Billionaire Ray Dalio Says “Capitalism Is Not Working” for Most People

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by dealmaker, Nov 9, 2018.

  1. southall

    southall

    There is no known good solution, even when you hand out to the people at the bottom end they tend to just waste it.

     
    #51     Nov 11, 2018
  2. tomorton

    tomorton

    The mistake many make when drawing anti-capitalist conclusions is that they look only at outcomes and not at opportunities. Capitalism simply offers greater opportunities for self-advancement including but not limited to wealth. Its always going to the the case that those at the apex of the pyramid will look down and see that there are more people at the base and lower levels than at the top. A pang of guilt might be justified. But destroying the whole system would be based more on their own priveliged and myopic viewpoint rather than reality. They are free to reject their own position at the apex but they are not free to reject mine 10 floors down (and climbing).
     
    #52     Nov 11, 2018
  3. I’m your typical young Wall Street trash. Born wealthy -> Ivy League -> work at the bank. It has been way too easy for me to position myself to perpetuate this cycle of income inequality. It’s not like my dad called anyone for any quid pro quo, it’s just that I had a lot of access and good role models.

    I always thought in undergrad I should take this opinion with a grain of salt, but now that I’ve been paying taxes a while I still don’t see what’s wrong with this argument:
    - tax the rich
    - increase estate tax and lower the eligibility threshold. Remove all those loopholes my parents had the estate lawyers figure out for my benefit.

    I came to this conclusion because:
    a) if you look at the consumption function, it’s clear why the rich get richer. The poor spend everything just to put food on the table and still can’t get everything they need. The rich spend only slightly more than the middle class -> they consistently have money left over to save -> they end up hoarding all the money. If the distribution of income was more even, more people would spend enough to meet there needs and you’d get more net economic activity, no?

    b) estate tax. Basically my argument is it’s unfair that systematically people who grow up in the best situations also are due to inherit a lot of money. I can’t imagine how that’s not a recipe for income inequality.

    I’m posting this because I want someone like @Scataphagos or @Handle123 to change my opinion. I think if I remember right @newworldmn or whatever likes to take a shot at the “liberal elite” now and then too. I honestly am openminded and came in hopes of getting my mind blown. That was a lot of typing, so hopefully I get a real answer for my troubles.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2018
    #53     Nov 11, 2018
    Spooz Top 2 likes this.
  4. tomorton

    tomorton


    What theory of economics leads you to conclude that economic activity would increase when the people making the extra effort will get exactly the same income as if they'd never bothered, i.e. as much as to pay for their needs?

    In abstract terms, surely, the greatest incentive for society to advance would be a better tomorrow? What incentive is there if we know tomorrow will - by law - be no better than today?
     
    #54     Nov 11, 2018
    CME Observer likes this.
  5. Well no one said they should get the exact same thing. We know what economic system that is and certainly I’m not an advocate for it.

    I do understand the point though. You have to reward risk taking and effort in order for society to make progress.
     
    #55     Nov 11, 2018
  6. Socialism is also not working for most people.No system will work for most people - and the governements doing eveything they can for that.
     
    #56     Nov 11, 2018
  7. The main thing you're not seeing is that government intervention generally has terrible results, except for the rich.

    Regular infrastructure projects could do the job though.
     
    #57     Nov 11, 2018
    clacy and tomorton like this.
  8. Tax the riches and the money flows eslsewhere.
     
    #58     Nov 11, 2018
  9. Yeah a few of those interventioned played out well for the industry my family is in, so you aren’t wrong, but I question if taxing the rich could be subject to the same “it will always benefit the rich disproportionally” moral hazard as say “deregulating x industry” by construction, no?

    As a New Yorker you wouldn’t hear me complain about an infrastructure project coming to fruition. I think we agree there.
     
    #59     Nov 11, 2018
  10. The "tax the rich" bill will have enough riders that the rich still get richer.

    Separately, you probably cannot tax the rich enough to close the gap.
     
    #60     Nov 11, 2018