of reward.

---

The entire republican attack on "wealth tax" and redistribution is entirely focused on claims that capitalism (and it's incumbent inherent reward system) is under attack in favor of socialism or communism.

---

Yes, well Republicans lie. I'm talking to you though , not Republicans.

---

It's an argument within myself own head I'm trying to sort out.

On the one hand, I believe in laizze-faire free enterprise (with exceptions for environmental degradation and safety regulations, off the top of my head). Capitalism.

On the other, there is this problem to do with societal illnesses regarding perceived wellbeing.
Yet, I wouldn't want any attempts at remedies to destroy the invisible hand or the engine of ingenuity or productivity.

The Latest Wildly Misleading Argument Against Taxing the Rich ITEP https://itep.org/the-latest-wildly-misleading-argument-against-taxing-the-rich/

Recent Studies Find Raising Taxes on High-Income Households Would Not Harm the Economy | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities https://www.cbpp.org/research/recent-studies-find-raising-taxes-on-high-income-households-would-not-harm-the-economy

Raising taxes on the ultrarich: A necessary first step to restore faith in American democracy and the public sector | Economic Policy Institute https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-taxes-on-the-ultrarich-a-necessary-first-step-to-restore-faith-in-american-democracy-and-the-public-sector/

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The motive for billionaires to part with some money will increasingly be a growing Luigi factor

---

Well, that's obviously not the right motivation, threat or outcome

---

Self- preservation is often the best motive

---

Pertinent to your comment, Luigi Mangione murder had nothing to do with self preservation.
Pertinent to the thread, controlling anything beyond $10M has nothing to do with self preservation.

---

Zero social progress in this country has been accomplished without violence be it freeing us from the British, destroying the confederacy, workers, civil rights or addressing predatory capitalism

---

Are you saying you are Pro Violence and Pro Destruction as a means towards ProGress?

Or simply that it's an axiom of truth. Like, the only path forward is via death and demolition?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand you.

By the way, I disagree with either take, so perhaps you have something else in mind.

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Ask Wife his opinion on reining in excess with disparities.

---

I think the State tax will be ineffective, and hurt CA's economy. I'm not sure it is legal. it is pretty clear from the standpoint of successful people this is the only the beginning with CA dramatically increasing spending despite having huge deficits. There will be more of these taxes and down to lower income or wealth levels. With a State this fiscally irresponsible, and funding political donor causes, such as the trains to nowhere, and not willing to adequately fund more basic government functions like education, there will be more initiatives to pay for these functions, and a declining tax base to pay them from. That is because when wealthy people do leave the State to become tax refugees, they take their business with them over time. First is the higher paid employees as the top level as headquarters move, but ultimately is the core business as well. What Musk did is being repeated. Just look where Spielberg will be doing his work in the future. It no longer is a blue verses red. The biggest beneficiaries of the tax are developers in Nevada, Texas, Florida, etc. and if I was Blue Herron and Four Seasons (residential division), I would be secretly pumping money to support these initiatives. Whey you are in real estate, you can see the trends before the media. As an example, the high end development in Henderson is exploding. There is a long waiting list of Washington tax refugees to get in on the Four Seasons Residences. Both capital and people go where it is best, based on financial decisions, not rhetoric.

As for a wealth tax at the federal level, this has been litigated here for some time. It is not going to happen politically. If the wealth tax did become law, it will found to be unconstitutional, and the process for an amendment likely will be decades. The alternative is increasing income tax rates, but the economically illiterate don't seem to understand that the super-wealthy generally have arranged their affairs to have little taxable income.

If you want to tax wealth in this country, you need to tax assets such as property, toys (e,g., yachts), etc. which typically is done on a state level. I suspect that people sorta shrugged at Dajo's post, but if you understand taxes, that probably is the most effective way to tax the wealthy.

If you look at tax policies they are based on income taxes, and they are designed to achieve political objectives, like incentives to provide for electric cars. That all goes to crap when you impose these broad overall taxes. Newsom probably says this a lot better than me, but the approach on this poorly drafted CA tax proposal is counter-productive. That also is another discussion.

I also question if demonizing and going after successful people will be in the long run good for the country's overall success. But that also is a different discussion.

I'm not sure much debating on this subject is productive. People here have their own views based on rhetoric and narrative, without a much understanding of the economic impacts of taxation.

---

Thx for your words.
I AM actually interested.
Each time we discuss this you tell me why it wouldn't work and such. And that's all fine.
But I'm asking your opinion on wealth aggregating in the hands of "the successful" as you phrased it.

I'm all for people becoming super rich. (I come from the self made super rich myself.) I'm concerned that this is not a great development for society. As you often point out, it's easy to hide income and keep growing wealth - so long as one pays attention and is not a spendthrift.

But what are the consequences, nationally? Culturally? Economically?

I want to know if you think we should just let natural forces continue, laizze-faire, or if we actively say no to that and actually want to curb natural forces wealth concentration.

I know you'll say, "we already have intervention in that, via the IRS "
But concentration is increasing. Do you care? At which level should the ideal social engineer step in?






I think this is the type of graph I'm interested in. At what % should the various wealth deciles, say, be drawn?
Or, better asked, corralled?

---

You talking to me? I don't control things.


There is a lot of garbage numbers and economists with an agenda. This may come as a shock, but wealth is concentrated far less right now that other times in the country, and yet here we are all fat and happy, arguing about theoretical matters.

I guess having worked for governments and seen them in action, I don't think they automatically know what they are doing to be interfering whole heartedly in regulating the market beyond the basics of keeping people honest or health and safety regulation. I also agree with the role of the FED. I would point to the present administration in DC as a prime example of not knowing.

Unlike most here, I don't view wealth concentration as inherently evil. It can often reflects successful entrepreneurship, innovation, and value creation within a market economy and made the greater good better, and at the risk of backing evil tech types, I would say that is somewhat accurate today. However, at some point long term concentration can significantly harm economic growth, reduce social mobility, and wealth always distorts the democratic process. Don't ask me things like percentages, I don't know. So far a capitalistic approach has been a long term success in this country and so I lean for less intervention.

---

Yes, I was talking to you.
And yes, I know you don't control things.

You wrote

Quote:

---

This may come as a shock, but wealth is concentrated far less right now that other times in the country, and yet here we are all fat and happy, arguing about theoretical matters.

---

I didn't want to side step the topic by pointing out where it ranks historically.
I also didn't want to "argue". I did want to "explore" a topic theoretically. If you are not interested in doing so, that's okay if you decline. But I thought you might be able to participate.

---

No I debate the theoretical all the time here. Take the wealth tax as an example. I think it dies in the court system, but that doesn't stop me from debating. My concern was you phrased your questions and post like I was supposed to do something about wealth concentration or know the answers. You demanded I come up with a magic number where wealth concentration was not okay. Your tone was accusatory and personal.

---

I'm sorry you took me that way. I'll have to check my prose for self reflection.

I was trying to get you to submit an opinion on what levels you would design for society if you could be an architect for how society might best be structured.

I mean, isn't that what every politician ought be doing? And we all talk about politics here endlessly, so therefore, ought we all be striving for some ideals ?

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The motive for billionaires to part with some money will increasingly be a growing Luigi factor

---

Well, that's obviously not the right motivation, threat or outcome

---

Self- preservation is often the best motive

---

Pertinent to your comment, Luigi Mangione murder had nothing to do with self preservation.
Pertinent to the thread, controlling anything beyond $10M has nothing to do with self preservation.

---

Zero social progress in this country has been accomplished without violence be it freeing us from the British, destroying the confederacy, workers, civil rights or addressing predatory capitalism

---

Are you saying you are Pro Violence and Pro Destruction as a means towards ProGress?

Or simply that it's an axiom of truth. Like, the only path forward is via death and demolition?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand you.

By the way, I disagree with either take, so perhaps you have something else in mind.

---

History teaches us that there has been little progress against tyranny, slavery, oppression of workers and blacks without violence or threat of same. It will decide this not gini coefficients

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The motive for billionaires to part with some money will increasingly be a growing Luigi factor

---

Well, that's obviously not the right motivation, threat or outcome

---

Self- preservation is often the best motive

---

Pertinent to your comment, Luigi Mangione murder had nothing to do with self preservation.
Pertinent to the thread, controlling anything beyond $10M has nothing to do with self preservation.

---

Zero social progress in this country has been accomplished without violence be it freeing us from the British, destroying the confederacy, workers, civil rights or addressing predatory capitalism

---

We may not like it but this is a true statement. Also true that in each of these cases, violence began with the side opposing progress.

The only hope is that AI harvests the DNA of the wealthy first and keeps the rest of us around to entertain.



*Yes, researchers are actively developing biological computers that use living human brain cells (neurons) and DNA to process information, representing a potential future alternative to traditional, energy-intensive silicon data centers.

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The motive for billionaires to part with some money will increasingly be a growing Luigi factor

---

Well, that's obviously not the right motivation, threat or outcome

---

Self- preservation is often the best motive

---

Pertinent to your comment, Luigi Mangione murder had nothing to do with self preservation.
Pertinent to the thread, controlling anything beyond $10M has nothing to do with self preservation.

---

Zero social progress in this country has been accomplished without violence be it freeing us from the British, destroying the confederacy, workers, civil rights or addressing predatory capitalism

---

We may not like it but this is a true statement. Also true that in each of these cases, violence began with the side opposing progress.

---

The state has a monopoly on violence and is the chief perpetrator of violence

Anarchistbear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The motive for billionaires to part with some money will increasingly be a growing Luigi factor

---

Well, that's obviously not the right motivation, threat or outcome

---

Self- preservation is often the best motive

---

Pertinent to your comment, Luigi Mangione murder had nothing to do with self preservation.
Pertinent to the thread, controlling anything beyond $10M has nothing to do with self preservation.

---

Zero social progress in this country has been accomplished without violence be it freeing us from the British, destroying the confederacy, workers, civil rights or addressing predatory capitalism

---

We may not like it but this is a true statement. Also true that in each of these cases, violence began with the side opposing progress.

---

The state has a monopoly on violence and is the chief perpetrator of violence

---

The state does have a monopoly on violence but will sometimes turn a blind eye to other violence it views as favorable. For example. corporate "security" like the Pinkertons, racist mobs, and J6 insurrectionists.

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

You definitely need the reward system to remain. It drives effort, innovation, production - all of it.

My thought has simply to change the reward structure. Culturally you could have a wall of honor where if you made so much, your wealth could then be used for various social purposes.

Like, rather than individuals continuing to amass more than is needed, ungodly sums, they could give to feed the hungry, to build homeless shelters, to retrain or rehabilitate, to provide needed healthcare.

Instead of being "hated" as you say they become revered and millions being grateful to them for their productivity.

The donors could choose which area they wanted to fund.

You could start either those who voluntarily give: Buffett and gates. Then make it a club that others want to join. Eventually the culture could change.

What do you give someone who has everything? Honor, praise, gratitude.

So many rich complain about taxation. But the state could create something that they might actually strive to have their name on.
Levels of lifetime taxes paid: wall of honor.

Elizabeth Warren plan just wants to take, and those targeted get nothing on the backside.
Warren et al want to demonize those targeted as "not paying their fair share". She's got it all wrong. Don't attack them. Make them want to join the exclusive club.

---

I disagree with your desire for us to be dependent on billionaire philanthropy.

And nobody is talking about getting rid of the reward system. It's not even part of the discussion.

Having billions of dollars even after paying a wealth tax is plenty of reward.

---

The entire republican attack on "wealth tax" and redistribution is entirely focused on claims that capitalism (and it's incumbent inherent reward system) is under attack in favor of socialism or communism.

---

Yes, well Republicans lie. I'm talking to you though , not Republicans.

---

It's an argument within myself own head I'm trying to sort out.

On the one hand, I believe in laizze-faire free enterprise (with exceptions for environmental degradation and safety regulations, off the top of my head). Capitalism.

On the other, there is this problem to do with societal illnesses regarding perceived wellbeing.
Yet, I wouldn't want any attempts at remedies to destroy the invisible hand or the engine of ingenuity or productivity.

---

The whole argument from the right is disingenuous. Bill Maher complains about socialism and points to South Korea and Poland as role models that rejected socialism. They both have universal healthcare and wouldn't dream of our more capitalist style of healthcare. Conservatives love to point at Margaret Thatcher as a bulwark against socialism. England had universal healthcare before, during, and after Thatcher. I think what American progressives want is the kind of not-socialism that England, South Korea, and Poland have.

---

Yeah. And that is because (I am not enough of a world traveler to know if a universal problem or a uniquely american) that socialism is used as a pejorative term in the US rather than a descriptive one.

A starting point would be that socialists believe in segments of the economy (your mileage will vary about which ones) should be under collective ownership. As DJO points out, many social-democratic states in the west believe that for basic healthcare (fun fact, we do to when it comes to health care for military veterans). In some cases they have segments of their banking sector under public ownership. Nearly every western country (including the US) has mass transit as a publicly owned service. Really that should be (I think ) distinct for how to PAY for it which varies tremendously. In some cases it is through high taxes on income. IN others it is through high taxes/revenues from natural resources which are owned by the public/as a public trust. Conflating policies and taxation and calling increasing taxes as "socialism" is just a way of the right demonizing revenue issues.

Most calls for public ownership of certain areas of the economy are when there are natural monopolies that make by competitors difficult. Usually also it is that those services are of such critical need that market failures would be costly.

And here is a thought exercise to show you that this isn't outside the norm. Even the most conservative people on this board - - do you want your water supply to be privately held by a purely unregulated utility? If not, why not and what does that say about your willingness to live with a little bit of socialism? And if you ARE comfortable what would that cost you in building in redudancies so the rapacious monopolist couldn't decide he likes your house and just arbitrarily cut your water off till you were forced to move.

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The motive for billionaires to part with some money will increasingly be a growing Luigi factor

---

Well, that's obviously not the right motivation, threat or outcome

---

Self- preservation is often the best motive

---

Pertinent to your comment, Luigi Mangione murder had nothing to do with self preservation.
Pertinent to the thread, controlling anything beyond $10M has nothing to do with self preservation.

---

Zero social progress in this country has been accomplished without violence be it freeing us from the British, destroying the confederacy, workers, civil rights or addressing predatory capitalism

---

We may not like it but this is a true statement. Also true that in each of these cases, violence began with the side opposing progress.

---

This is wrong and top of mind since I just finished a Great book called "Age of Acrimony"
and I had the chance thorugh it to learn about a figure (Franee Kelly) in history we all should know more about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Kelley. She is a GIANT and deserves all the accolades we could heap upon her.

As the book reminds us, a TON of the great moments in progressive history (Suffarge, child labor laws, the 40 hour week, food and drug safety) were not driven much at all by violence nor even the fear of violence.

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The motive for billionaires to part with some money will increasingly be a growing Luigi factor

---

Well, that's obviously not the right motivation, threat or outcome

---

Self- preservation is often the best motive

---

Pertinent to your comment, Luigi Mangione murder had nothing to do with self preservation.
Pertinent to the thread, controlling anything beyond $10M has nothing to do with self preservation.

---

Zero social progress in this country has been accomplished without violence be it freeing us from the British, destroying the confederacy, workers, civil rights or addressing predatory capitalism

---

We may not like it but this is a true statement. Also true that in each of these cases, violence began with the side opposing progress.

---

This is wrong and top of mind since I just finished a Great book called "Age of Acrimony"
and I had the chance thorugh it to learn about a figure (Franee Kelly) in history we all should know more about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Kelley. She is a GIANT and deserves all the accolades we could heap upon her.

As the book reminds us, a TON of the great moments in progressive history (Suffarge, child labor laws, the 40 hour week, food and drug safety) were not driven much at all by violence nor even the fear of violence.

---

The history of the violence of the Progressive Era is not taught (similar to the white on black violence of the Reconstruction era). Here is one major incident:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

As recently as 2016 a court ruled in favor of those who would preserve the site over mine companies that wanted to strip mine and destroy the site.

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The motive for billionaires to part with some money will increasingly be a growing Luigi factor

---

Well, that's obviously not the right motivation, threat or outcome

---

Self- preservation is often the best motive

---

Pertinent to your comment, Luigi Mangione murder had nothing to do with self preservation.
Pertinent to the thread, controlling anything beyond $10M has nothing to do with self preservation.

---

Zero social progress in this country has been accomplished without violence be it freeing us from the British, destroying the confederacy, workers, civil rights or addressing predatory capitalism

---

Are you saying you are Pro Violence and Pro Destruction as a means towards ProGress?

Or simply that it's an axiom of truth. Like, the only path forward is via death and demolition?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand you.

By the way, I disagree with either take, so perhaps you have something else in mind.

---

History teaches us that there has been little progress against tyranny, slavery, oppression of workers and blacks without violence or threat of same. It will decide this not gini coefficients

---

Fair enough.
But I don't think this wealth tax or associated issues being discussed rises to " tyranny, slavery, oppression of workers and blacks".

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The motive for billionaires to part with some money will increasingly be a growing Luigi factor

---

Well, that's obviously not the right motivation, threat or outcome

---

Self- preservation is often the best motive

---

Pertinent to your comment, Luigi Mangione murder had nothing to do with self preservation.
Pertinent to the thread, controlling anything beyond $10M has nothing to do with self preservation.

---

Zero social progress in this country has been accomplished without violence be it freeing us from the British, destroying the confederacy, workers, civil rights or addressing predatory capitalism

---

Are you saying you are Pro Violence and Pro Destruction as a means towards ProGress?

Or simply that it's an axiom of truth. Like, the only path forward is via death and demolition?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand you.

By the way, I disagree with either take, so perhaps you have something else in mind.

---

History teaches us that there has been little progress against tyranny, slavery, oppression of workers and blacks without violence or threat of same. It will decide this not gini coefficients

---

Fair enough.
But I don't think this wealth tax or associated issues being discussed rises to " tyranny, slavery, oppression of workers and blacks".

---

Job insecurity, no health care, no child care, can't afford housing- true for a lot of Americans and related to inequality. The public is in favor of these things, the government is not.

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The motive for billionaires to part with some money will increasingly be a growing Luigi factor

---

Well, that's obviously not the right motivation, threat or outcome

---

Self- preservation is often the best motive

---

Pertinent to your comment, Luigi Mangione murder had nothing to do with self preservation.
Pertinent to the thread, controlling anything beyond $10M has nothing to do with self preservation.

---

Zero social progress in this country has been accomplished without violence be it freeing us from the British, destroying the confederacy, workers, civil rights or addressing predatory capitalism

---

We may not like it but this is a true statement. Also true that in each of these cases, violence began with the side opposing progress.

---

This is wrong and top of mind since I just finished a Great book called "Age of Acrimony"
and I had the chance thorugh it to learn about a figure (Franee Kelly) in history we all should know more about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Kelley. She is a GIANT and deserves all the accolades we could heap upon her.

As the book reminds us, a TON of the great moments in progressive history (Suffarge, child labor laws, the 40 hour week, food and drug safety) were not driven much at all by violence nor even the fear of violence.

---

The history of the violence of the Progressive Era is not taught (similar to the white on black violence of the Reconstruction era). Here is one major incident:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

As recently as 2016 a court ruled in favor of those who would preserve the site over mine companies that wanted to strip mine and destroy the site.

---

Oh I am not saying that their wasn't violence. But that it wasn't central to the story and in many cases was management violence to presence the status quo. Labor's gains came largely through peaceful means (contrast to the Revolutions of 1848)

Anarchistbear said:

---

Job insecurity, no health care, no child care, can't afford housing- true for a lot of Americans and related to inequality. The public is in favor of these things, the government is not.

---

Edit - I would add college affordability to your list.

There are nearly 1k billionaires in the US. Their net worth is @8.4 trillion. There are @350k US citizens. If we confiscated every single penny of billionaire wealth - which is not even where this thread started - we can spend @23k for every man, woman and child. That is not enough to do even one of the items on this list. A second problem with the wealth redistribution discussion - in our country at least - is that it starts with some version of "we need greater structural fairness" in the system - which is legitimate - but always works its way to be a laundry list of items the masses believe they deserve for free. So the source of money isn't big enough and the list of things to spend on always gets bigger. And this assumes that government is an efficient distributor of resources, which many would argue it is not. And humans have human nature, which in this context means they have some magic number where they seek to avoid paying taxes and exit the system, so our pool of available money to fix societal ills decreases, followed by the threshold for "rich" continuously being lowered..and the whole thing falls apart (see NY where Mandahmi is calling for an estate tax threshold of only $750k). These are the reasons why Socialism has always failed and will always fail.

Different response: point of order that the social programs are not Socialism.

Different response: the current era has corollaries to the guided era. I could be mistaken but I do not remember the Teddy Roosevelt Trust Busting that brought about social change being associated with pronounced violence.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Job insecurity, no health care, no child care, can't afford housing- true for a lot of Americans and related to inequality. The public is in favor of these things, the government is not.

---

Edit - I would add college affordability to your list.

There are nearly 1k billionaires in the US. Their net worth is @8.4 trillion. There are @350k US citizens. If we confiscated every single penny of billionaire wealth - which is not even where this thread started - we can spend @23k for every man, woman and child. That is not enough to do even one of the items on this list. A second problem with the wealth redistribution discussion - in our country at least - is that it starts with some version of "we need greater structural fairness" in the system - which is legitimate - but always works its way to be a laundry list of items the masses believe they deserve for free. So the source of money isn't big enough and the list of things to spend on always gets bigger. And this assumes that government is an efficient distributor of resources, which many would argue it is not. And humans have human nature, which in this context means they have some magic number where they seek to avoid paying taxes and exit the system, so our pool of available money to fix societal ills decreases, followed by the threshold for "rich" continuously being lowered..and the whole thing falls apart (see NY where Mandahmi is calling for an estate tax threshold of only $750k). These are the reasons why Socialism has always failed and will always fail.

Different response: point of order that the social programs are not Socialism.

Different response: the current era has corollaries to the guided era. I could be mistaken but I do not remember the Teddy Roosevelt Trust Busting that brought about social change being associated with pronounced violence.

---

I don't think taking money from billionaires and trickling it down through government is a good idea. I do think that the tax system preferentially rewards capital not labor and that workers are receiving a progressively shorter stick just because there is less of them and they wield less power.

Health care, child care, education (you are right), minimum wage, housing are issues that the public ( but not the government prioritizes) and can be incentivized in the richest country in the world to the improvement of all citizens and social stability, in a country where the levels of violence, addiction and despair are significant.

The Gilded Age Robber Barons at least believed in public good- go to Cleveland and admire world class art museums, libraries and symphony, same with New York.

Violence in the gilded age? Well there was a lot before reforms- two Presidents assassinsted, lots of labor violence and violence against Chinese and blacks

Anarchistbear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Job insecurity, no health care, no child care, can't afford housing- true for a lot of Americans and related to inequality. The public is in favor of these things, the government is not.

---

Edit - I would add college affordability to your list.

There are nearly 1k billionaires in the US. Their net worth is @8.4 trillion. There are @350k US citizens. If we confiscated every single penny of billionaire wealth - which is not even where this thread started - we can spend @23k for every man, woman and child. That is not enough to do even one of the items on this list. A second problem with the wealth redistribution discussion - in our country at least - is that it starts with some version of "we need greater structural fairness" in the system - which is legitimate - but always works its way to be a laundry list of items the masses believe they deserve for free. So the source of money isn't big enough and the list of things to spend on always gets bigger. And this assumes that government is an efficient distributor of resources, which many would argue it is not. And humans have human nature, which in this context means they have some magic number where they seek to avoid paying taxes and exit the system, so our pool of available money to fix societal ills decreases, followed by the threshold for "rich" continuously being lowered..and the whole thing falls apart (see NY where Mandahmi is calling for an estate tax threshold of only $750k). These are the reasons why Socialism has always failed and will always fail.

Different response: point of order that the social programs are not Socialism.

Different response: the current era has corollaries to the guided era. I could be mistaken but I do not remember the Teddy Roosevelt Trust Busting that brought about social change being associated with pronounced violence.

---

I don't think taking money from billionaires and trickling it down through government is a good idea. I do think that the tax system preferentially rewards capital not labor and that workers are receiving a progressively shorter stick just because there is less of them and they wield less power.

Health care, child care, education (you are right), minimum wage, housing are issues that the public ( but not the government prioritizes) and can be incentivized in the richest country in the world to the improvement of all citizens and social stability, in a country where the levels of violence, addiction and despair are significant.

The Gilded Age Robber Barons at least believed in public good- go to Cleveland and admire world class art museums, libraries and symphony, same with New York.

Violence in the gilded age? Well there was a lot before reforms- two Presidents assassinsted, lots of labor violence and violence against Chinese and blacks

---

Is it true you have a portrait of Leon Czolgosz in your home?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRVTpmNXCqcM1ZgTLePd1oJoRpeIdBUJb44tsF4L29GxQ&s=10

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Job insecurity, no health care, no child care, can't afford housing- true for a lot of Americans and related to inequality. The public is in favor of these things, the government is not.

---

Edit - I would add college affordability to your list.

There are nearly 1k billionaires in the US. Their net worth is @8.4 trillion. There are @350k US citizens. If we confiscated every single penny of billionaire wealth - which is not even where this thread started - we can spend @23k for every man, woman and child. That is not enough to do even one of the items on this list. A second problem with the wealth redistribution discussion - in our country at least - is that it starts with some version of "we need greater structural fairness" in the system - which is legitimate - but always works its way to be a laundry list of items the masses believe they deserve for free. So the source of money isn't big enough and the list of things to spend on always gets bigger. And this assumes that government is an efficient distributor of resources, which many would argue it is not. And humans have human nature, which in this context means they have some magic number where they seek to avoid paying taxes and exit the system, so our pool of available money to fix societal ills decreases, followed by the threshold for "rich" continuously being lowered..and the whole thing falls apart (see NY where Mandahmi is calling for an estate tax threshold of only $750k). These are the reasons why Socialism has always failed and will always fail.

Different response: point of order that the social programs are not Socialism.

Different response: the current era has corollaries to the guided era. I could be mistaken but I do not remember the Teddy Roosevelt Trust Busting that brought about social change being associated with pronounced violence.

---

And this is the crux of the issue.
Invariably, government is not effecient at all.
I've personally witnessed this when it comes to the City of San Jose and the State of California.

Why would anyone trust Government officials (who invariably weren't bright enough to get a job in the private sector) on how to allocate resources?

I've seen an awful lot of public servants that are not capable of serving the public because they are dumber than dumb.
And yet they're making 2, 3, and $400,000 a year.

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Job insecurity, no health care, no child care, can't afford housing- true for a lot of Americans and related to inequality. The public is in favor of these things, the government is not.

---

Edit - I would add college affordability to your list.

There are nearly 1k billionaires in the US. Their net worth is @8.4 trillion. There are @350k US citizens. If we confiscated every single penny of billionaire wealth - which is not even where this thread started - we can spend @23k for every man, woman and child. That is not enough to do even one of the items on this list. A second problem with the wealth redistribution discussion - in our country at least - is that it starts with some version of "we need greater structural fairness" in the system - which is legitimate - but always works its way to be a laundry list of items the masses believe they deserve for free. So the source of money isn't big enough and the list of things to spend on always gets bigger. And this assumes that government is an efficient distributor of resources, which many would argue it is not. And humans have human nature, which in this context means they have some magic number where they seek to avoid paying taxes and exit the system, so our pool of available money to fix societal ills decreases, followed by the threshold for "rich" continuously being lowered..and the whole thing falls apart (see NY where Mandahmi is calling for an estate tax threshold of only $750k). These are the reasons why Socialism has always failed and will always fail.

Different response: point of order that the social programs are not Socialism.

Different response: the current era has corollaries to the guided era. I could be mistaken but I do not remember the Teddy Roosevelt Trust Busting that brought about social change being associated with pronounced violence.

---

And this is the crux of the issue.
Invariably, government is not effecient at all.
I've personally witnessed this when it comes to the City of San Jose and the State of California.

Why would anyone trust Government officials (who invariably weren't bright enough to get a job in the private sector) on how to allocate resources?

I've seen an awful lot of public servants that are not capable of serving the public because they are dumber than dumb.
And yet they're making 2, 3, and $400,000 a year.

---

I don't universally believe that. There is a LOT of government waste. Generally inefficient.

But consider the California water project. Built relatively cheaply. 8th wonder of the world.

Getting into WHY government can't do that anymore is worthy of entire other thread but I will fanboy in the extreme at Abundance and no one needs to see that.

Diablo - I DO think that a core problem is accountability among senior staff. But in a lot of ways, Pogo, we have met the enemy and he is us. What they are getting paid 400,000 is to not create problems for their bosses (the electeds). And when electeds TRY to exert strong management principle voters often punish them for "chaos" and "firing nice people."

What I personally believe is that where government gets into problems is when it tries to do things that are outside their core competencies and when the area is subject to interest group capture. My fun examples - public golf courses. Government has no clear core competency there. But again, try to privatize a golf course and watch the incumbent beneficiaries of x-subsidized green fees and preferential tee times come unglued. Yes, Pogo principle in the works.,

socaltownie said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Job insecurity, no health care, no child care, can't afford housing- true for a lot of Americans and related to inequality. The public is in favor of these things, the government is not.

---

Edit - I would add college affordability to your list.

There are nearly 1k billionaires in the US. Their net worth is @8.4 trillion. There are @350k US citizens. If we confiscated every single penny of billionaire wealth - which is not even where this thread started - we can spend @23k for every man, woman and child. That is not enough to do even one of the items on this list. A second problem with the wealth redistribution discussion - in our country at least - is that it starts with some version of "we need greater structural fairness" in the system - which is legitimate - but always works its way to be a laundry list of items the masses believe they deserve for free. So the source of money isn't big enough and the list of things to spend on always gets bigger. And this assumes that government is an efficient distributor of resources, which many would argue it is not. And humans have human nature, which in this context means they have some magic number where they seek to avoid paying taxes and exit the system, so our pool of available money to fix societal ills decreases, followed by the threshold for "rich" continuously being lowered..and the whole thing falls apart (see NY where Mandahmi is calling for an estate tax threshold of only $750k). These are the reasons why Socialism has always failed and will always fail.

Different response: point of order that the social programs are not Socialism.

Different response: the current era has corollaries to the guided era. I could be mistaken but I do not remember the Teddy Roosevelt Trust Busting that brought about social change being associated with pronounced violence.

---

And this is the crux of the issue.
Invariably, government is not effecient at all.
I've personally witnessed this when it comes to the City of San Jose and the State of California.

Why would anyone trust Government officials (who invariably weren't bright enough to get a job in the private sector) on how to allocate resources?

I've seen an awful lot of public servants that are not capable of serving the public because they are dumber than dumb.
And yet they're making 2, 3, and $400,000 a year.

---

I don't universally believe that. There is a LOT of government waste. Generally inefficient.


Diablo - I DO think that a core problem is accountability among senior staff. But in a lot of ways, Pogo, we have met the enemy and he is us. What they are getting paid 400,000 is to not create problems for their bosses (the electeds). And when electeds TRY to exert strong management principle voters often punish them for "chaos" and "firing nice people."

---

The City of San Jose is filled with Deputy City Managers that make $400,000 a year.

It's not clear to me what some of these people actually get done, given that I have had a lot of personal experience with them. They never fire anyone. They never hold anyone accountable. They come to work every day with the same lame mantra of "Hear no Evil, See No Evil, and Speak No Evil."

They don't want to speak up and upset the gravy train.

For example, homelessness is a mess.
Their Parks have over half a Billion dollars in deferred maintenance and taxpayers have given up. They won't even entertainment a small parcel tax on the ballot to fund the Park & Rec Dept.

They can't attract developers because their fees are too high and their animal shelter does nothing but decrease capacity to care while doubling its budget since 2021. The City got bailed out by a lot of Covid type federal funding from Biden, but that funding finally dried up in 2024 and now they have annual budget deficits.

And because there is no profit motive in Govt, it's much more difficult to define outcomes in order to measure progress. Invariably, these people will defer, deflect, dismiss, and discount the concerns of the public . . . kicking them down the road for as long as they can - - - and then pat each other on the back about how much PROGRESS was made during the year.

Matt Mahan is a perfect example of this.
It's absolutely mind-blowing to me that he thinks he has a resume that is good enough to become Governor.
Such is the entitled "bubble" that these people walk around in.

The only way that you can hold bureaucrats accountable is through legal action.
Ask me how I know.

Animal advocates claim inhumane conditions fester at San Jose shelter, threaten lawsuit - Local News Matters

DiabloWags said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Job insecurity, no health care, no child care, can't afford housing- true for a lot of Americans and related to inequality. The public is in favor of these things, the government is not.

---

Edit - I would add college affordability to your list.

There are nearly 1k billionaires in the US. Their net worth is @8.4 trillion. There are @350k US citizens. If we confiscated every single penny of billionaire wealth - which is not even where this thread started - we can spend @23k for every man, woman and child. That is not enough to do even one of the items on this list. A second problem with the wealth redistribution discussion - in our country at least - is that it starts with some version of "we need greater structural fairness" in the system - which is legitimate - but always works its way to be a laundry list of items the masses believe they deserve for free. So the source of money isn't big enough and the list of things to spend on always gets bigger. And this assumes that government is an efficient distributor of resources, which many would argue it is not. And humans have human nature, which in this context means they have some magic number where they seek to avoid paying taxes and exit the system, so our pool of available money to fix societal ills decreases, followed by the threshold for "rich" continuously being lowered..and the whole thing falls apart (see NY where Mandahmi is calling for an estate tax threshold of only $750k). These are the reasons why Socialism has always failed and will always fail.

Different response: point of order that the social programs are not Socialism.

Different response: the current era has corollaries to the guided era. I could be mistaken but I do not remember the Teddy Roosevelt Trust Busting that brought about social change being associated with pronounced violence.

---

And this is the crux of the issue.
Invariably, government is not effecient at all.
I've personally witnessed this when it comes to the City of San Jose and the State of California.

Why would anyone trust Government officials (who invariably weren't bright enough to get a job in the private sector) on how to allocate resources?

I've seen an awful lot of public servants that are not capable of serving the public because they are dumber than dumb.
And yet they're making 2, 3, and $400,000 a year.

---

I don't universally believe that. There is a LOT of government waste. Generally inefficient.


Diablo - I DO think that a core problem is accountability among senior staff. But in a lot of ways, Pogo, we have met the enemy and he is us. What they are getting paid 400,000 is to not create problems for their bosses (the electeds). And when electeds TRY to exert strong management principle voters often punish them for "chaos" and "firing nice people."

---

The City of San Jose is filled with Deputy City Managers that make $400,000 a year.

It's not clear to me what some of these people actually get done, given that I have had a lot of personal experience with them. They never fire anyone. They never hold anyone accountable. They come to work every day with the same lame mantra of "Hear no Evil, See No Evil, and Speak No Evil."

They don't want to speak up and upset the gravy train.

For example, homelessness is a mess.
Their Parks have over half a Billion dollars in deferred maintenance and taxpayers have given up. They won't even entertainment a small parcel tax on the ballot to fund the Park & Rec Dept.

They can't attract developers because their fees are too high and their animal shelter does nothing but decrease capacity to care while doubling its budget since 2021. The City got bailed out by a lot of Covid type federal funding from Biden, but that funding finally dried up in 2024 and now they have annual budget deficits.

And because there is no profit motive in Govt, it's much more difficult to define outcomes in order to measure progress. Invariably, these people will defer, deflect, dismiss, and discount the concerns of the public . . . kicking them down the road for as long as they can - - - and then pat each other on the back about how much PROGRESS was made during the year.

Matt Mahan is a perfect example of this.
It's absolutely mind-blowing to me that he thinks he has a resume that is good enough to become Governor.
Such is the entitled "bubble" that these people walk around in.

The only way that you can hold bureaucrats accountable is through legal action.
Ask me how I know.

Animal advocates claim inhumane conditions fester at San Jose shelter, threaten lawsuit - Local News Matters

---

There is a lot of truth to this. But I see the world from a different lense. Part of their job is to avoid making the politicians make hard choices.

Take animal shelters (and I going to make a ton of this up so I might miss some specifics).

Move away from no kill - well Peta protests
Use more 3rd party rescue groups - well gotta vet them to the nth degree so someone doesn't embarass you
Displace union workers by contracting out - that is a BAD idea ;-)
Embrace more no kill - who is going to pay to expand the thing?

All these create almost unsolvable gordian knots. There are solutions but like in the private sector there would have to be trade offs and choices. But making choices is BAD for politicians. The costs are concentrated and the benefits diffuse. And voters don't remember the diffuse stuff but they sure do remember when their sacred cow is gored.

Bureaucrats learn this. So not making decisions is actually what they are PAID to do. Because getting stuff to the point of decision gets you a big side eye from your bosses.

At the Federal level we are mostly talking about money transfers for things like social security and healthcare. Not the same thing as state and local government at all which is overrun by municipal worker unions.

socaltownie said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Job insecurity, no health care, no child care, can't afford housing- true for a lot of Americans and related to inequality. The public is in favor of these things, the government is not.

---

Edit - I would add college affordability to your list.

There are nearly 1k billionaires in the US. Their net worth is @8.4 trillion. There are @350k US citizens. If we confiscated every single penny of billionaire wealth - which is not even where this thread started - we can spend @23k for every man, woman and child. That is not enough to do even one of the items on this list. A second problem with the wealth redistribution discussion - in our country at least - is that it starts with some version of "we need greater structural fairness" in the system - which is legitimate - but always works its way to be a laundry list of items the masses believe they deserve for free. So the source of money isn't big enough and the list of things to spend on always gets bigger. And this assumes that government is an efficient distributor of resources, which many would argue it is not. And humans have human nature, which in this context means they have some magic number where they seek to avoid paying taxes and exit the system, so our pool of available money to fix societal ills decreases, followed by the threshold for "rich" continuously being lowered..and the whole thing falls apart (see NY where Mandahmi is calling for an estate tax threshold of only $750k). These are the reasons why Socialism has always failed and will always fail.

Different response: point of order that the social programs are not Socialism.

Different response: the current era has corollaries to the guided era. I could be mistaken but I do not remember the Teddy Roosevelt Trust Busting that brought about social change being associated with pronounced violence.

---

And this is the crux of the issue.
Invariably, government is not effecient at all.
I've personally witnessed this when it comes to the City of San Jose and the State of California.

Why would anyone trust Government officials (who invariably weren't bright enough to get a job in the private sector) on how to allocate resources?

I've seen an awful lot of public servants that are not capable of serving the public because they are dumber than dumb.
And yet they're making 2, 3, and $400,000 a year.

---

I don't universally believe that. There is a LOT of government waste. Generally inefficient.


Diablo - I DO think that a core problem is accountability among senior staff. But in a lot of ways, Pogo, we have met the enemy and he is us. What they are getting paid 400,000 is to not create problems for their bosses (the electeds). And when electeds TRY to exert strong management principle voters often punish them for "chaos" and "firing nice people."

---

The City of San Jose is filled with Deputy City Managers that make $400,000 a year.

It's not clear to me what some of these people actually get done, given that I have had a lot of personal experience with them. They never fire anyone. They never hold anyone accountable. They come to work every day with the same lame mantra of "Hear no Evil, See No Evil, and Speak No Evil."

They don't want to speak up and upset the gravy train.

For example, homelessness is a mess.
Their Parks have over half a Billion dollars in deferred maintenance and taxpayers have given up. They won't even entertainment a small parcel tax on the ballot to fund the Park & Rec Dept.

They can't attract developers because their fees are too high and their animal shelter does nothing but decrease capacity to care while doubling its budget since 2021. The City got bailed out by a lot of Covid type federal funding from Biden, but that funding finally dried up in 2024 and now they have annual budget deficits.

And because there is no profit motive in Govt, it's much more difficult to define outcomes in order to measure progress. Invariably, these people will defer, deflect, dismiss, and discount the concerns of the public . . . kicking them down the road for as long as they can - - - and then pat each other on the back about how much PROGRESS was made during the year.

Matt Mahan is a perfect example of this.
It's absolutely mind-blowing to me that he thinks he has a resume that is good enough to become Governor.
Such is the entitled "bubble" that these people walk around in.

The only way that you can hold bureaucrats accountable is through legal action.
Ask me how I know.

Animal advocates claim inhumane conditions fester at San Jose shelter, threaten lawsuit - Local News Matters

---

There is a lot of truth to this. But I see the world from a different lense. Part of their job is to avoid making the politicians make hard choices.

Take animal shelters (and I going to make a ton of this up so I might miss some specifics).

Move away from no kill - well Peta protests
Use more 3rd party rescue groups - well gotta vet them to the nth degree so someone doesn't embarass you
Displace union workers by contracting out - that is a BAD idea ;-)
Embrace more no kill - who is going to pay to expand the thing?

All these create almost unsolvable gordian knots. There are solutions but like in the private sector there would have to be trade offs and choices. But making choices is BAD for politicians. The costs are concentrated and the benefits diffuse. And voters don't remember the diffuse stuff but they sure do remember when their sacred cow is gored.

Bureaucrats learn this. So not making decisions is actually what they are PAID to do. Because getting stuff to the point of decision gets you a big side eye from your bosses.

---

One of the biggest issues that I see is how the City believes it can solve a lot of its problems by hiring part time employees (and not having to pay benefits or deal with the Unions). This invariably leads to an extremely poor culture, with people who don't show up for work a lot, which drives good people away and allows poor people to remain. - - - As a result, the turnover is HUGE.

The Kennedy School of Public Policy at Harvard and the Goldman School at Cal could teach an entire class using the City of San Jose as the Poster Child on what not to do.

The current City Manager has been there for 34 years.
She's not alone in that regard.