Even if Berkshire Hathaway has a market capitalization over one trillion, which I don't believe it does, $160 billion is 16% of one trillion, so it's not exactly "pocketchange for a rainy day"
I'm not sure if it's realistic to offset all our printing with increases in taxation. I think the money trickles up exactly the way you described, and I agree that government programs should be paid for by taxation instead of money printing--but what can be taxed to make up the multi-trillion dollar difference?
Consider that the federal government collected revenues of $3.5 trillion in 2019, or more than $10,000 for every person in the country. State revenues combined were more than $1 trillion in 2019, for a total average tax liability of about $13,600 per-capita. I don't see a realistic way to double or triple that revenue number while taxing income alone (and citizens would naturally demand a commensurate increase in government services if such a tax increase applied at lower-income levels).
Taxing wealth or ownership in companies is another route, but individuals who own any notable percentage of a public company are naturally very mobile, and could easily change their country of residence to somewhere more tax-friendly (like former Google CEO Eric Schmidt may be planning).
It seems like a difficult position to be in for the government.
> I'm not sure if it's realistic to offset all our printing with increases in taxation. I think the money trickles up exactly the way you described, and I agree that government programs should be paid for by taxation instead of money printing--but what can be taxed to make up the multi-trillion dollar difference?
You either pay for it up front via taxation or later via inflation (increase in money supply). You are focused on increasing revenue but why not exercise some restraint and, oh I dunno, cut back on the ridiculous military overspending that doesn’t improve quality of life for the people paying the taxes?
JUCE is a cross-platform C++ library used by lots of synth software and VSTS plugins. While JUCE itself is open-source, there's not a lot of high-quality sample projects (that I'm aware of). Helm looks awesome, and it's exciting to see a great example using JUCE.
Perhaps people feel overtaxed, not in absolute terms, but relative to the services provided? The US Gov collected approximately 3.3T in revenue in FY2016--more than $10,000 for every person in the country. By comparison, the Netherlands collected 255B Euros from a population of 17M, or about $17k USD per person (2016 figure, according to OECD statistics). Clearly, a much higher number at the federal level, but they have a much lower average provincial tax (~$1,500) compared to the average state tax in the US, which varies widely, but averages out to about $4,800, bringing the totals to ~$14,800/person in the US, vs ~$18,500 in the Netherlands. Yes, the Dutch pay a 25% premium, but in my opinion they get a good ROI for their tax dollars. I think the issue of ROI is a major barrier to increasing tax rates in the US.
Yes, clearly the return on services and government investment is quite poor in the U.S. It's a situation in which people reasonably believe that paying more in taxes is throwing money at the problem. This is especially so when one of the major parties actively seeks to prove that government is incompetent.
A great comment. Usually the US state taxation is ignored when making comparisons.
You need to go further however, as the vast budget deficit is ultimately an inflationary tax on the US people (we'll follow the Japan scenario, and debase the dollar to deal with it over time, hammering the standard of living). You can see that represented by the dramatic damage to the US dollar during the Bush deficit years, which simultaneously sent the dollar plunging, commodities soaring and all other nation GDP figures soaring (when priced in dollars).
Total spending is about $7.1 trillion, between Federal + State + Local. What kind of return are Americans getting for their $22,000(!) per year? An absolutely horrendous return, that's what.
The US state + local spending is like an entire extra Federal Government stapled on.
I'm not concerned with slashing spending as some are, I'm overwhelmingly concerned about using that spending effectively instead. There's vast progress to be had in focusing just on that.
It's a shame JPay charges just for sending electronic messages to inmates. I wonder why someone would choose to use JPay instead of sending a letter? I can't imagine inmates would significantly benefit from the reduced delivery time...
I wonder what the charge rate is. On one hand is sounds like extortion and a breach of at least human decency if not human rights, but it's possible it's used to reduce congestion to a limited number of terminals and censors and so prevent individuals from monopolizing the termials. Although I would prefer they gave at least X free messages per week.
Adults and children in the US today today are still being poisoned by leaded fuel. Aviation fuel, or "Avgas" is still leaded, and is a major problem around municipal airports. Leaded aviation fuel is used by planes which use internal combustion engines instead of cleaner, more powerful, and more expensive jet engines. Most of these small planes are for personal use.
In 2011, 483 tons of lead were emitted so a small group of prosperous people can enjoy private air travel. EPA data from the same year shows airports as the top source of lead emissions in 42 states [0].
I think the costs of lead abatement should be included in the price of AvGas, or its use should be discontinued entirely.
[0] U.S. EPA. Calculating Piston-Engine Aircraft Airport Inventories for Lead for the 2011 National Emissions Inventory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA-420-B-13-040, 2013. Page 5
483 tons seems like a very small amount of pollution when you consider that it is spread over the entire country (even albeit concentrated near airports).
The problem with lead is that it tends to bio-accumulate in various types of body tissue, making blood lead levels hard to bring down. Chronic exposure builds up over time. I also disagree that 483 tons is "a very small amount of pollution". Lead cannot be compared with more typical pollutants like CO2. A better comparison might be mercury, which measured 52 tons emitted in 2011. I still won't say 52 tons is small, but it's a lot better than 483!
I want to reiterate that small propeller planes that seat 2-6 people make up virtually the entire market for leaded aviation fuel. Larger propeller planes typically have turboprop engines which burn kerosene like most jet/commercial aircraft. There is a big cost upon society caused by a small number of people, for something that is completely unnecessary (private air travel).
I wonder if using wood (2x4's, OSB) as a structural material has a negative impact on long-term durability. In North America, virtually all residential single-family construction is wood-frame, which is unusual compared to most other countries.
Masonry, insulating concrete forms (ICF), and poured concrete have superior fire-resistance, insulating properties (thermal and acoustic), and strength--and no need to worry about termites.
I don't fully understand why wood-frame construction still dominates, even in the "luxury" segment, but I think it's related to strong consumer preference for large homes. Given a fixed budget, you can build a larger house using wood compared to almost any other material (factoring in labor, e.g. 'compressed earth' construction uses cheap material and more labor). But the preference for larger homes doesn't explain why wood-framing is so popular in areas where construction costs are very low relative to land-value.
Interesting question! I'll give my take on it, which ties the answer to a 1942 wartime court case called Wickard v. Filburn.
The Tenth Amendment states the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States or to the people. The existence of some federal agencies may contradict the 10th Amendment, but the US Gov. has good reason to set policies on nuclear material regulation (Dept. of Energy), or airspace rules (FAA), and many other policy areas which could not have been foreseen at the time of the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution could have written a clause allowing the government to regulate alcohol, cannabis, or any of the intoxicating drugs that existed at the time (opium?), but they didn't, so what is the basis for the 1970's Controlled Substances Act?
The specific precedent utilized by the CSA is based a very, very loose interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which states the Federal Government has power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". This clause is important to prevent States from placing taxes and tariffs on goods from other States, but in a 1942 wartime decision the Supreme Court greatly expanded the interpretation of this clause, giving power to the federal government to regulate or prohibit any economic activity (including economic activity involving drugs).
In 1942 the US Government had placed quotas on wheat production to stabilize prices during wartime (side note, the government no longer uses quotas to accomplish price stabilization, but instead the USDA will buy crops directly when surpluses develop). Filburn had grown more wheat than his allotted quota and was fined for producing too much. Filburn argued that because he never sold the extra grain and grew it for use on his farm (animal feed), the quota did not apply because it would not enter the market. The case made it up to the Supreme Court, which ruled against Filburn on the basis that no production is strictly local because any surplus on Filburn's part would affect the amount of grain he bought, which would percolate through the market in aggregate. You can read more about the Wickard v. Filburn case on Wikipedia. That decision ultimately gave the US Government the power to regulate any economic activity.
I'm not familiar with Dr. Marston, but Wikipedia tells me he was "an American psychologist, inventor of an early prototype of the lie detector, self-help author, and comic book writer who created the character Wonder Woman."
He was in a long-term polyamorous relationship with two women, but that only adds support for Erik816's point that polyamorous relationships benefit high-status men... do you disagree that Dr. Marsten was a high-status person during his lifetime?
No. He started out that way (a college professor) but he was fired when his relationship with Olive became known. He then struggled for a long time before inventing Wonder Woman. But even then, comic book author was not a "high status" profession in 1940.
But my point is this: saying that polyamorous relationships "work out great if you are a high status male" implies that they invariably do not work out great if you are a female, and the Marsten family is a data point that refutes that (implied) part of the claim. It might be the case that polyamory generally works out better for high-status males than anyone else, but so what? Playing football generally works out better for men than for women too, but that's no reason not to let anyone who wants to try to play football.
I think he is implying they dont work well for low-status males. Males in particular are known for getting violent in desperate efforts to accrue the status necessary to secure a mate. It’s not like marriage is perfect because some low-status males will always fail to find a partner but if you make that a significant percentage of the population I would expect society to destabilize.
Maybe it would force some males to work on self-improvement...
Also, remember that, over the age of 30, women outnumber men. By the age of 50 or so, there's a clear majority. Older women would be better off if they shared mates.
Finally, remember that polyamory is not the same as polygamy. It could also benefit men who want more space in a relationship, or have had failed relationships because of this, since with polyamory your partner doesn't have to be upset that you don't spend so much time together, as they can spend time with their other partner(s).
I was really talking about the type of poor man that ends up in gangs im places like Chicago. I remember a podcast that talked how even pretty heavily punished violent crimes like murder actually helped some of these men gain social status(I can’t quite find the reference right now).
Part of my argument is that in the right circumstances the partially sexually mediated drive for status in males turns violent. It seems like things like marriage and monogamy restrain this impulse and we all benefit from it.
Notice that I really don’t see marriage or monogamy as centrally enforced but rather as an emergent pattern of behavior that has been adopted by most societies and then codified into law. I presume it was this widely adopted because the individuals doing the marrying believed it was the best option at the time.
Overall I would say that although the institution has to evolve to accomodate women’s control over their reproduction and the vast economic potential women have to offer, we are probably not so special and different now that we ought do away with it.
Regarding your point about aging, I actually think that should take a back seat to the wellbeing of children. It still seems to me like monogamy and marriage are the best vehicles we have today for raising them. Even if polyamory could potentially provide some benefits to the parents, I think those are the type of sacrifices that people gladly do for the well-being of their children.
So basically it seems that you're saying that women need to be willing to suffer and live in lousy relationships so that they can keep shitty men from turning violent and also so children can grow up in idealized 2-parent families (many with these men with violent tendencies).
The way I see it, the reason our society seems to be falling apart now is that women now have power and wealth, and aren't forced to settle for lifelong marriages to shitty, abusive men and being relegated to being full-time mothers whether they want that life path or not.
