The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Should Billionaires be Renamed PoM (For "People of Means")?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Well, that’s perhaps not exactly what the Starbucks founder and Presidential candidate said …

 
Hide 90 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. • Replies: @El Dato
    That threat really brings it out though.

    Including calls to boycott Starbucks because someone thinks he's in a democracy.

    "Mob power. Isn't that how democracy works?"
    , @Pat Boyle
    The problem with "POM" is that many will think it is just a more polite variant to the widely used "POS". Piece of Manure for Piece of Shit.
    , @CrunchybutRealistCon
    Nobody's Right till somebody's Wrong
    Nobody's Weak till somebody's Strong,
    No One gets Lucky till Luck Comes Along,
    Nobody's lonely till somebody's Gone,

    I've seen Dark Skies, Never like this,
    Walked on some thin ice, Never like this,
    I've told you white lies, Never like this.....
  2. As the smallest group of the coalition of the fringes, social justice requires we call the extremely wealthy something other than “greedy bastards, lucky scum, thieving weasels”, etc.

  3. The Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists. They repaid that favor by demanding mass 3rd world labor.

    Not a single tear will be shed for them no matter what happens.

    • Agree: Tyrion 2, Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "The Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists." I dare say they did, but they also bought lots of protection from politicians, both (D) and (R). There's plenty more money where that came from, I'd think.

    "They repaid that favor by demanding mass 3rd world labor." Some did.

    "Not a single tear will be shed for them no matter what happens." A reasonable prediction that, but remember it's much harder to tax them effectively than is imagined by Alas Occasional-Cortex and her crew. And anyway, maybe AOC is en route to a shakedown of a familiar American sort, not en route to a Red Revolution.
    , @anon
    yeah the same instinct that voted trump as a vote against our elites might just vote far left against them both as a fuck you and as the middle continues to sink desperation forcing abandonment of principles they can no longer afford.
    even before trump declared neoreactionaries were debating whether it was better to abstain on principle or vote for clinton tactically to hasten the collapse needed for any restoration.I think many became trumpers out of spite but seeing how ineffective he could be against a entrenched deep state and cuck GOP many people who voted in spite might well vote commie party in spite at this point.AOC is more a threat to the deep state than to me and its clear im not getting my country back short of collapse and war and sooner the war better my chances of winning so AOC seems to be the move.
    Of course it might not work, as shults will undoubtedly demonstrate cuck hope springs eternal and he will likely pull more votes from trump than AOC and the deep state may again pretend to be moderate conservatives or third way which is what the GOP always has been though half its constituents never realized it until Trump.
    , @Corvinus
    "The Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists. They repaid that favor by demanding mass 3rd world labor."

    Corrected for accuracy --> The Billionaires benefitted from the tax breaks, the neutering of labor unions, lenient business regulations, and the refusal to enforce immigration laws initiated by conservatives and liberals.

    "Not a single tear will be shed for them no matter what happens."

    Not even the families or friends of billionaires?
    , @Forbes
    I dunno. Plenty of White working class and middle class vote for wild-eyed Leftists (prog-left/Democrats). Plenty of White working class and middle class are wild-eyed Leftists.

    It's not as if Whites make up 90%+ of the Republican constituency, as Blacks make up 90%+ of the Democrat constituency.

    The Billionaires might have benefited more from GOPe and Conservative Inc acquiescing to favors for 3rd world labor, and "looking the other way" as regards immigration, legal and illegal.

    The target of ire might be directed somewhere other than with The Billionaires.

    Though I share your sentiment regarding not a single tear shed...
    , @Kratoklastes

    The Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists.
     
    They benefited much more from
    ① artificial (i.e., gov-mandated) IP monopoly power;
    ② non-competitive government procurement; and
    ③ government-mandated licensure;
    ④ preferential access to capital due to proximity to .gov

    Look through any list, and see how many billionaires (genuine or otherwise) run enterprises that could seriously be considered competitive - i.e., industries with free entry and exit; no .gov 'tilt' to the playing field through tax breaks; no padded government contracts; no restrictive licensure.

    ① contains all the tech 'moguls'; ② contains most of the Death Merchants; ③ and ④ contains banksters, casino magnates, insurers, pharma guys, property developers, and oil barons.

    .

    Note also: most of the wealth of these people is actually stock in their own entities; they are highly dependent on low interest rates (because most of their stock has poor earnings quality and high debt-to-equity ratios).

    Imagine you were a billionaire, most of whose wealth was in Enron stock. Ken Lay was nowhere near the 3-comma club, but his story in a salutary reminder of how fragile stock-based 'wealth' can be.
    , @Endgame Napoleon
    This particular oligarch, like many in various types of luxury sales, benefited from millions of polite, educated, articulate, speedy multitaskers, raised by the large American middle class that has dwindled steadily over these decades of wage-undercutting, mass-scale immigration and oligarch-led inverse colonization.

    I have heard many small restaurant owners, struggling to stay afloat, say they make no margin except on the sale of drinks.........What is this business? All margin?

    Over the years, the energetic and enthusiastic employees in question were mostly white, with a few Black citizens providing the same quality service, so what does he do to thank all of these American citizens, working for far, far too little to rent a one-room apartment in the ghetto on the pay?

    A few years after the housing collapse debacle made a bad job market even worse, he makes a big virtue-signaling show of setting aside thousands of jobs for refugees.

    Starbucks hires mostly college grads. From interviewing for the job at an age when I was not likely to be hired, although my college graduation date suggested that I was in the acceptable age range, I happen to know exactly what they were paying about 12 years ago.

    It was $8 per hour, and the tip jar sometimes bumped it up to $10 per hour, they said, with managers commanding a whopping $28k. Now, many small luxury retailers truly cannot afford to pay decently, and when people accept those jobs, they often do it for a nicer, safer work environment with interesting customers or creative work, knowing that the pay will only cover a few monthly bills.

    But those small luxury retailers do not have the type of volume sales that creates a billionaire, an oligarch or whatever you want to call it in the context of a republic-in-name-only, wherein the voters cannot get anything they vote for done unless it it oligarch-approved.

    And reasonable limits on legal immigration, along with an end to welfare-aided illegal immigration, is not oligarch-approved.

    Unlike the Starbucks oligarch, most American oligarchs make bank off of welfare-subsidized, womb-productive, legal and illegal immigrant laborers who can afford to work for less, undercutting the wages of American workers for 40 years straight, due to their wage-boosting pay for sex and reproduction from the US government.

    Which is why voters in a so-called republic cannot get anything done about immigration.

    Before Starbucks finally raised wages, many employees could only afford to work there due to living with their parents who covered the major and unaffordable expense of rent, enabling the owner to pay less, just like big government covers the major expenses of many single moms, enabling them to work absenteeism-friendly office jobs for beans, and many legal / illegal inmigrants in single-breadwinner, womb-productive households are able to work for beans due to multi-layered monthly welfare and refundable child tax credits up to $6,431.

    Most Starbucks employees aren’t getting any of that pay for sex and reproduction from Uncle Sam.

    Job duties at Starbucks include getting there between 4 and 5 am and bleaching down the entire store before customers arrive. I have owned a shop and worked in many office jobs, never seeing people keeping hours like that. That’s why I don’t really find the barista jokes all that funny.

    Hard work and high-quality service should be respected, but in the USA, it is government-subsidized sex and reproduction, along with slovenly part-time or temp work that keeps glorified “working moms” under the earned-income limits for welfare during working months, that is respected.

    This is also respected: legal and illegal immigration—facilitated by welfare and child tax credits—in addition to welfare-subsidized under-the-table work, wherein the mothers of the US-born instant-citizen kids report only enough income from the male breadwinner to qualify them for welfare. This is likewise glorified due to the womb-productive sex and the labor cost savings for the oligarchs.

    Many educated, young and not-so-young, non-womb-productive or not-yet-womb-productive Americans put a lot of effort into luxury retail and luxury food services of all kinds, bringing a lot of things to it that are not respected and not rewarded by employers or big government in the least, financially speaking, although their skills (or whatever you want to call it) add a lot to the sometimes wild success of said businesses.

    Starbucks employees are almost never like America’s many family-friendly, absenteeism-friemdly office-job moms, leaving work all of the time in back-watching absenteeism gangs that are“voted best for moms.” They are almost never the ones staying strategically under the earned-income limits for hundreds in free monthly food, subsidized rent, monthly cash assistance, free electricity and up to $6,431 in refundable child tax credits.

    They just have the (until-very-recently) low, low, low, low, low pay.

    At the time that I interviewed for Starbucks up until a year or so ago, it took a full-time Starbucks employee three to four months to earn the equivalent of the yearly refundable child tax credit, given for maximum womb productivity, to part-time-working single moms on top of their free, welfare-covered, major monthly bills.

    Many of them languish there for years, working their cans off, in this fake-feminist womb-productivity-based economy full of part-time, low-wage, temporary and churn jobs. They languish there, making far too little to even cover rent, not that the office jobs pay more. Most don’t. And most are not staffed with college grads or with people holding relevant licenses in cases where that applies.

    They are staffed by married moms with spousal income, divorced moms with rent-covering child support or single moms with welfare and child tax credits, accepting extremely low pay in exchange for extremely lax absenteeism standards.

    Not so with the hardworking baristas. And until oligarchical authorities finally raised pay, all the Starbucks employees got for their hard work was the satisfaction of a job well done and a less boring job in a safer area of the city in some cases, a job less boring due to the fact that it requires them to do about 10 things at once all day long. Which makes the day go by faster in low-wage jobs.

  4. @RichardTaylor
    The Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists. They repaid that favor by demanding mass 3rd world labor.

    Not a single tear will be shed for them no matter what happens.

    “The Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists.” I dare say they did, but they also bought lots of protection from politicians, both (D) and (R). There’s plenty more money where that came from, I’d think.

    “They repaid that favor by demanding mass 3rd world labor.” Some did.

    “Not a single tear will be shed for them no matter what happens.” A reasonable prediction that, but remember it’s much harder to tax them effectively than is imagined by Alas Occasional-Cortex and her crew. And anyway, maybe AOC is en route to a shakedown of a familiar American sort, not en route to a Red Revolution.

    • Replies: @Clyde

    A reasonable prediction that, but remember it’s much harder to tax them effectively than is imagined by Alas Occasional-Cortex and her crew. And anyway, maybe AOC is en route to a shakedown of a familiar American sort, not en route to a Red Revolution.
     
    It is very easy to tax billionaires. You tax their wealth/ Presidente Ocasio-Cortez Mountain Dew Rayban Elizondo says to Jeff Bezos --- "We see all your wealth is in Amazon shares. Your tax is to hand over 7% of them each April 15th"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6667889/Rich-Kids-Venezuela-including-Socialist-leader-Hugo-Chavezs-daughter-flaunt-wealth.html
    The Rich Kids of Venezuela - including Socialist revolution leader Hugo Chavez’s daughter - flaunt their wealth with fist-fulls of cash and lavish holidays while the nation starves

    Rich kids of Venezuela's socialist elite flash their money and pose with pop-stars
    Hugo Chavez's daughter is rumoured to have a personal fortune of $4billion
    Maria Gabriela, 38, earned her fortune while acting as first lady to her father
    Gabriela – and other children of Venezuela’s socialist elite - appear to have forgotten Hugo Chavez’s galvanizing motto ‘to be rich is bad’

     

    , @Almost Missouri

    "...but they also bought lots of protection from politicians, both (D) and (R)..."
     
    Yes, but isn't that how "Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists”?

    Buying weaselly, subcompetent politicians only matters because the government has the power to enlist the working and middle classes into your cause.

    In effect, politicians are just (one of) the choke point(s) through which People of Wealth are able to punch above their measly demographic weight in a democracy.

    Sorry to sound libertarian, but if the FedGov were restricted back to its traditional Constitutional role, PoW buying politicians wouldn't matter so much.

    , @tyrone
    Does'nt anyone read Aesop's fables any more ? …you the one with the goose(YT) that lays golden eggs.
    , @Anon
    The inability to tax rich people is a stock statement of fact from Cuckservative Inc. Personally I would tie taxation to citizenship and strip the citizenship from people and corporations that use tax havens as a start.

    This would likely require things like establishing a tie between corporations and ownership but these can be sorted out. Just remember there is a good appetite to make these kind of changes from all sides of the political spectrum except the Democratic and Republican Establishments and their supporters.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    dearime, AOC wants to uber tax the wealthy, ok, but she dresses pretty nicely for some one who until recently had meager means. Solution, tax their campaign war chests at the same level as the very wealthy.
  5. Actually, fair enough. If people are going to affect an aristocratic tone (people of colour/Otto von Bismarck) merely by their race then it makes full sense that billionaires do the same. At least it makes sense as regards people of wealth.

    Personally, I prefer to go full Malay Sultan. That is, the more words in your title the better.

    E.g

    Billionaires = Diverse individual Homo Sapiens aggregated together by reason of them all being of at least ten figures of wealth as denominated in standard United States Dollars (peace be upon them) defensores fidei.

  6. Ya’ll privileged bigots need to stop marginalizing communities of wealth and start being ALLIES.

  7. @dearieme
    "The Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists." I dare say they did, but they also bought lots of protection from politicians, both (D) and (R). There's plenty more money where that came from, I'd think.

    "They repaid that favor by demanding mass 3rd world labor." Some did.

    "Not a single tear will be shed for them no matter what happens." A reasonable prediction that, but remember it's much harder to tax them effectively than is imagined by Alas Occasional-Cortex and her crew. And anyway, maybe AOC is en route to a shakedown of a familiar American sort, not en route to a Red Revolution.

    A reasonable prediction that, but remember it’s much harder to tax them effectively than is imagined by Alas Occasional-Cortex and her crew. And anyway, maybe AOC is en route to a shakedown of a familiar American sort, not en route to a Red Revolution.

    It is very easy to tax billionaires. You tax their wealth/ Presidente Ocasio-Cortez Mountain Dew Rayban Elizondo says to Jeff Bezos — “We see all your wealth is in Amazon shares. Your tax is to hand over 7% of them each April 15th”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6667889/Rich-Kids-Venezuela-including-Socialist-leader-Hugo-Chavezs-daughter-flaunt-wealth.html
    The Rich Kids of Venezuela – including Socialist revolution leader Hugo Chavez’s daughter – flaunt their wealth with fist-fulls of cash and lavish holidays while the nation starves

    Rich kids of Venezuela’s socialist elite flash their money and pose with pop-stars
    Hugo Chavez’s daughter is rumoured to have a personal fortune of $4billion
    Maria Gabriela, 38, earned her fortune while acting as first lady to her father
    Gabriela – and other children of Venezuela’s socialist elite – appear to have forgotten Hugo Chavez’s galvanizing motto ‘to be rich is bad’

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    This is one of those "counter-intuitive" things.

    Billionaires are part of what a Pareto distribution of wealth _means_. The Pareto Type 1 distribution has two parameters: a minimum value parameter k, and a shape parameter, alpha. Minimum value , for a real population would be the wealth needed to buy food and nothing else -- presumably there aren't many people with an income below k. Alpha determines how unequally wealth is distributed. The higher alpha, the more inequality.

    Pareto, as I recall, found that
    a) All societies he studied had a Pareto distribution of wealth and, I believe, income.
    b) The more complex societies [1] had a higher alpha than less complex societies: alpha varies _with_ complexity, not against.

    Pareto pointed out that this is consistent with historical data as well as his contemporary data. Past societies were less complex than contemporary societies, and had high degrees of wealth concentration.

    One consequence of this is as follows:
    * Increased regulation of economic activity _reduces_ social complexity by forbidding certain interactions.
    Example: Stalin's forced draft military preparations in the ramp up to WW II. Stalin so effectively prohibited certain economic activities that quite a bit of adjusting Stalin's plans on the micro level could only be carried out by professional criminals (of the heavily tattooed Russian type). Hypothetical but realistic micro example: "We need two miles of copper wire to finish this three year project on time, and if we're late, it's the Gulag for at least some of us.

    So: If you do something crude, like confiscating capital (As Stalin did, as FDR did, as JFK and LBJ did) then you _increase_ inequality. If you're very determined and have the backup, as Stalin did, you in effect own everything, and inequality is maximized.

    Regulation is counterproductive.

    What's productive? Look at Weber's classic [2], but remember that a second Protestant Reformation isn't likely, and the first one was pretty bloody _and_ maybe 300 years to produce the Industrial Revolution.

    J. Peterson has a few quite things to say about trying to fix the world when you can't fix anything else [3]. I'll just say that things are harder than they look, so be wary of making a huge change while ignoring the last several times that particular change was tried [4].

    Taxing the Hell out of things is not a serious remedy, it's more of a CG&LoE approach.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_complexity

    2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism

    3] J. Peterson
    _12 Rules for Life_

    4] Q: Is Marxism a science or a philosophy?
    A: A philosophy. If it were a science, they would have tried it out on dogs first.
    Cold war era Russian joke.
    , @Redneck farmer
    Quit attacking the woman of my dreams!(Since the soon-to-be-ex-Mrs. Bezos filed that court order.)
    , @Hypnotoad666
    In my opinion, one of the huge problems with the rhetoric about wealth and income distribution is that it fails to make any distinction between investment and consumption.

    It's absurd to be resentful of "wealth accumulation" or even "income" so long as that money is being plowed back and put to work as productive capital in the economy -- e.g., factories, R&D, operating capital for job-producing ventures, etc., etc. Taxing capital in this state is basically just "cutting muscle" from the productive economy.

    If, and when, this capital is withdrawn from productive economic use and consumed by the owner for his own personal gratification (or that of his heirs), you can perhaps start getting jealous and resentful.

    In many cases, however, the accumulated wealth of billionaires is never reduced to personal consumption. For example, Bill Gates has piled up scores of billions that he will never spend and 99% of it will eventually go to a pretty well-run charity. If you imposed a wealth tax on his assets you would basically be taxing impoverished Africans.

    The best tax system would be: (a) progressive; and (b) use consumption rather than investment as its "taxable base."
  8. In the future, everyone will be a member of an oppressed, marginalized group with a carefully selected name for fifteen minutes.

  9. “Well, that’s perhaps not exactly what the Starbucks founder and Presidential candidate said …”

    It’s the “people of” part of the identifier that is important anyway.

    Some people just know how to spin themselves into the victim better than others.

  10. “I’m not in bed with any special interest…” Hmmmmmm… Not one? Not even our greatest ally?

    • Replies: @rufus
    The Big Coffee lobby ??
  11. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:
    @RichardTaylor
    The Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists. They repaid that favor by demanding mass 3rd world labor.

    Not a single tear will be shed for them no matter what happens.

    yeah the same instinct that voted trump as a vote against our elites might just vote far left against them both as a fuck you and as the middle continues to sink desperation forcing abandonment of principles they can no longer afford.
    even before trump declared neoreactionaries were debating whether it was better to abstain on principle or vote for clinton tactically to hasten the collapse needed for any restoration.I think many became trumpers out of spite but seeing how ineffective he could be against a entrenched deep state and cuck GOP many people who voted in spite might well vote commie party in spite at this point.AOC is more a threat to the deep state than to me and its clear im not getting my country back short of collapse and war and sooner the war better my chances of winning so AOC seems to be the move.
    Of course it might not work, as shults will undoubtedly demonstrate cuck hope springs eternal and he will likely pull more votes from trump than AOC and the deep state may again pretend to be moderate conservatives or third way which is what the GOP always has been though half its constituents never realized it until Trump.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Many Bernie Bros voted for Trump.
    , @Paleo Liberal
    Except AOC cannot run for President until 2024 at the earliest. Assuming she is still a Big Thing then.

    Your analysis has a lot of merit. I believe a number of people voted for Trump as a way to counter the powers behind the government. Trouble is, Trump seems not to want to disturb them. I personally think he made a deal with them to support him and he wouldn’t actually so most of what he was expected to do.

    I also agree (unless I am misreading you) that if thunder on the right doesn’t work people will very like turn to thunder on the left.

    I also agree with many posters here that AOC is not a real revolutionary, but more of a left wing reformer who looks like a revolutionary. Or am I reading too much into people’s comments?

    I personally think that if Trump doesn’t work out, there is a strong chance voters will go for the semi-radical left (Sanders, Warren, etc. ).

    If that doesn’t work, then we may see some truly radical changes.
  12. @dearieme
    "The Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists." I dare say they did, but they also bought lots of protection from politicians, both (D) and (R). There's plenty more money where that came from, I'd think.

    "They repaid that favor by demanding mass 3rd world labor." Some did.

    "Not a single tear will be shed for them no matter what happens." A reasonable prediction that, but remember it's much harder to tax them effectively than is imagined by Alas Occasional-Cortex and her crew. And anyway, maybe AOC is en route to a shakedown of a familiar American sort, not en route to a Red Revolution.

    “…but they also bought lots of protection from politicians, both (D) and (R)…”

    Yes, but isn’t that how “Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists”?

    Buying weaselly, subcompetent politicians only matters because the government has the power to enlist the working and middle classes into your cause.

    In effect, politicians are just (one of) the choke point(s) through which People of Wealth are able to punch above their measly demographic weight in a democracy.

    Sorry to sound libertarian, but if the FedGov were restricted back to its traditional Constitutional role, PoW buying politicians wouldn’t matter so much.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Sorry to sound libertarian, ...
     
    You're forgiven ... wait, what the?!!

    There's no reason to apologize, A.M. You are quite right that without an out-of-Constitutional-control government, Big-Biz and the People of Moolah would have nobody to do their bidding. There would be no way for them to force the American population into their anti-American schemes without the force of arms of Feral Government if there were no laws, written by them, allowing it.

    I had a long, long back-and-forth discussion about EXACTLY THIS with a number of Commies under VDare's Washington Watcher's post called "Tucker Carlson Routs Conservatism Inc. On Unrestrained Capitalism—and Immigration" -- Unz has a bug in which links to his own site do not appear as links when published, so here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/tucker-carlson-routs-conservatism-inc-on-unrestrained-capitalism-and-immigration/

  13. In that 1 min 14 sec video, Howard Schultz shows that he meets one of the presidential eligibility requirements set forth in the Constitution: demonstrate a sense of humor.

    Schultz allocates the first 60 seconds of the clip to explaining why people with his (Bloomberg’s/Trump’s/Clinton’s) level of wealth shouldn’t be President. Then segues to 14 seconds of My candidacy is different, because I’m me.

    LOL.

  14. @dearieme
    "The Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists." I dare say they did, but they also bought lots of protection from politicians, both (D) and (R). There's plenty more money where that came from, I'd think.

    "They repaid that favor by demanding mass 3rd world labor." Some did.

    "Not a single tear will be shed for them no matter what happens." A reasonable prediction that, but remember it's much harder to tax them effectively than is imagined by Alas Occasional-Cortex and her crew. And anyway, maybe AOC is en route to a shakedown of a familiar American sort, not en route to a Red Revolution.

    Does’nt anyone read Aesop’s fables any more ? …you the one with the goose(YT) that lays golden eggs.

  15. @Dave Pinsen
    https://twitter.com/aaronmesh/status/1092590959726977024?s=21

    That threat really brings it out though.

    Including calls to boycott Starbucks because someone thinks he’s in a democracy.

    “Mob power. Isn’t that how democracy works?”

    • Replies: @Bies Podkrakowski

    “Mob power. Isn’t that how democracy works?”
     
    This definition matches observed reality.
  16. @anon
    yeah the same instinct that voted trump as a vote against our elites might just vote far left against them both as a fuck you and as the middle continues to sink desperation forcing abandonment of principles they can no longer afford.
    even before trump declared neoreactionaries were debating whether it was better to abstain on principle or vote for clinton tactically to hasten the collapse needed for any restoration.I think many became trumpers out of spite but seeing how ineffective he could be against a entrenched deep state and cuck GOP many people who voted in spite might well vote commie party in spite at this point.AOC is more a threat to the deep state than to me and its clear im not getting my country back short of collapse and war and sooner the war better my chances of winning so AOC seems to be the move.
    Of course it might not work, as shults will undoubtedly demonstrate cuck hope springs eternal and he will likely pull more votes from trump than AOC and the deep state may again pretend to be moderate conservatives or third way which is what the GOP always has been though half its constituents never realized it until Trump.

    Many Bernie Bros voted for Trump.

  17. I’m not sure Shultz understands the Democratic electorate.

    I propose that he instead uses the term “money trees. “

  18. @Clyde

    A reasonable prediction that, but remember it’s much harder to tax them effectively than is imagined by Alas Occasional-Cortex and her crew. And anyway, maybe AOC is en route to a shakedown of a familiar American sort, not en route to a Red Revolution.
     
    It is very easy to tax billionaires. You tax their wealth/ Presidente Ocasio-Cortez Mountain Dew Rayban Elizondo says to Jeff Bezos --- "We see all your wealth is in Amazon shares. Your tax is to hand over 7% of them each April 15th"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6667889/Rich-Kids-Venezuela-including-Socialist-leader-Hugo-Chavezs-daughter-flaunt-wealth.html
    The Rich Kids of Venezuela - including Socialist revolution leader Hugo Chavez’s daughter - flaunt their wealth with fist-fulls of cash and lavish holidays while the nation starves

    Rich kids of Venezuela's socialist elite flash their money and pose with pop-stars
    Hugo Chavez's daughter is rumoured to have a personal fortune of $4billion
    Maria Gabriela, 38, earned her fortune while acting as first lady to her father
    Gabriela – and other children of Venezuela’s socialist elite - appear to have forgotten Hugo Chavez’s galvanizing motto ‘to be rich is bad’

     

    This is one of those “counter-intuitive” things.

    Billionaires are part of what a Pareto distribution of wealth _means_. The Pareto Type 1 distribution has two parameters: a minimum value parameter k, and a shape parameter, alpha. Minimum value , for a real population would be the wealth needed to buy food and nothing else — presumably there aren’t many people with an income below k. Alpha determines how unequally wealth is distributed. The higher alpha, the more inequality.

    Pareto, as I recall, found that
    a) All societies he studied had a Pareto distribution of wealth and, I believe, income.
    b) The more complex societies [1] had a higher alpha than less complex societies: alpha varies _with_ complexity, not against.

    Pareto pointed out that this is consistent with historical data as well as his contemporary data. Past societies were less complex than contemporary societies, and had high degrees of wealth concentration.

    One consequence of this is as follows:
    * Increased regulation of economic activity _reduces_ social complexity by forbidding certain interactions.
    Example: Stalin’s forced draft military preparations in the ramp up to WW II. Stalin so effectively prohibited certain economic activities that quite a bit of adjusting Stalin’s plans on the micro level could only be carried out by professional criminals (of the heavily tattooed Russian type). Hypothetical but realistic micro example: “We need two miles of copper wire to finish this three year project on time, and if we’re late, it’s the Gulag for at least some of us.

    So: If you do something crude, like confiscating capital (As Stalin did, as FDR did, as JFK and LBJ did) then you _increase_ inequality. If you’re very determined and have the backup, as Stalin did, you in effect own everything, and inequality is maximized.

    Regulation is counterproductive.

    What’s productive? Look at Weber’s classic [2], but remember that a second Protestant Reformation isn’t likely, and the first one was pretty bloody _and_ maybe 300 years to produce the Industrial Revolution.

    J. Peterson has a few quite things to say about trying to fix the world when you can’t fix anything else [3]. I’ll just say that things are harder than they look, so be wary of making a huge change while ignoring the last several times that particular change was tried [4].

    Taxing the Hell out of things is not a serious remedy, it’s more of a CG&LoE approach.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_complexity

    2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism

    3] J. Peterson
    _12 Rules for Life_

    4] Q: Is Marxism a science or a philosophy?
    A: A philosophy. If it were a science, they would have tried it out on dogs first.
    Cold war era Russian joke.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Jack D

    If you’re very determined and have the backup, as Stalin did, you in effect own everything, and inequality is maximized.
     
    It's worse than that - although the "state" becomes the nominal owner of capital, in reality capital gets shifted from wealth creators to the dictator, his family and his inner circle. They know how to spend it but have no idea how to create more of it - it becomes a wasting asset. If they do produce stuff at all, the capital is poorly deployed and produces a much lower return than it would if it were left in the hands of people who knew what to do with it.

    I'm sure Occasional Cortex would have lots of good ideas on how to spend Howard Schultz's money, just like Chavez knew how to spend the oil wealth of Venezuela - a little on their followers, a lot on their family and inner circle. But as far as ideas for creating new wealth, fuggedaboutit.
    , @Kratoklastes
    Part of the reason that 'more complex' societies have higher inequality, is that there is more supernumerary output (i.e., output above subsistence) to be harvested and redistributed to cronies.

    The way societies get to 'complexity' is by generating sufficient surplus to be able to develop and replenish/renew capital stocks, which drives higher productivity - the virtuous circle. It has nothing whatsoever to do with government.

    Cross-sectionally, the lack of supernumerary output in 'less complex' (but still modern) societies, limits the amount that can be extracted in taxation. This limits the return on rent-seeking (it still exists, but cannot capture a large proportion of national output: it mostly happens through aid diversion).

    Once supernumerary output rises to the extent that the second decile is at almost-zero risk of actual starvation, the rape can begin: tax rates rise (and the tax system becomes more regressive), and the tax pot becomes the object of competition between different claques of rent-seekers.

    And by the time a country reaches Western levels of affluence, the amount of tax money available for cronies gets truly staggering.

    Paretian outcomes are a natural feature of human societies - because in low-complexity (primitive and pre-Industrial) societies, individual outcomes depend on a combination of talent, luck, endowments and endeavour; those qualities are weakly correlated with each other, and with life outcomes. Obviously 'endowments' are generally low across the board at that stage.

    If those 4 characteristics were all uniformly distributed, the fact that they're only weakly correlated means that the eventual distribution has a very small proportion who are fortunate enough to have all 4 (it's the solution to Pr(A ∧ B ∧ C ∧ D) where A, B, C, and D are the levels of talent, luck, endowment and endeavour required to exceed normal returns).

    So yes: the distribution of outcomes will be Paretian (which basically means that the top 1% will have ~50% of wealth: that literally just happens).

    But here's the thing: once a political class exists, and output per capita rises to a level where taxation generates a pot of concentrated wealth (and power) that reaches genuine significance, another set of characteristics comes into play - and they're highly negative characteristics if they manifest prior to the existence of a political class (so much so that any public display of them will get you killed).

    The composition of the 1% changes radically - away from merit - and membership depends more on possession of these 'other' characteristics, in conjunction with only moderate levels of the 'good' characteristics.

    Those new determinative factors: Parasitism and sociopathy.

    In a modern complex society, those traits - combined with modest talent, a bit of luck and focused, rent-seeking endeavour - are the keys to the kingdom.

    So societies move from a meritocracy in societies of modest complexity, to an epistocracy/aristocracy[1] in societies of moderate complexity... to a kleptocracy , and they are kleptocratic well before they reach the level of complexity associated with modern Western economies (in fact, any society that generates a tax pot capable of building a pyramid, is already an open kleptocracy).



    [1] aristocracy is used here in its technical sense from the Greek aristos ("best"); the word's usage has changed to such an extent that it now means "entitled by dint of birth" - and that change in usage happened before the end of the 18th century (which gives a clue as to when advancing kleptocracy became obvious to the commoner).
  19. @Almost Missouri

    "...but they also bought lots of protection from politicians, both (D) and (R)..."
     
    Yes, but isn't that how "Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists”?

    Buying weaselly, subcompetent politicians only matters because the government has the power to enlist the working and middle classes into your cause.

    In effect, politicians are just (one of) the choke point(s) through which People of Wealth are able to punch above their measly demographic weight in a democracy.

    Sorry to sound libertarian, but if the FedGov were restricted back to its traditional Constitutional role, PoW buying politicians wouldn't matter so much.

    Sorry to sound libertarian, …

    You’re forgiven … wait, what the?!!

    There’s no reason to apologize, A.M. You are quite right that without an out-of-Constitutional-control government, Big-Biz and the People of Moolah would have nobody to do their bidding. There would be no way for them to force the American population into their anti-American schemes without the force of arms of Feral Government if there were no laws, written by them, allowing it.

    I had a long, long back-and-forth discussion about EXACTLY THIS with a number of Commies under VDare’s Washington Watcher’s post called “Tucker Carlson Routs Conservatism Inc. On Unrestrained Capitalism—and Immigration” — Unz has a bug in which links to his own site do not appear as links when published, so here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/tucker-carlson-routs-conservatism-inc-on-unrestrained-capitalism-and-immigration/

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Haha, okay, point taken.

    But let us not forget that the FedGov originally became big as a supposed remedy to the outsized influence of the moneyed elite: first the Progressives versus the "Trusts" of the early 20th century, then FDR's quasi-fascist "New Deal" versus, well, pretty much everything that had gone before.
  20. @anon
    yeah the same instinct that voted trump as a vote against our elites might just vote far left against them both as a fuck you and as the middle continues to sink desperation forcing abandonment of principles they can no longer afford.
    even before trump declared neoreactionaries were debating whether it was better to abstain on principle or vote for clinton tactically to hasten the collapse needed for any restoration.I think many became trumpers out of spite but seeing how ineffective he could be against a entrenched deep state and cuck GOP many people who voted in spite might well vote commie party in spite at this point.AOC is more a threat to the deep state than to me and its clear im not getting my country back short of collapse and war and sooner the war better my chances of winning so AOC seems to be the move.
    Of course it might not work, as shults will undoubtedly demonstrate cuck hope springs eternal and he will likely pull more votes from trump than AOC and the deep state may again pretend to be moderate conservatives or third way which is what the GOP always has been though half its constituents never realized it until Trump.

    Except AOC cannot run for President until 2024 at the earliest. Assuming she is still a Big Thing then.

    Your analysis has a lot of merit. I believe a number of people voted for Trump as a way to counter the powers behind the government. Trouble is, Trump seems not to want to disturb them. I personally think he made a deal with them to support him and he wouldn’t actually so most of what he was expected to do.

    I also agree (unless I am misreading you) that if thunder on the right doesn’t work people will very like turn to thunder on the left.

    I also agree with many posters here that AOC is not a real revolutionary, but more of a left wing reformer who looks like a revolutionary. Or am I reading too much into people’s comments?

    I personally think that if Trump doesn’t work out, there is a strong chance voters will go for the semi-radical left (Sanders, Warren, etc. ).

    If that doesn’t work, then we may see some truly radical changes.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    Your analysis has a lot of merit.
     
    Thanks for supporting the illiterate musings of an incoherent poster. If we were wondering about your advocacy for leftism (i.e. tyranny) you have disabused us of our equivocal considerations of your occasional accuracy.

    The "thunder of the left" is the siren song of slavery, the trumpet of the Soviets, the carrying card of the "International" - and we know how that has worked out.

    How many dead would dissuade you of your Marxist superstitions? Because 100 million was not enough.

    How many, P. Liberal? How many innocents are needed to turn you from your path?
  21. So, he didn’t want to stick with PoS?

  22. Feminists in academia are now calling normal women “people of uterus” in their papers. This is to distinguish them from women without a uterus and women with a penis. I’ve read some of these papers on my podcast. People assumed I was making it up, but sadly, it is a real thing.

    My suggestion was “people of womb” was better, as POW has a nice ring to it. That way, heterosexual males could be “people of penis” or POP. The non-binary, gender non-specific, gays, queers, lesbians, et al could then call their enemies, POP and POW.

    • Replies: @Pericles

    Feminists in academia are now calling normal women “people of uterus” in their papers. This is to distinguish them from women without a uterus and women with a penis.

     

    So they exclude women who have had a hysterectomy. That's not nice.
    , @Anonymous

    The non-binary, gender non-specific, gays, queers, lesbians, et al could then call their enemies, POP and POW.
     
    Sock! Pow! Zock! POP!



    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VSaDPc1Cs5U
    , @Toddy Cat
    Just when you think that the modern Left has gone as far as they can go, and are beyond parody, something like this happens. You have to wonder how an old-fashioned "Down with Bourgeoisie Decadence" Socialist like Bernie Sanders, who can remember his heroes like Fidel Castro throwing gays and trannies into concentration camps, feels about this stuff.
  23. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:

    The question of who schultz hurts really comes down to what happened in midterms.
    districts trump won election dems and elected dems after two years of dems going full stalin, what kind of former trump voter goes from trump to party of AOC?
    The kind Schultz is targetting.At first I thought He was ore likely to siphon Trump voters than Dem voters. Now I think maybe not, but really because Trumps about to lose anyway.
    Shultz or Bloomberg are going after the soccer mom crowd, They voted for Trump during a time the world was convinced Hillary was going to win in a landslide and Trump was just a joke. Some percentage of the soccer moms (which have a allegedly male equivalent) decided Trump was not so bad Hillary was horrible and something was wrong with the world they couldn’t (wouldn’t) put their finger on. But then Trump won and he went from being a joke to the most hated man in the world, and these soccer moms had to sit in silence for two years while everyone wondered what kind of low class moronic cretin piece of nazi shit voted for Trump. Now soccer people are all about status and holiness signalling ( yeah its the same thing but they see it differently) and so by the midterms, understanding their secret shameful electoral faux pas they went ahead and voted democrat.without these voters Trumps not going to win, we might hope the hard shift left of dems might help trump but these cucks are about status not policy they buy their way out of policy effect and part of how they can afford to buy out is buy thinking as instructed.
    I think America is going to find it really hard to vote for another black after Obama but a leftist jew billionaire might really appeal compared to Trump who has always been considered low class by this class.And of course the jews are big Dem donors so theres that.My guess is a shultz or bloomberg could force the dems to adopt them as the candidate once they have begun to break off donors and soccer moms enough. Because they will realize the race is theres to lose if they allow the jews to JGTOW. Are the dems really going to insist on Karamella or Pocahontas knowing full well Trump can beat them. The dems are too far left and they know it they just dont see how to escape the trap JGTOW is their lifeline

  24. Mean People

  25. Anon[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @dearieme
    "The Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists." I dare say they did, but they also bought lots of protection from politicians, both (D) and (R). There's plenty more money where that came from, I'd think.

    "They repaid that favor by demanding mass 3rd world labor." Some did.

    "Not a single tear will be shed for them no matter what happens." A reasonable prediction that, but remember it's much harder to tax them effectively than is imagined by Alas Occasional-Cortex and her crew. And anyway, maybe AOC is en route to a shakedown of a familiar American sort, not en route to a Red Revolution.

    The inability to tax rich people is a stock statement of fact from Cuckservative Inc. Personally I would tie taxation to citizenship and strip the citizenship from people and corporations that use tax havens as a start.

    This would likely require things like establishing a tie between corporations and ownership but these can be sorted out. Just remember there is a good appetite to make these kind of changes from all sides of the political spectrum except the Democratic and Republican Establishments and their supporters.

    • Replies: @dvorak

    The inability to tax rich people is a stock statement of fact from Cuckservative Inc.
     
    It's outdated, too. After each successful escape, Congress buttoned up the loophole. American citizens are taxed on their worldwide income. If they renounce their citizenship, they have to pay an exit tax which is essentially a capital-gains or estate tax taken upon exit.

    The way to avoid income taxes is the tech tycoon way: Never sell your shares, never sell your company for cash (only exchange shares for shares, tax-free), never allow dividends, and live off of endless personal loans against your shares. Personal loans are not taxed. Page and Brin live tax-free on salaries of $1/year. All of their worldly activities that cannot be expensed to the company are funded by personal loans against their shareholdings. Larry Ellison showed the way:
    https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Inside-look-at-a-billionaire-s-budget-Larry-2542603.php

    But a wealth tax would really work against these guys. Put it at 8% (the stock market's average return) to make it sporting.

  26. @Achmed E. Newman

    Sorry to sound libertarian, ...
     
    You're forgiven ... wait, what the?!!

    There's no reason to apologize, A.M. You are quite right that without an out-of-Constitutional-control government, Big-Biz and the People of Moolah would have nobody to do their bidding. There would be no way for them to force the American population into their anti-American schemes without the force of arms of Feral Government if there were no laws, written by them, allowing it.

    I had a long, long back-and-forth discussion about EXACTLY THIS with a number of Commies under VDare's Washington Watcher's post called "Tucker Carlson Routs Conservatism Inc. On Unrestrained Capitalism—and Immigration" -- Unz has a bug in which links to his own site do not appear as links when published, so here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/tucker-carlson-routs-conservatism-inc-on-unrestrained-capitalism-and-immigration/

    Haha, okay, point taken.

    But let us not forget that the FedGov originally became big as a supposed remedy to the outsized influence of the moneyed elite: first the Progressives versus the “Trusts” of the early 20th century, then FDR’s quasi-fascist “New Deal” versus, well, pretty much everything that had gone before.

  27. The very rich should be called ‘People of oppulent riches’, or ‘the Poor’, for short.

    We must do more to help the Poor. This is something that all right-thinking people can agree upon.

    • Agree: Ron Mexico
  28. @RichardTaylor
    The Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists. They repaid that favor by demanding mass 3rd world labor.

    Not a single tear will be shed for them no matter what happens.

    “The Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists. They repaid that favor by demanding mass 3rd world labor.”

    Corrected for accuracy –> The Billionaires benefitted from the tax breaks, the neutering of labor unions, lenient business regulations, and the refusal to enforce immigration laws initiated by conservatives and liberals.

    “Not a single tear will be shed for them no matter what happens.”

    Not even the families or friends of billionaires?

  29. @El Dato
    That threat really brings it out though.

    Including calls to boycott Starbucks because someone thinks he's in a democracy.

    "Mob power. Isn't that how democracy works?"

    “Mob power. Isn’t that how democracy works?”

    This definition matches observed reality.

  30. Well, that’s perhaps not exactly what the Starbucks founder and Presidential candidate said …

    Yeah, actually it isn’t really the gist of his comment. He did seem to want to wiggle out from the “billionaires” moniker, but i think that was more in service of his spin. Basically he put forward a fairly reasonable statement (not really much of an argument) that wealthy people were through buying political influence getting things there way–including a big emphasis on “special interests”.

    This isn’t ridiculous. But Schultz offers nothing.. We already know his schtick–the Jewish minoritarian woke capitalist bullshit. It’s not just useless to ordinary productive middle class Americans it’s outright hostile to their interests.

    What Americans need isn’t complicated: An end to the immigration driven destruction of the value of their labor, along with all the huge negative externalities (taxes, housing, schooling, traffic, environment, cultural cohesion, etc. etc.) that go with it. Secondarily, sure, fewer parasite hands–Wall Strett, Washington, academics, bureacrats, regulatory driven fluff, welfare scum, criminals, etc.–in the till would be great. But we can actually afford nonsense like the F35 debacle, the “Department of Education”, “financial consultants”, HR diversity coordinators and even Wall Street bailouts if we can keep it down to maybe once a generation.

    But what non-people-of-means Americans can’t afford is to have their labor value driven toward zero and the nation they inherited given away. That is precisely what Schultz billionaires club is doing and what must be overthrown for Americans’ lives to get better.

  31. @Counterinsurgency
    This is one of those "counter-intuitive" things.

    Billionaires are part of what a Pareto distribution of wealth _means_. The Pareto Type 1 distribution has two parameters: a minimum value parameter k, and a shape parameter, alpha. Minimum value , for a real population would be the wealth needed to buy food and nothing else -- presumably there aren't many people with an income below k. Alpha determines how unequally wealth is distributed. The higher alpha, the more inequality.

    Pareto, as I recall, found that
    a) All societies he studied had a Pareto distribution of wealth and, I believe, income.
    b) The more complex societies [1] had a higher alpha than less complex societies: alpha varies _with_ complexity, not against.

    Pareto pointed out that this is consistent with historical data as well as his contemporary data. Past societies were less complex than contemporary societies, and had high degrees of wealth concentration.

    One consequence of this is as follows:
    * Increased regulation of economic activity _reduces_ social complexity by forbidding certain interactions.
    Example: Stalin's forced draft military preparations in the ramp up to WW II. Stalin so effectively prohibited certain economic activities that quite a bit of adjusting Stalin's plans on the micro level could only be carried out by professional criminals (of the heavily tattooed Russian type). Hypothetical but realistic micro example: "We need two miles of copper wire to finish this three year project on time, and if we're late, it's the Gulag for at least some of us.

    So: If you do something crude, like confiscating capital (As Stalin did, as FDR did, as JFK and LBJ did) then you _increase_ inequality. If you're very determined and have the backup, as Stalin did, you in effect own everything, and inequality is maximized.

    Regulation is counterproductive.

    What's productive? Look at Weber's classic [2], but remember that a second Protestant Reformation isn't likely, and the first one was pretty bloody _and_ maybe 300 years to produce the Industrial Revolution.

    J. Peterson has a few quite things to say about trying to fix the world when you can't fix anything else [3]. I'll just say that things are harder than they look, so be wary of making a huge change while ignoring the last several times that particular change was tried [4].

    Taxing the Hell out of things is not a serious remedy, it's more of a CG&LoE approach.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_complexity

    2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism

    3] J. Peterson
    _12 Rules for Life_

    4] Q: Is Marxism a science or a philosophy?
    A: A philosophy. If it were a science, they would have tried it out on dogs first.
    Cold war era Russian joke.

    If you’re very determined and have the backup, as Stalin did, you in effect own everything, and inequality is maximized.

    It’s worse than that – although the “state” becomes the nominal owner of capital, in reality capital gets shifted from wealth creators to the dictator, his family and his inner circle. They know how to spend it but have no idea how to create more of it – it becomes a wasting asset. If they do produce stuff at all, the capital is poorly deployed and produces a much lower return than it would if it were left in the hands of people who knew what to do with it.

    I’m sure Occasional Cortex would have lots of good ideas on how to spend Howard Schultz’s money, just like Chavez knew how to spend the oil wealth of Venezuela – a little on their followers, a lot on their family and inner circle. But as far as ideas for creating new wealth, fuggedaboutit.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    There'll be inequality under any regime. Socialists can hide the inequality by flattening the pay scale, but then the good stuff just gets allocated by non-market means. In the USSR the fancy Black Sea resorts didn't charge high room rates, but you couldn't go to them for any price unless you held the right job.

    Worse, in a desperately poor country (Venezuela, or the pre-war USSR) being "poor" has deadly consequences. It means you don't have clean drinking water, or you can't get anesthesia. That's a far cry from what it means to be poor in America.

  32. The fact that as CEO of Starbucks Schultz urged his baristas to “start a conversation about race” with customers tells me he’s too loony to entrust with political power.

    • Agree: Kaganovitch
  33. @Clyde

    A reasonable prediction that, but remember it’s much harder to tax them effectively than is imagined by Alas Occasional-Cortex and her crew. And anyway, maybe AOC is en route to a shakedown of a familiar American sort, not en route to a Red Revolution.
     
    It is very easy to tax billionaires. You tax their wealth/ Presidente Ocasio-Cortez Mountain Dew Rayban Elizondo says to Jeff Bezos --- "We see all your wealth is in Amazon shares. Your tax is to hand over 7% of them each April 15th"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6667889/Rich-Kids-Venezuela-including-Socialist-leader-Hugo-Chavezs-daughter-flaunt-wealth.html
    The Rich Kids of Venezuela - including Socialist revolution leader Hugo Chavez’s daughter - flaunt their wealth with fist-fulls of cash and lavish holidays while the nation starves

    Rich kids of Venezuela's socialist elite flash their money and pose with pop-stars
    Hugo Chavez's daughter is rumoured to have a personal fortune of $4billion
    Maria Gabriela, 38, earned her fortune while acting as first lady to her father
    Gabriela – and other children of Venezuela’s socialist elite - appear to have forgotten Hugo Chavez’s galvanizing motto ‘to be rich is bad’

     

    Quit attacking the woman of my dreams!(Since the soon-to-be-ex-Mrs. Bezos filed that court order.)

  34. @RichardTaylor
    The Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists. They repaid that favor by demanding mass 3rd world labor.

    Not a single tear will be shed for them no matter what happens.

    I dunno. Plenty of White working class and middle class vote for wild-eyed Leftists (prog-left/Democrats). Plenty of White working class and middle class are wild-eyed Leftists.

    It’s not as if Whites make up 90%+ of the Republican constituency, as Blacks make up 90%+ of the Democrat constituency.

    The Billionaires might have benefited more from GOPe and Conservative Inc acquiescing to favors for 3rd world labor, and “looking the other way” as regards immigration, legal and illegal.

    The target of ire might be directed somewhere other than with The Billionaires.

    Though I share your sentiment regarding not a single tear shed…

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Plenty of White working class and middle class are wild-eyed Leftists.
     
    It’s true some Whites supportered left wing policies such as strong unions and a social safety net, but all over the Western world whites resisted anything like Marxism. Even the working class wanted property rights preserved.
  35. We should call LGBTQI “people of gender”.

    • Replies: @Pericles
    Or people of no gender.
    , @Jim Bob Lassiter
    How about "sexual oddities".
  36. About 45% of the electorate despises Trump and will never vote for him. However, the Democrats have responded by simply going bat shit crazy — Open Borders; Anti-White hate; 70% tax rates; foreign interventions; Russia scaremongering; 9th month abortions; etc., etc.

    Consequently, there is a huge lane up the middle for a charismatic, self-financed independent.

    The problem with “centrist,” however, is that they inevitably end up being (a) utterly vague; and (b) just “splitting the difference” between left and right when they finally take a position.

    But an alternative independent route would be to take strong stands on a suite of issues that would split the traditional coalitions of left and right. For example, a true independent could be anti-immigration, pro tax-the-rich, anti-deficit, anti-foreign intervention, pro-gun rights, anti-abortion, pro-$15 minimum wage, anti-affirmative action, and in favor of an intelligent national health insurance plan.

    Schultz does not seem like the guy to exploit the centrist/independent opening, however. He simply has a muddled outlook and an impossible charisma deficit.

  37. “People of Wealth” is much better: POW!

  38. @Jack D

    If you’re very determined and have the backup, as Stalin did, you in effect own everything, and inequality is maximized.
     
    It's worse than that - although the "state" becomes the nominal owner of capital, in reality capital gets shifted from wealth creators to the dictator, his family and his inner circle. They know how to spend it but have no idea how to create more of it - it becomes a wasting asset. If they do produce stuff at all, the capital is poorly deployed and produces a much lower return than it would if it were left in the hands of people who knew what to do with it.

    I'm sure Occasional Cortex would have lots of good ideas on how to spend Howard Schultz's money, just like Chavez knew how to spend the oil wealth of Venezuela - a little on their followers, a lot on their family and inner circle. But as far as ideas for creating new wealth, fuggedaboutit.

    There’ll be inequality under any regime. Socialists can hide the inequality by flattening the pay scale, but then the good stuff just gets allocated by non-market means. In the USSR the fancy Black Sea resorts didn’t charge high room rates, but you couldn’t go to them for any price unless you held the right job.

    Worse, in a desperately poor country (Venezuela, or the pre-war USSR) being “poor” has deadly consequences. It means you don’t have clean drinking water, or you can’t get anesthesia. That’s a far cry from what it means to be poor in America.

  39. @The Z Blog
    Feminists in academia are now calling normal women "people of uterus" in their papers. This is to distinguish them from women without a uterus and women with a penis. I've read some of these papers on my podcast. People assumed I was making it up, but sadly, it is a real thing.

    My suggestion was "people of womb" was better, as POW has a nice ring to it. That way, heterosexual males could be "people of penis" or POP. The non-binary, gender non-specific, gays, queers, lesbians, et al could then call their enemies, POP and POW.

    Feminists in academia are now calling normal women “people of uterus” in their papers. This is to distinguish them from women without a uterus and women with a penis.

    So they exclude women who have had a hysterectomy. That’s not nice.

    • Replies: @rufus
    People of Penis.

    Kinda homophobic bro...
  40. @International Jew
    We should call LGBTQI "people of gender".

    Or people of no gender.

  41. @Clyde

    A reasonable prediction that, but remember it’s much harder to tax them effectively than is imagined by Alas Occasional-Cortex and her crew. And anyway, maybe AOC is en route to a shakedown of a familiar American sort, not en route to a Red Revolution.
     
    It is very easy to tax billionaires. You tax their wealth/ Presidente Ocasio-Cortez Mountain Dew Rayban Elizondo says to Jeff Bezos --- "We see all your wealth is in Amazon shares. Your tax is to hand over 7% of them each April 15th"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6667889/Rich-Kids-Venezuela-including-Socialist-leader-Hugo-Chavezs-daughter-flaunt-wealth.html
    The Rich Kids of Venezuela - including Socialist revolution leader Hugo Chavez’s daughter - flaunt their wealth with fist-fulls of cash and lavish holidays while the nation starves

    Rich kids of Venezuela's socialist elite flash their money and pose with pop-stars
    Hugo Chavez's daughter is rumoured to have a personal fortune of $4billion
    Maria Gabriela, 38, earned her fortune while acting as first lady to her father
    Gabriela – and other children of Venezuela’s socialist elite - appear to have forgotten Hugo Chavez’s galvanizing motto ‘to be rich is bad’

     

    In my opinion, one of the huge problems with the rhetoric about wealth and income distribution is that it fails to make any distinction between investment and consumption.

    It’s absurd to be resentful of “wealth accumulation” or even “income” so long as that money is being plowed back and put to work as productive capital in the economy — e.g., factories, R&D, operating capital for job-producing ventures, etc., etc. Taxing capital in this state is basically just “cutting muscle” from the productive economy.

    If, and when, this capital is withdrawn from productive economic use and consumed by the owner for his own personal gratification (or that of his heirs), you can perhaps start getting jealous and resentful.

    In many cases, however, the accumulated wealth of billionaires is never reduced to personal consumption. For example, Bill Gates has piled up scores of billions that he will never spend and 99% of it will eventually go to a pretty well-run charity. If you imposed a wealth tax on his assets you would basically be taxing impoverished Africans.

    The best tax system would be: (a) progressive; and (b) use consumption rather than investment as its “taxable base.”

    • Troll: BB753
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Consumption taxes are by nature regressive in that the poor consume a much higher % of their income than the rich. You could have a guy like Warren Buffet who lives modestly pay very little taxes. Collecting a progressive consumption tax is difficult - does the store have to check your income in order to know how much sales tax to charge you?

    In the end, the modern state consumes so much that merely taxing billionaires is not even close to enough. There aren't that many billionaires. They could confiscate the entire wealth of all the billionaires in America and it would run the Federal government for like 9 months. And the rich have the resources to hire tax lawyers and move their assets offshore, etc. In the end, these socialist "tax the rich" schemes always end up reaching way down into the middle class in order to raise enough revenue.

  42. @Hypnotoad666
    In my opinion, one of the huge problems with the rhetoric about wealth and income distribution is that it fails to make any distinction between investment and consumption.

    It's absurd to be resentful of "wealth accumulation" or even "income" so long as that money is being plowed back and put to work as productive capital in the economy -- e.g., factories, R&D, operating capital for job-producing ventures, etc., etc. Taxing capital in this state is basically just "cutting muscle" from the productive economy.

    If, and when, this capital is withdrawn from productive economic use and consumed by the owner for his own personal gratification (or that of his heirs), you can perhaps start getting jealous and resentful.

    In many cases, however, the accumulated wealth of billionaires is never reduced to personal consumption. For example, Bill Gates has piled up scores of billions that he will never spend and 99% of it will eventually go to a pretty well-run charity. If you imposed a wealth tax on his assets you would basically be taxing impoverished Africans.

    The best tax system would be: (a) progressive; and (b) use consumption rather than investment as its "taxable base."

    Consumption taxes are by nature regressive in that the poor consume a much higher % of their income than the rich. You could have a guy like Warren Buffet who lives modestly pay very little taxes. Collecting a progressive consumption tax is difficult – does the store have to check your income in order to know how much sales tax to charge you?

    In the end, the modern state consumes so much that merely taxing billionaires is not even close to enough. There aren’t that many billionaires. They could confiscate the entire wealth of all the billionaires in America and it would run the Federal government for like 9 months. And the rich have the resources to hire tax lawyers and move their assets offshore, etc. In the end, these socialist “tax the rich” schemes always end up reaching way down into the middle class in order to raise enough revenue.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    Collecting a progressive consumption tax is difficult – does the store have to check your income in order to know how much sales tax to charge you?
     
    I think it only looks difficult because our current consumption taxes are based on point of sale transactions. But you could implement a progressive consumption tax regime by simply excluding net investments from the definition of taxable income in any given year. The remaining taxable base would be total income - net investment = consumption. Progressive tax rates could then be applied to this calculated amount of annual consumption.

    Investment vehicles like 401K and IRA accounts mostly accomplish this same result by deferring taxes on investment income.
    , @Lot
    "Consumption taxes are by nature regressive "

    And anti-natalist.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Consumption taxes are by nature regressive...
     
    Consumption be done about it?
    Of cough, of cough.

    --Woody Allen
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    Collecting a progressive consumption tax is difficult – does the store have to check your income in order to know how much sales tax to charge you?
     
    Consumption taxes have nothing to do with income. Consumption taxes have everything to do with what you spend. All that the store needs to do is record what you spend, and send that spent amount into the government.

    Consumption tax collection is much easier than income tax collection. The black market, and the gray market, cannot evade the purchase of goods and services. They will pay for them, but not income taxes.
  43. Oprah’s New Age spiritual guru, Marianne Williamson, announced that she is running for president under a call for a spiritual reawakening (a little vague, but a good start), racial reparations and open borders. She’s basically Malibu embodied in human form.

    Williamson uses the term People of Planet.

    • Replies: @Kaganovitch
    Perhaps Cali will be known in future History books as the baked over district?
  44. @dearieme
    "The Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists." I dare say they did, but they also bought lots of protection from politicians, both (D) and (R). There's plenty more money where that came from, I'd think.

    "They repaid that favor by demanding mass 3rd world labor." Some did.

    "Not a single tear will be shed for them no matter what happens." A reasonable prediction that, but remember it's much harder to tax them effectively than is imagined by Alas Occasional-Cortex and her crew. And anyway, maybe AOC is en route to a shakedown of a familiar American sort, not en route to a Red Revolution.

    dearime, AOC wants to uber tax the wealthy, ok, but she dresses pretty nicely for some one who until recently had meager means. Solution, tax their campaign war chests at the same level as the very wealthy.

  45. @Interested Bystander
    “I’m not in bed with any special interest...” Hmmmmmm... Not one? Not even our greatest ally?

    The Big Coffee lobby ??

  46. @Pericles

    Feminists in academia are now calling normal women “people of uterus” in their papers. This is to distinguish them from women without a uterus and women with a penis.

     

    So they exclude women who have had a hysterectomy. That's not nice.

    People of Penis.

    Kinda homophobic bro…

  47. Waleed Shahid = Recently Born Martyr

  48. @Jack D
    Consumption taxes are by nature regressive in that the poor consume a much higher % of their income than the rich. You could have a guy like Warren Buffet who lives modestly pay very little taxes. Collecting a progressive consumption tax is difficult - does the store have to check your income in order to know how much sales tax to charge you?

    In the end, the modern state consumes so much that merely taxing billionaires is not even close to enough. There aren't that many billionaires. They could confiscate the entire wealth of all the billionaires in America and it would run the Federal government for like 9 months. And the rich have the resources to hire tax lawyers and move their assets offshore, etc. In the end, these socialist "tax the rich" schemes always end up reaching way down into the middle class in order to raise enough revenue.

    Collecting a progressive consumption tax is difficult – does the store have to check your income in order to know how much sales tax to charge you?

    I think it only looks difficult because our current consumption taxes are based on point of sale transactions. But you could implement a progressive consumption tax regime by simply excluding net investments from the definition of taxable income in any given year. The remaining taxable base would be total income – net investment = consumption. Progressive tax rates could then be applied to this calculated amount of annual consumption.

    Investment vehicles like 401K and IRA accounts mostly accomplish this same result by deferring taxes on investment income.

  49. OT OT OT
    Armenian rip off story. Was born in Damascus, Syria. This guy was creative and moved from country to country. The place where he was just prosecuted is (surprise!) South Florida.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kachkar

    https://www.politico.com/states/florida/whiteboard/2019/02/05/jury-convicts-florida-man-in-precipitating-puerto-rico-bank-collapse-9003166
    Jury convicts Florida man in precipitating Puerto Rico bank collapse

    By Patrick Temple-West

    A South Florida man has been found guilty for his part in a $100 million scheme to defraud Westernbank of Puerto Rico, one of the commonwealth’s largest banks, which was closed by the FDIC in 2010, the Justice Department said today.

    Jack Kachkar, 55, was convicted by a federal jury of eight counts of wire fraud affecting a financial institution after a three-week trial in the Southern District of Florida. Kachkar is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Donald Graham on April 30.

    From 2005 to 2007, Kachkar served as chairman and CEO of Inyx Inc., a multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer. He defrauded Westernbank of $142 million of loans based on false customer invoices, the Justice Department said. He diverted tens of millions of dollars to himself to buy a private jet, homes in Key Biscayne and Brickell, Miami, and other luxury goods, the department said.

    At the time of its collapse in 2010, Westernbank had about 1,500 employees and was one of the largest banks in Puerto Rico, the Justice Department said. (Excerpt)

  50. @Jack D
    Consumption taxes are by nature regressive in that the poor consume a much higher % of their income than the rich. You could have a guy like Warren Buffet who lives modestly pay very little taxes. Collecting a progressive consumption tax is difficult - does the store have to check your income in order to know how much sales tax to charge you?

    In the end, the modern state consumes so much that merely taxing billionaires is not even close to enough. There aren't that many billionaires. They could confiscate the entire wealth of all the billionaires in America and it would run the Federal government for like 9 months. And the rich have the resources to hire tax lawyers and move their assets offshore, etc. In the end, these socialist "tax the rich" schemes always end up reaching way down into the middle class in order to raise enough revenue.

    “Consumption taxes are by nature regressive ”

    And anti-natalist.

  51. @Dave Pinsen
    https://twitter.com/aaronmesh/status/1092590959726977024?s=21

    The problem with “POM” is that many will think it is just a more polite variant to the widely used “POS”. Piece of Manure for Piece of Shit.

  52. Pom is already a derogatory term Australians use to describe Englishmen.

    • Replies: @rufus
    That wont be, the iconic narrative that resonates, with the dubs though.

    Very close to their use of poofdas for homoz as well.
  53. @RichardTaylor
    The Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists. They repaid that favor by demanding mass 3rd world labor.

    Not a single tear will be shed for them no matter what happens.

    The Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists.

    They benefited much more from
    ① artificial (i.e., gov-mandated) IP monopoly power;
    ② non-competitive government procurement; and
    ③ government-mandated licensure;
    ④ preferential access to capital due to proximity to .gov

    Look through any list, and see how many billionaires (genuine or otherwise) run enterprises that could seriously be considered competitive – i.e., industries with free entry and exit; no .gov ’tilt’ to the playing field through tax breaks; no padded government contracts; no restrictive licensure.

    ① contains all the tech ‘moguls’; ② contains most of the Death Merchants; ③ and ④ contains banksters, casino magnates, insurers, pharma guys, property developers, and oil barons.

    .

    Note also: most of the wealth of these people is actually stock in their own entities; they are highly dependent on low interest rates (because most of their stock has poor earnings quality and high debt-to-equity ratios).

    Imagine you were a billionaire, most of whose wealth was in Enron stock. Ken Lay was nowhere near the 3-comma club, but his story in a salutary reminder of how fragile stock-based ‘wealth’ can be.

  54. @Counterinsurgency
    This is one of those "counter-intuitive" things.

    Billionaires are part of what a Pareto distribution of wealth _means_. The Pareto Type 1 distribution has two parameters: a minimum value parameter k, and a shape parameter, alpha. Minimum value , for a real population would be the wealth needed to buy food and nothing else -- presumably there aren't many people with an income below k. Alpha determines how unequally wealth is distributed. The higher alpha, the more inequality.

    Pareto, as I recall, found that
    a) All societies he studied had a Pareto distribution of wealth and, I believe, income.
    b) The more complex societies [1] had a higher alpha than less complex societies: alpha varies _with_ complexity, not against.

    Pareto pointed out that this is consistent with historical data as well as his contemporary data. Past societies were less complex than contemporary societies, and had high degrees of wealth concentration.

    One consequence of this is as follows:
    * Increased regulation of economic activity _reduces_ social complexity by forbidding certain interactions.
    Example: Stalin's forced draft military preparations in the ramp up to WW II. Stalin so effectively prohibited certain economic activities that quite a bit of adjusting Stalin's plans on the micro level could only be carried out by professional criminals (of the heavily tattooed Russian type). Hypothetical but realistic micro example: "We need two miles of copper wire to finish this three year project on time, and if we're late, it's the Gulag for at least some of us.

    So: If you do something crude, like confiscating capital (As Stalin did, as FDR did, as JFK and LBJ did) then you _increase_ inequality. If you're very determined and have the backup, as Stalin did, you in effect own everything, and inequality is maximized.

    Regulation is counterproductive.

    What's productive? Look at Weber's classic [2], but remember that a second Protestant Reformation isn't likely, and the first one was pretty bloody _and_ maybe 300 years to produce the Industrial Revolution.

    J. Peterson has a few quite things to say about trying to fix the world when you can't fix anything else [3]. I'll just say that things are harder than they look, so be wary of making a huge change while ignoring the last several times that particular change was tried [4].

    Taxing the Hell out of things is not a serious remedy, it's more of a CG&LoE approach.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_complexity

    2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism

    3] J. Peterson
    _12 Rules for Life_

    4] Q: Is Marxism a science or a philosophy?
    A: A philosophy. If it were a science, they would have tried it out on dogs first.
    Cold war era Russian joke.

    Part of the reason that ‘more complex’ societies have higher inequality, is that there is more supernumerary output (i.e., output above subsistence) to be harvested and redistributed to cronies.

    The way societies get to ‘complexity’ is by generating sufficient surplus to be able to develop and replenish/renew capital stocks, which drives higher productivity – the virtuous circle. It has nothing whatsoever to do with government.

    Cross-sectionally, the lack of supernumerary output in ‘less complex’ (but still modern) societies, limits the amount that can be extracted in taxation. This limits the return on rent-seeking (it still exists, but cannot capture a large proportion of national output: it mostly happens through aid diversion).

    Once supernumerary output rises to the extent that the second decile is at almost-zero risk of actual starvation, the rape can begin: tax rates rise (and the tax system becomes more regressive), and the tax pot becomes the object of competition between different claques of rent-seekers.

    And by the time a country reaches Western levels of affluence, the amount of tax money available for cronies gets truly staggering.

    Paretian outcomes are a natural feature of human societies – because in low-complexity (primitive and pre-Industrial) societies, individual outcomes depend on a combination of talent, luck, endowments and endeavour; those qualities are weakly correlated with each other, and with life outcomes. Obviously ‘endowments’ are generally low across the board at that stage.

    If those 4 characteristics were all uniformly distributed, the fact that they’re only weakly correlated means that the eventual distribution has a very small proportion who are fortunate enough to have all 4 (it’s the solution to Pr(A ∧ B ∧ C ∧ D) where A, B, C, and D are the levels of talent, luck, endowment and endeavour required to exceed normal returns).

    So yes: the distribution of outcomes will be Paretian (which basically means that the top 1% will have ~50% of wealth: that literally just happens).

    But here’s the thing: once a political class exists, and output per capita rises to a level where taxation generates a pot of concentrated wealth (and power) that reaches genuine significance, another set of characteristics comes into play – and they’re highly negative characteristics if they manifest prior to the existence of a political class (so much so that any public display of them will get you killed).

    The composition of the 1% changes radically – away from merit – and membership depends more on possession of these ‘other’ characteristics, in conjunction with only moderate levels of the ‘good’ characteristics.

    Those new determinative factors: Parasitism and sociopathy.

    In a modern complex society, those traits – combined with modest talent, a bit of luck and focused, rent-seeking endeavour – are the keys to the kingdom.

    So societies move from a meritocracy in societies of modest complexity, to an epistocracy/aristocracy[1] in societies of moderate complexity… to a kleptocracy , and they are kleptocratic well before they reach the level of complexity associated with modern Western economies (in fact, any society that generates a tax pot capable of building a pyramid, is already an open kleptocracy).

    [1] aristocracy is used here in its technical sense from the Greek aristos (“best”); the word’s usage has changed to such an extent that it now means “entitled by dint of birth” – and that change in usage happened before the end of the 18th century (which gives a clue as to when advancing kleptocracy became obvious to the commoner).

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    Yep.

    Of course, you're using somewhat loaded terms here. The ruling class can at times keep some kind of order that permits the peasants to irrigate their fields, or the merchants to transport goods, or the manufacturers to accumulate capital.
    Or (like Stalin) re-direct the entire society's output to heavy industry intended to produce military goods, and then waste the entire investment in warfare. Phillip II and successors did much the same with Spain's colonial income -- spent it in a highly destructive war. OTH, the Industrial Revolution was given quite a boost in England by the necessities of the Napoleanic Wars.

    Things get complex.

    One final point

    any society that generates a tax pot capable of building a pyramid, is already an open kleptocracy
     
    Right, but who are the kleptos? More than just Pharoah, you can bet.

    And who can doubt the secret hid
    'Neath great Pharoah's pyramid
    is that the contractor did
    Pharoah out of several million.

    General question, one I can't answer:
    Just how much is maintaining some kind of recognizable social system worth? When does it become more than it is worth?

    Counterinsurgency
    , @Counterinsurgency

    So yes: the distribution of outcomes will be Paretian (which basically means that the top 1% will have ~50% of wealth: that literally just happens).
     
    Well, not quite. As my post pointd out, the shape parameter of the Pareto distribtution affects wealth concentration significantly, and societies vary in wealth concentration. The percent of wealth owned by the top 1%, for example, has been increasing in the US since the late 1960s, which is about the time that the political class cut itself loose from the rest of society. Its only remaining connection was lying about "morality", which (as the #MeTo campaign pretty much made clear) it did not practice itself.


    The power law (also called the scaling law) states that a relative change in one quantity results in a proportional relative change in another. The simplest example of the law in action is a square; if you double the length of a side (say, from 2 to 4 inches) then the area will quadruple (from 4 to 16 inches squared). A power law distribution has the form Y = k Xα, where:

    X and Y are variables of interest,
    α is the law’s exponent,
    k is a constant.

    So: here's my initial argument (making things illegal increases wealth concentration) re-case in a more abstract form:

    Any inverse relationship like Y = X-1 is also a power law, because a change in one quantity results in a negative change in another.
    [1]
    Let's say that X represents relatedness to some group holding political power, and the power law is of the form
    wealth=1*X*X
    Relatedness to a power group will then increase wealth. If that is the only way to get wealth (as it is in warrior civilizations -- the fighting nobility is made wealthy so that it can and will fight, and provide its own support groups), then wealth concentration is extreme.
    However, suppose that one has a merchant/manufacturing society that offers several ways to get wealthy -- trading, manufacturing, accumulating capital. In tht case, one has:
    wealth = a*X*X + b*X*X +c*X*X+d*X*X, where a, b, and c represent ability in trading, manufacturing, and accumulating capital. In that cae, wealth concentration is not so extreme -- there are many ways to get wealth.
    Now, suppose government says that it will tax away income from a, b, and c, leaving only d nonzero. In that case, we're back to the distribution of the warrior aristocracy case.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/power-law/
  55. ‘The Racist Or The Rapist; Virginia’s Choice’

    “Spellbinding!”

    “A real page turner.”

    “Would read again.”

  56. Net worth US$4.9 billion (2018)[2]
    Political party Conservative
    Spouse(s) Tina Green
    Children Chloe
    Brandon

    Sir Philip Nigel Ross Green (born 15 March 1952) is a British billionaire businessman, …

    Green has been involved in a number of controversies during his career, including his actions prior to the demise of BHS.[3] In October 2016, the House of Commons approved a measure to ask the Honours Forfeiture Committee to strip Green of his knighthood for his role in the downfall of BHS.[4] This decision was not legally binding and his knighthood was not revoked, although there were later calls to revoke it if allegations of sexual harassment, bullying and racism revealed in October 2018 are proved.[5]

    Remember the Hot Felon

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6011335/Chloe-Green-Hot-Felon-beau-Jeremy-Meeks-look-smitten-Turkey.html

    The socialite, 27, sweetly held hands with her convict-turned-model beau, 34, as they disembarked the family’s luxury £115m yacht

    The genes that find themselves in the daughter of a billionaire do not have to worry about whether the man she marries can suport her. In a heiress, the genes go into Sexy Son mode, and send the hapless girl after a man who can spread them in every sense (ie she falls for a man who can give her a son who will be attractive to multiple women).

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

    Porfirio Rubirosa Ariza (January 22, 1909 – July 5, 1965) was a Dominican diplomat, race car driver, soldier and polo player. He was an adherent of the dictator Rafael Trujillo, and was also rumored to be a political assassin under his regime.[1] Rubirosa made his mark as an international playboy for his jetsetting lifestyle and his legendary sexual prowess with women.[2] Among his spouses were two of the richest women in the world.[3]

    • Replies: @Anon
    Hot Felon is black? A former Crip? Now that I look closely at Google Images, yeah, but with a lot of admixture.

    She had a son by this guy last year. I wonder if her arm tats are because of him. She's really peculiar looking, so I guess it's a good thing dad is a billionaire.
    , @Clifford Brown
    http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/RR.png
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson 3
    And the offspring regress to the mean. High intelligence will be infrequent and accidental. Stupidity will be the norm.
    , @Anon
    This is why there was primogeniture and a bias towards male inheritance. Culture and civilization, ethnic identity, patriotism, all ultimately derive from the original male impulse for mate guarding and promoting patrilineal interests.

    R.A. Fisher wrote in his "Social Selection of Fertility" that the wealthy tend to die out as a class because wealth tends to concentrate in less fertile families with heiresses, who inherit the genes for being less fertile. The successful or famous men who tend to marry these heiresses also have fewer offspring as a result and thus their genes become less common as well.

    The two rich heiresses Rubirosa married, Barbara Hutton and Doris Duke, were not fertile. Duke gave birth once to a premature child who died the day after birth. Hutton had one child who died in his 30s with no children of his own. Hutton was an alcoholic and drug addict who was nearly bankrupt when she passed.

    Rubirosa himself had no children and was said to be sterile.
  57. Pritzker, Armani, Geffen et al might be called “People Of Fortune”, or POFs.

    Straight lefty billionaires might call themselves People Of Riches. In this way they could sincerely express concern for the POR.

  58. @Dave Pinsen
    https://twitter.com/aaronmesh/status/1092590959726977024?s=21

    Nobody’s Right till somebody’s Wrong
    Nobody’s Weak till somebody’s Strong,
    No One gets Lucky till Luck Comes Along,
    Nobody’s lonely till somebody’s Gone,

    I’ve seen Dark Skies, Never like this,
    Walked on some thin ice, Never like this,
    I’ve told you white lies, Never like this…..

  59. @The Z Blog
    Feminists in academia are now calling normal women "people of uterus" in their papers. This is to distinguish them from women without a uterus and women with a penis. I've read some of these papers on my podcast. People assumed I was making it up, but sadly, it is a real thing.

    My suggestion was "people of womb" was better, as POW has a nice ring to it. That way, heterosexual males could be "people of penis" or POP. The non-binary, gender non-specific, gays, queers, lesbians, et al could then call their enemies, POP and POW.

    The non-binary, gender non-specific, gays, queers, lesbians, et al could then call their enemies, POP and POW.

    Sock! Pow! Zock! POP!

  60. Sailer for sale or rent, memes to let, fifty cents.
    Hate hoax, golf course, IQ regrets, I ain’t got no cigarettes
    Ah, but, two hours of pushin’ loons
    Buys an eight by twelve Cali room
    I’m a man of means by no means, king of this blog.

  61. @Lot
    Pom is already a derogatory term Australians use to describe Englishmen.

    That wont be, the iconic narrative that resonates, with the dubs though.

    Very close to their use of poofdas for homoz as well.

  62. @Forbes
    I dunno. Plenty of White working class and middle class vote for wild-eyed Leftists (prog-left/Democrats). Plenty of White working class and middle class are wild-eyed Leftists.

    It's not as if Whites make up 90%+ of the Republican constituency, as Blacks make up 90%+ of the Democrat constituency.

    The Billionaires might have benefited more from GOPe and Conservative Inc acquiescing to favors for 3rd world labor, and "looking the other way" as regards immigration, legal and illegal.

    The target of ire might be directed somewhere other than with The Billionaires.

    Though I share your sentiment regarding not a single tear shed...

    Plenty of White working class and middle class are wild-eyed Leftists.

    It’s true some Whites supportered left wing policies such as strong unions and a social safety net, but all over the Western world whites resisted anything like Marxism. Even the working class wanted property rights preserved.

  63. Somebody skips leg day. Looks like an anthropomorphic grasshopper/cricket out of a cartoon.

  64. @International Jew
    We should call LGBTQI "people of gender".

    How about “sexual oddities”.

  65. Google oligarchs ‘censearch’.

  66. He’s a man of means, by all means.
    King of the Roast.

  67. @Jack D
    Consumption taxes are by nature regressive in that the poor consume a much higher % of their income than the rich. You could have a guy like Warren Buffet who lives modestly pay very little taxes. Collecting a progressive consumption tax is difficult - does the store have to check your income in order to know how much sales tax to charge you?

    In the end, the modern state consumes so much that merely taxing billionaires is not even close to enough. There aren't that many billionaires. They could confiscate the entire wealth of all the billionaires in America and it would run the Federal government for like 9 months. And the rich have the resources to hire tax lawyers and move their assets offshore, etc. In the end, these socialist "tax the rich" schemes always end up reaching way down into the middle class in order to raise enough revenue.

    Consumption taxes are by nature regressive…

    Consumption be done about it?
    Of cough, of cough.

    –Woody Allen

  68. Anon[225] • Disclaimer says:

    Jewish Power treats white Americans like Palestinians, but the GOP, the white party, supports Zionist war on Palestinians.

    If whites cuck like this to the very people who mean them the most harm, they deserve to lose.
    White Logic: “Jews treat us whites like they treat Palestinians, therefore we should identify with Jews who treat Palestinians like they treat us whites.”

  69. Anon[713] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    Net worth US$4.9 billion (2018)[2]
    Political party Conservative
    Spouse(s) Tina Green
    Children Chloe
    Brandon

    Sir Philip Nigel Ross Green (born 15 March 1952) is a British billionaire businessman, ...

    Green has been involved in a number of controversies during his career, including his actions prior to the demise of BHS.[3] In October 2016, the House of Commons approved a measure to ask the Honours Forfeiture Committee to strip Green of his knighthood for his role in the downfall of BHS.[4] This decision was not legally binding and his knighthood was not revoked, although there were later calls to revoke it if allegations of sexual harassment, bullying and racism revealed in October 2018 are proved.[5]

     

    Remember the Hot Felon

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6011335/Chloe-Green-Hot-Felon-beau-Jeremy-Meeks-look-smitten-Turkey.html

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/07/31/14/4EB7DC8A00000578-0-image-m-100_1533045320478.jpg

    The socialite, 27, sweetly held hands with her convict-turned-model beau, 34, as they disembarked the family's luxury £115m yacht
     
    The genes that find themselves in the daughter of a billionaire do not have to worry about whether the man she marries can suport her. In a heiress, the genes go into Sexy Son mode, and send the hapless girl after a man who can spread them in every sense (ie she falls for a man who can give her a son who will be attractive to multiple women).

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

    Porfirio Rubirosa Ariza (January 22, 1909 – July 5, 1965) was a Dominican diplomat, race car driver, soldier and polo player. He was an adherent of the dictator Rafael Trujillo, and was also rumored to be a political assassin under his regime.[1] Rubirosa made his mark as an international playboy for his jetsetting lifestyle and his legendary sexual prowess with women.[2] Among his spouses were two of the richest women in the world.[3]
     

    Hot Felon is black? A former Crip? Now that I look closely at Google Images, yeah, but with a lot of admixture.

    She had a son by this guy last year. I wonder if her arm tats are because of him. She’s really peculiar looking, so I guess it’s a good thing dad is a billionaire.

  70. Russia was able to influence our election because they figured out that racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, and transphobia are America’s Achilles heel. These issues aren’t only civil rights — they’re also a matter of national security. We have to deal with that.

  71. @Sean

    Net worth US$4.9 billion (2018)[2]
    Political party Conservative
    Spouse(s) Tina Green
    Children Chloe
    Brandon

    Sir Philip Nigel Ross Green (born 15 March 1952) is a British billionaire businessman, ...

    Green has been involved in a number of controversies during his career, including his actions prior to the demise of BHS.[3] In October 2016, the House of Commons approved a measure to ask the Honours Forfeiture Committee to strip Green of his knighthood for his role in the downfall of BHS.[4] This decision was not legally binding and his knighthood was not revoked, although there were later calls to revoke it if allegations of sexual harassment, bullying and racism revealed in October 2018 are proved.[5]

     

    Remember the Hot Felon

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6011335/Chloe-Green-Hot-Felon-beau-Jeremy-Meeks-look-smitten-Turkey.html

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/07/31/14/4EB7DC8A00000578-0-image-m-100_1533045320478.jpg

    The socialite, 27, sweetly held hands with her convict-turned-model beau, 34, as they disembarked the family's luxury £115m yacht
     
    The genes that find themselves in the daughter of a billionaire do not have to worry about whether the man she marries can suport her. In a heiress, the genes go into Sexy Son mode, and send the hapless girl after a man who can spread them in every sense (ie she falls for a man who can give her a son who will be attractive to multiple women).

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

    Porfirio Rubirosa Ariza (January 22, 1909 – July 5, 1965) was a Dominican diplomat, race car driver, soldier and polo player. He was an adherent of the dictator Rafael Trujillo, and was also rumored to be a political assassin under his regime.[1] Rubirosa made his mark as an international playboy for his jetsetting lifestyle and his legendary sexual prowess with women.[2] Among his spouses were two of the richest women in the world.[3]
     

  72. What are the billionaires’ pronouns?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    $e, $it
  73. @Anon
    The inability to tax rich people is a stock statement of fact from Cuckservative Inc. Personally I would tie taxation to citizenship and strip the citizenship from people and corporations that use tax havens as a start.

    This would likely require things like establishing a tie between corporations and ownership but these can be sorted out. Just remember there is a good appetite to make these kind of changes from all sides of the political spectrum except the Democratic and Republican Establishments and their supporters.

    The inability to tax rich people is a stock statement of fact from Cuckservative Inc.

    It’s outdated, too. After each successful escape, Congress buttoned up the loophole. American citizens are taxed on their worldwide income. If they renounce their citizenship, they have to pay an exit tax which is essentially a capital-gains or estate tax taken upon exit.

    The way to avoid income taxes is the tech tycoon way: Never sell your shares, never sell your company for cash (only exchange shares for shares, tax-free), never allow dividends, and live off of endless personal loans against your shares. Personal loans are not taxed. Page and Brin live tax-free on salaries of $1/year. All of their worldly activities that cannot be expensed to the company are funded by personal loans against their shareholdings. Larry Ellison showed the way:
    https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Inside-look-at-a-billionaire-s-budget-Larry-2542603.php

    But a wealth tax would really work against these guys. Put it at 8% (the stock market’s average return) to make it sporting.

  74. @Paleo Liberal
    Except AOC cannot run for President until 2024 at the earliest. Assuming she is still a Big Thing then.

    Your analysis has a lot of merit. I believe a number of people voted for Trump as a way to counter the powers behind the government. Trouble is, Trump seems not to want to disturb them. I personally think he made a deal with them to support him and he wouldn’t actually so most of what he was expected to do.

    I also agree (unless I am misreading you) that if thunder on the right doesn’t work people will very like turn to thunder on the left.

    I also agree with many posters here that AOC is not a real revolutionary, but more of a left wing reformer who looks like a revolutionary. Or am I reading too much into people’s comments?

    I personally think that if Trump doesn’t work out, there is a strong chance voters will go for the semi-radical left (Sanders, Warren, etc. ).

    If that doesn’t work, then we may see some truly radical changes.

    Your analysis has a lot of merit.

    Thanks for supporting the illiterate musings of an incoherent poster. If we were wondering about your advocacy for leftism (i.e. tyranny) you have disabused us of our equivocal considerations of your occasional accuracy.

    The “thunder of the left” is the siren song of slavery, the trumpet of the Soviets, the carrying card of the “International” – and we know how that has worked out.

    How many dead would dissuade you of your Marxist superstitions? Because 100 million was not enough.

    How many, P. Liberal? How many innocents are needed to turn you from your path?

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    I never said I supported a Communist revolution. You are reading WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much into my post.

    It was a warning -- if the politics as usual don't work, people will start looking at politics as unusual. After all, there was no way Trump could have been elected if most people thought the government was working for them.

    My initial thought is that if Trump doesn't work out, then people may turn to a leftist (but not Communist) like Sanders or Warren or eventually AOC.

    The trouble is, when people are upset, they tend to look for extremists. And the history of MOST revolutions is that the uprising is started by reasonable people with reasonable demands, then things get further and further to the extreme --

    Such as Russia, which started with Kerensky, then Lenin, finally Stalin.
    Or China, with Sun and Chiang, then Zhou, finally Mao.
    Or France, or Mexico, etc.

    The American experience has been unusual. Our revolution started with reasonable men, and ended with the same men. Washington gave up power not once, but THREE times.
    With the Civil War, we started with Lincoln, and ended with the Radical Republicans, but with Andrew Johnson in power.
    Our reaction to the worldwide Great Depression was not Franco or Peron or Mussolini or Hitler, but FDR.

    I hope we can continue this path.

    However, these are not normal times. Trump could never have been elected in normal times. I am saying his successor may be out of the normal political sphere, but on the left this time.
  75. @Jack D
    Consumption taxes are by nature regressive in that the poor consume a much higher % of their income than the rich. You could have a guy like Warren Buffet who lives modestly pay very little taxes. Collecting a progressive consumption tax is difficult - does the store have to check your income in order to know how much sales tax to charge you?

    In the end, the modern state consumes so much that merely taxing billionaires is not even close to enough. There aren't that many billionaires. They could confiscate the entire wealth of all the billionaires in America and it would run the Federal government for like 9 months. And the rich have the resources to hire tax lawyers and move their assets offshore, etc. In the end, these socialist "tax the rich" schemes always end up reaching way down into the middle class in order to raise enough revenue.

    Collecting a progressive consumption tax is difficult – does the store have to check your income in order to know how much sales tax to charge you?

    Consumption taxes have nothing to do with income. Consumption taxes have everything to do with what you spend. All that the store needs to do is record what you spend, and send that spent amount into the government.

    Consumption tax collection is much easier than income tax collection. The black market, and the gray market, cannot evade the purchase of goods and services. They will pay for them, but not income taxes.

  76. @Sean

    Net worth US$4.9 billion (2018)[2]
    Political party Conservative
    Spouse(s) Tina Green
    Children Chloe
    Brandon

    Sir Philip Nigel Ross Green (born 15 March 1952) is a British billionaire businessman, ...

    Green has been involved in a number of controversies during his career, including his actions prior to the demise of BHS.[3] In October 2016, the House of Commons approved a measure to ask the Honours Forfeiture Committee to strip Green of his knighthood for his role in the downfall of BHS.[4] This decision was not legally binding and his knighthood was not revoked, although there were later calls to revoke it if allegations of sexual harassment, bullying and racism revealed in October 2018 are proved.[5]

     

    Remember the Hot Felon

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6011335/Chloe-Green-Hot-Felon-beau-Jeremy-Meeks-look-smitten-Turkey.html

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/07/31/14/4EB7DC8A00000578-0-image-m-100_1533045320478.jpg

    The socialite, 27, sweetly held hands with her convict-turned-model beau, 34, as they disembarked the family's luxury £115m yacht
     
    The genes that find themselves in the daughter of a billionaire do not have to worry about whether the man she marries can suport her. In a heiress, the genes go into Sexy Son mode, and send the hapless girl after a man who can spread them in every sense (ie she falls for a man who can give her a son who will be attractive to multiple women).

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

    Porfirio Rubirosa Ariza (January 22, 1909 – July 5, 1965) was a Dominican diplomat, race car driver, soldier and polo player. He was an adherent of the dictator Rafael Trujillo, and was also rumored to be a political assassin under his regime.[1] Rubirosa made his mark as an international playboy for his jetsetting lifestyle and his legendary sexual prowess with women.[2] Among his spouses were two of the richest women in the world.[3]
     

    And the offspring regress to the mean. High intelligence will be infrequent and accidental. Stupidity will be the norm.

  77. @RichardTaylor
    The Billionaires benefitted from the White working and middle classes protecting them from wild-eyed Leftists. They repaid that favor by demanding mass 3rd world labor.

    Not a single tear will be shed for them no matter what happens.

    This particular oligarch, like many in various types of luxury sales, benefited from millions of polite, educated, articulate, speedy multitaskers, raised by the large American middle class that has dwindled steadily over these decades of wage-undercutting, mass-scale immigration and oligarch-led inverse colonization.

    I have heard many small restaurant owners, struggling to stay afloat, say they make no margin except on the sale of drinks………What is this business? All margin?

    Over the years, the energetic and enthusiastic employees in question were mostly white, with a few Black citizens providing the same quality service, so what does he do to thank all of these American citizens, working for far, far too little to rent a one-room apartment in the ghetto on the pay?

    A few years after the housing collapse debacle made a bad job market even worse, he makes a big virtue-signaling show of setting aside thousands of jobs for refugees.

    Starbucks hires mostly college grads. From interviewing for the job at an age when I was not likely to be hired, although my college graduation date suggested that I was in the acceptable age range, I happen to know exactly what they were paying about 12 years ago.

    It was $8 per hour, and the tip jar sometimes bumped it up to $10 per hour, they said, with managers commanding a whopping $28k. Now, many small luxury retailers truly cannot afford to pay decently, and when people accept those jobs, they often do it for a nicer, safer work environment with interesting customers or creative work, knowing that the pay will only cover a few monthly bills.

    But those small luxury retailers do not have the type of volume sales that creates a billionaire, an oligarch or whatever you want to call it in the context of a republic-in-name-only, wherein the voters cannot get anything they vote for done unless it it oligarch-approved.

    And reasonable limits on legal immigration, along with an end to welfare-aided illegal immigration, is not oligarch-approved.

    Unlike the Starbucks oligarch, most American oligarchs make bank off of welfare-subsidized, womb-productive, legal and illegal immigrant laborers who can afford to work for less, undercutting the wages of American workers for 40 years straight, due to their wage-boosting pay for sex and reproduction from the US government.

    Which is why voters in a so-called republic cannot get anything done about immigration.

    Before Starbucks finally raised wages, many employees could only afford to work there due to living with their parents who covered the major and unaffordable expense of rent, enabling the owner to pay less, just like big government covers the major expenses of many single moms, enabling them to work absenteeism-friendly office jobs for beans, and many legal / illegal inmigrants in single-breadwinner, womb-productive households are able to work for beans due to multi-layered monthly welfare and refundable child tax credits up to $6,431.

    Most Starbucks employees aren’t getting any of that pay for sex and reproduction from Uncle Sam.

    Job duties at Starbucks include getting there between 4 and 5 am and bleaching down the entire store before customers arrive. I have owned a shop and worked in many office jobs, never seeing people keeping hours like that. That’s why I don’t really find the barista jokes all that funny.

    Hard work and high-quality service should be respected, but in the USA, it is government-subsidized sex and reproduction, along with slovenly part-time or temp work that keeps glorified “working moms” under the earned-income limits for welfare during working months, that is respected.

    This is also respected: legal and illegal immigration—facilitated by welfare and child tax credits—in addition to welfare-subsidized under-the-table work, wherein the mothers of the US-born instant-citizen kids report only enough income from the male breadwinner to qualify them for welfare. This is likewise glorified due to the womb-productive sex and the labor cost savings for the oligarchs.

    Many educated, young and not-so-young, non-womb-productive or not-yet-womb-productive Americans put a lot of effort into luxury retail and luxury food services of all kinds, bringing a lot of things to it that are not respected and not rewarded by employers or big government in the least, financially speaking, although their skills (or whatever you want to call it) add a lot to the sometimes wild success of said businesses.

    Starbucks employees are almost never like America’s many family-friendly, absenteeism-friemdly office-job moms, leaving work all of the time in back-watching absenteeism gangs that are“voted best for moms.” They are almost never the ones staying strategically under the earned-income limits for hundreds in free monthly food, subsidized rent, monthly cash assistance, free electricity and up to $6,431 in refundable child tax credits.

    They just have the (until-very-recently) low, low, low, low, low pay.

    At the time that I interviewed for Starbucks up until a year or so ago, it took a full-time Starbucks employee three to four months to earn the equivalent of the yearly refundable child tax credit, given for maximum womb productivity, to part-time-working single moms on top of their free, welfare-covered, major monthly bills.

    Many of them languish there for years, working their cans off, in this fake-feminist womb-productivity-based economy full of part-time, low-wage, temporary and churn jobs. They languish there, making far too little to even cover rent, not that the office jobs pay more. Most don’t. And most are not staffed with college grads or with people holding relevant licenses in cases where that applies.

    They are staffed by married moms with spousal income, divorced moms with rent-covering child support or single moms with welfare and child tax credits, accepting extremely low pay in exchange for extremely lax absenteeism standards.

    Not so with the hardworking baristas. And until oligarchical authorities finally raised pay, all the Starbucks employees got for their hard work was the satisfaction of a job well done and a less boring job in a safer area of the city in some cases, a job less boring due to the fact that it requires them to do about 10 things at once all day long. Which makes the day go by faster in low-wage jobs.

  78. Embarrassed I had to use the calculator (Natural Lite is good, but Steve knows that). But if Shultz, and the rest, gave 10,000 people 13,000 dollars, the number at which is the threshold for a gift, and therefore not taxable, it would cost him $130 million. What could they do with it? Get a first class ticket to the middle class, or just piss it away? I suspect they already know the answer.

    Plenty of money left over for yachts, Ferarris (sp.? whatev), nubile nymphs and whatnot. Why can’t they do that? I assume it’s the same reason ‘Green’ activists jet to various locales for virtue signaling events.

  79. @Clifford Brown
    Oprah's New Age spiritual guru, Marianne Williamson, announced that she is running for president under a call for a spiritual reawakening (a little vague, but a good start), racial reparations and open borders. She's basically Malibu embodied in human form.

    Williamson uses the term People of Planet.

    https://youtu.be/SIBNOro0vks?t=1367

    Perhaps Cali will be known in future History books as the baked over district?

  80. Why not People of Green (POG for short)?
    POG sounds somewhat insulting, and POG’s can make a show of “embracing” the insult.
    Rich girls can drink champagne on yachts in bikinis and then post selfies on instagram with the hashtag #POGPride.

  81. @Marat
    What are the billionaires' pronouns?

    $e, $it

  82. @Kratoklastes
    Part of the reason that 'more complex' societies have higher inequality, is that there is more supernumerary output (i.e., output above subsistence) to be harvested and redistributed to cronies.

    The way societies get to 'complexity' is by generating sufficient surplus to be able to develop and replenish/renew capital stocks, which drives higher productivity - the virtuous circle. It has nothing whatsoever to do with government.

    Cross-sectionally, the lack of supernumerary output in 'less complex' (but still modern) societies, limits the amount that can be extracted in taxation. This limits the return on rent-seeking (it still exists, but cannot capture a large proportion of national output: it mostly happens through aid diversion).

    Once supernumerary output rises to the extent that the second decile is at almost-zero risk of actual starvation, the rape can begin: tax rates rise (and the tax system becomes more regressive), and the tax pot becomes the object of competition between different claques of rent-seekers.

    And by the time a country reaches Western levels of affluence, the amount of tax money available for cronies gets truly staggering.

    Paretian outcomes are a natural feature of human societies - because in low-complexity (primitive and pre-Industrial) societies, individual outcomes depend on a combination of talent, luck, endowments and endeavour; those qualities are weakly correlated with each other, and with life outcomes. Obviously 'endowments' are generally low across the board at that stage.

    If those 4 characteristics were all uniformly distributed, the fact that they're only weakly correlated means that the eventual distribution has a very small proportion who are fortunate enough to have all 4 (it's the solution to Pr(A ∧ B ∧ C ∧ D) where A, B, C, and D are the levels of talent, luck, endowment and endeavour required to exceed normal returns).

    So yes: the distribution of outcomes will be Paretian (which basically means that the top 1% will have ~50% of wealth: that literally just happens).

    But here's the thing: once a political class exists, and output per capita rises to a level where taxation generates a pot of concentrated wealth (and power) that reaches genuine significance, another set of characteristics comes into play - and they're highly negative characteristics if they manifest prior to the existence of a political class (so much so that any public display of them will get you killed).

    The composition of the 1% changes radically - away from merit - and membership depends more on possession of these 'other' characteristics, in conjunction with only moderate levels of the 'good' characteristics.

    Those new determinative factors: Parasitism and sociopathy.

    In a modern complex society, those traits - combined with modest talent, a bit of luck and focused, rent-seeking endeavour - are the keys to the kingdom.

    So societies move from a meritocracy in societies of modest complexity, to an epistocracy/aristocracy[1] in societies of moderate complexity... to a kleptocracy , and they are kleptocratic well before they reach the level of complexity associated with modern Western economies (in fact, any society that generates a tax pot capable of building a pyramid, is already an open kleptocracy).



    [1] aristocracy is used here in its technical sense from the Greek aristos ("best"); the word's usage has changed to such an extent that it now means "entitled by dint of birth" - and that change in usage happened before the end of the 18th century (which gives a clue as to when advancing kleptocracy became obvious to the commoner).

    Yep.

    Of course, you’re using somewhat loaded terms here. The ruling class can at times keep some kind of order that permits the peasants to irrigate their fields, or the merchants to transport goods, or the manufacturers to accumulate capital.
    Or (like Stalin) re-direct the entire society’s output to heavy industry intended to produce military goods, and then waste the entire investment in warfare. Phillip II and successors did much the same with Spain’s colonial income — spent it in a highly destructive war. OTH, the Industrial Revolution was given quite a boost in England by the necessities of the Napoleanic Wars.

    Things get complex.

    One final point

    any society that generates a tax pot capable of building a pyramid, is already an open kleptocracy

    Right, but who are the kleptos? More than just Pharoah, you can bet.

    And who can doubt the secret hid
    ‘Neath great Pharoah’s pyramid
    is that the contractor did
    Pharoah out of several million.

    General question, one I can’t answer:
    Just how much is maintaining some kind of recognizable social system worth? When does it become more than it is worth?

    Counterinsurgency

  83. @Kratoklastes
    Part of the reason that 'more complex' societies have higher inequality, is that there is more supernumerary output (i.e., output above subsistence) to be harvested and redistributed to cronies.

    The way societies get to 'complexity' is by generating sufficient surplus to be able to develop and replenish/renew capital stocks, which drives higher productivity - the virtuous circle. It has nothing whatsoever to do with government.

    Cross-sectionally, the lack of supernumerary output in 'less complex' (but still modern) societies, limits the amount that can be extracted in taxation. This limits the return on rent-seeking (it still exists, but cannot capture a large proportion of national output: it mostly happens through aid diversion).

    Once supernumerary output rises to the extent that the second decile is at almost-zero risk of actual starvation, the rape can begin: tax rates rise (and the tax system becomes more regressive), and the tax pot becomes the object of competition between different claques of rent-seekers.

    And by the time a country reaches Western levels of affluence, the amount of tax money available for cronies gets truly staggering.

    Paretian outcomes are a natural feature of human societies - because in low-complexity (primitive and pre-Industrial) societies, individual outcomes depend on a combination of talent, luck, endowments and endeavour; those qualities are weakly correlated with each other, and with life outcomes. Obviously 'endowments' are generally low across the board at that stage.

    If those 4 characteristics were all uniformly distributed, the fact that they're only weakly correlated means that the eventual distribution has a very small proportion who are fortunate enough to have all 4 (it's the solution to Pr(A ∧ B ∧ C ∧ D) where A, B, C, and D are the levels of talent, luck, endowment and endeavour required to exceed normal returns).

    So yes: the distribution of outcomes will be Paretian (which basically means that the top 1% will have ~50% of wealth: that literally just happens).

    But here's the thing: once a political class exists, and output per capita rises to a level where taxation generates a pot of concentrated wealth (and power) that reaches genuine significance, another set of characteristics comes into play - and they're highly negative characteristics if they manifest prior to the existence of a political class (so much so that any public display of them will get you killed).

    The composition of the 1% changes radically - away from merit - and membership depends more on possession of these 'other' characteristics, in conjunction with only moderate levels of the 'good' characteristics.

    Those new determinative factors: Parasitism and sociopathy.

    In a modern complex society, those traits - combined with modest talent, a bit of luck and focused, rent-seeking endeavour - are the keys to the kingdom.

    So societies move from a meritocracy in societies of modest complexity, to an epistocracy/aristocracy[1] in societies of moderate complexity... to a kleptocracy , and they are kleptocratic well before they reach the level of complexity associated with modern Western economies (in fact, any society that generates a tax pot capable of building a pyramid, is already an open kleptocracy).



    [1] aristocracy is used here in its technical sense from the Greek aristos ("best"); the word's usage has changed to such an extent that it now means "entitled by dint of birth" - and that change in usage happened before the end of the 18th century (which gives a clue as to when advancing kleptocracy became obvious to the commoner).

    So yes: the distribution of outcomes will be Paretian (which basically means that the top 1% will have ~50% of wealth: that literally just happens).

    Well, not quite. As my post pointd out, the shape parameter of the Pareto distribtution affects wealth concentration significantly, and societies vary in wealth concentration. The percent of wealth owned by the top 1%, for example, has been increasing in the US since the late 1960s, which is about the time that the political class cut itself loose from the rest of society. Its only remaining connection was lying about “morality”, which (as the #MeTo campaign pretty much made clear) it did not practice itself.

    The power law (also called the scaling law) states that a relative change in one quantity results in a proportional relative change in another. The simplest example of the law in action is a square; if you double the length of a side (say, from 2 to 4 inches) then the area will quadruple (from 4 to 16 inches squared). A power law distribution has the form Y = k Xα, where:

    X and Y are variables of interest,
    α is the law’s exponent,
    k is a constant.

    So: here’s my initial argument (making things illegal increases wealth concentration) re-case in a more abstract form:

    Any inverse relationship like Y = X-1 is also a power law, because a change in one quantity results in a negative change in another.
    [1]
    Let’s say that X represents relatedness to some group holding political power, and the power law is of the form
    wealth=1*X*X
    Relatedness to a power group will then increase wealth. If that is the only way to get wealth (as it is in warrior civilizations — the fighting nobility is made wealthy so that it can and will fight, and provide its own support groups), then wealth concentration is extreme.
    However, suppose that one has a merchant/manufacturing society that offers several ways to get wealthy — trading, manufacturing, accumulating capital. In tht case, one has:
    wealth = a*X*X + b*X*X +c*X*X+d*X*X, where a, b, and c represent ability in trading, manufacturing, and accumulating capital. In that cae, wealth concentration is not so extreme — there are many ways to get wealth.
    Now, suppose government says that it will tax away income from a, b, and c, leaving only d nonzero. In that case, we’re back to the distribution of the warrior aristocracy case.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/power-law/

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    I've actually tried some simulations now, generating functions of random numbers and looking at the resulting histograms, and the reasoning in my initial comment doesn't work.
    I said:


    wealth = a*X*X + b*X*X +c*X*X+d*X*X, where a, b, and c represent ability in trading, manufacturing, and accumulating capital. In that case, wealth concentration is not so extreme — there are many ways to get wealth.

     

    but (of course) adding most [1] random variables yields a Normal (Gaussian) distribution, and it did in this case as well.

    What did change the skewness was the exponent for X. Defining X as x^1, X*X as x^2, X*X*X as x^3, and square root of X as X^1/2, we can call the number after the "^" an "exponent". The exponent "n" in the power law y == x^n determines skewness of the Pareto distribution! I should have figured this out years ago.

    But the important thing is that _the varying skewness of the Pareto wealth distribution appears to be the result of the exponent of a single parameter!!!_ The larger "n" is, the larger inequality of distribution is. I haven't seen that in print before, so it's probably considered too obvious to mention.

    Let's consider consequences of the "single variable" hypothesis above. The exponent "n" could be interpreted as a measure of "effectiveness" of some single mechanism.
    In heat transfer, for example, the "effectiveness" of energy transfer/sec (power flow) between two bodies is proportional to (HighTemp^4 -LowTemp^4), and is always from high temperature body to low temperature body. For conduction between two bodies, energy transfer/sec is given by (HighTemp^1-LowTemp^1). Clearly temperature difference is more important for radiative than for conductive heat transfer, and "n" (4 for radiative and 1 for conductive) as the measure of effectiveness.
    By analogy, the "n" in the power law that implies a Pareto distribution is a measure of "effectiveness" of some single variable. Could that variable be the amount of influence that politics has in wealth? If so, that would explain quite a few strange things.

    Microsoft, for example, and the importance of politics in Silicon Valley. Back at the founding of Microsoft (I've seen reported), its management did not consider politics important, and had no lobbyists in Washington DC. It was slapped with a threat of anti-monopoly legislation (as it was buying up or otherwise destroying competition), and fielded lobbyists in response. Clearly, Microsoft realized the importance of politics in wealth generation and retention (especially retention).

    Present day Silicon Valley is dominated by politics. To paraphrase Bloom [1], "those who appeal to power are eventually condemned to lie with it." Bloom was referring to the eventual opinion of Classical philosophers after Don's fiasco [2], but the phrase is applicable to Silicon Valley. What if close connection to politics were necessary to wealth retention?

    If that's the case, then the "complexity of society" is just a proxy for the number of interactions possible when interactions are not banned by government. It's interesting that the US industrialized itself when the Federal Government was both strong [3] and limited in scope [4]. Such a combination, if sustainable at all, would allow (even encourage) social complexity.

    Counterinsurgency


    1] Exception being the stable distributions. I'd be tempted to say that these rather weird distributions couldn't possibly exist in reality, except for the fact that they do and are encountered surprisingly often. There is clearly a hole in my understanding here.

    3] Bloom.
    _Closing of the American Mind_.

    4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dion_of_Syracuse

    5] Strong: the US Federal government could enforce its decisions domestically

    6] Limited in scope: The US Federal government only decided in those areas specified by a written document (the US Constitution).
  84. Anon[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    Net worth US$4.9 billion (2018)[2]
    Political party Conservative
    Spouse(s) Tina Green
    Children Chloe
    Brandon

    Sir Philip Nigel Ross Green (born 15 March 1952) is a British billionaire businessman, ...

    Green has been involved in a number of controversies during his career, including his actions prior to the demise of BHS.[3] In October 2016, the House of Commons approved a measure to ask the Honours Forfeiture Committee to strip Green of his knighthood for his role in the downfall of BHS.[4] This decision was not legally binding and his knighthood was not revoked, although there were later calls to revoke it if allegations of sexual harassment, bullying and racism revealed in October 2018 are proved.[5]

     

    Remember the Hot Felon

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6011335/Chloe-Green-Hot-Felon-beau-Jeremy-Meeks-look-smitten-Turkey.html

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/07/31/14/4EB7DC8A00000578-0-image-m-100_1533045320478.jpg

    The socialite, 27, sweetly held hands with her convict-turned-model beau, 34, as they disembarked the family's luxury £115m yacht
     
    The genes that find themselves in the daughter of a billionaire do not have to worry about whether the man she marries can suport her. In a heiress, the genes go into Sexy Son mode, and send the hapless girl after a man who can spread them in every sense (ie she falls for a man who can give her a son who will be attractive to multiple women).

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

    Porfirio Rubirosa Ariza (January 22, 1909 – July 5, 1965) was a Dominican diplomat, race car driver, soldier and polo player. He was an adherent of the dictator Rafael Trujillo, and was also rumored to be a political assassin under his regime.[1] Rubirosa made his mark as an international playboy for his jetsetting lifestyle and his legendary sexual prowess with women.[2] Among his spouses were two of the richest women in the world.[3]
     

    This is why there was primogeniture and a bias towards male inheritance. Culture and civilization, ethnic identity, patriotism, all ultimately derive from the original male impulse for mate guarding and promoting patrilineal interests.

    R.A. Fisher wrote in his “Social Selection of Fertility” that the wealthy tend to die out as a class because wealth tends to concentrate in less fertile families with heiresses, who inherit the genes for being less fertile. The successful or famous men who tend to marry these heiresses also have fewer offspring as a result and thus their genes become less common as well.

    The two rich heiresses Rubirosa married, Barbara Hutton and Doris Duke, were not fertile. Duke gave birth once to a premature child who died the day after birth. Hutton had one child who died in his 30s with no children of his own. Hutton was an alcoholic and drug addict who was nearly bankrupt when she passed.

    Rubirosa himself had no children and was said to be sterile.

  85. @The Z Blog
    Feminists in academia are now calling normal women "people of uterus" in their papers. This is to distinguish them from women without a uterus and women with a penis. I've read some of these papers on my podcast. People assumed I was making it up, but sadly, it is a real thing.

    My suggestion was "people of womb" was better, as POW has a nice ring to it. That way, heterosexual males could be "people of penis" or POP. The non-binary, gender non-specific, gays, queers, lesbians, et al could then call their enemies, POP and POW.

    Just when you think that the modern Left has gone as far as they can go, and are beyond parody, something like this happens. You have to wonder how an old-fashioned “Down with Bourgeoisie Decadence” Socialist like Bernie Sanders, who can remember his heroes like Fidel Castro throwing gays and trannies into concentration camps, feels about this stuff.

  86. Why not go back to the good old days? You know, when rich and noble people used to call us little people peasants, serfs and slaves and then we have a ready name for them: master, sir, my lord, etc. Problem solved!
    There’s also: rich bastards.

  87. @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    Your analysis has a lot of merit.
     
    Thanks for supporting the illiterate musings of an incoherent poster. If we were wondering about your advocacy for leftism (i.e. tyranny) you have disabused us of our equivocal considerations of your occasional accuracy.

    The "thunder of the left" is the siren song of slavery, the trumpet of the Soviets, the carrying card of the "International" - and we know how that has worked out.

    How many dead would dissuade you of your Marxist superstitions? Because 100 million was not enough.

    How many, P. Liberal? How many innocents are needed to turn you from your path?

    I never said I supported a Communist revolution. You are reading WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much into my post.

    It was a warning — if the politics as usual don’t work, people will start looking at politics as unusual. After all, there was no way Trump could have been elected if most people thought the government was working for them.

    My initial thought is that if Trump doesn’t work out, then people may turn to a leftist (but not Communist) like Sanders or Warren or eventually AOC.

    The trouble is, when people are upset, they tend to look for extremists. And the history of MOST revolutions is that the uprising is started by reasonable people with reasonable demands, then things get further and further to the extreme —

    Such as Russia, which started with Kerensky, then Lenin, finally Stalin.
    Or China, with Sun and Chiang, then Zhou, finally Mao.
    Or France, or Mexico, etc.

    The American experience has been unusual. Our revolution started with reasonable men, and ended with the same men. Washington gave up power not once, but THREE times.
    With the Civil War, we started with Lincoln, and ended with the Radical Republicans, but with Andrew Johnson in power.
    Our reaction to the worldwide Great Depression was not Franco or Peron or Mussolini or Hitler, but FDR.

    I hope we can continue this path.

    However, these are not normal times. Trump could never have been elected in normal times. I am saying his successor may be out of the normal political sphere, but on the left this time.

  88. The trouble is, when people are upset, they tend to look for extremists. And the history of MOST revolutions is that the uprising is started by reasonable people with reasonable demands, then things get further and further to the extreme —

    Revolutions happen when the higher leadership are failing in foreign policy and war against other countries. When it becomes clear that China is actually overtaking America in every measure of power, then there may be enough generalized dissatisfaction. The left believe in domestic laxity and international cooperation, and so will be poorly placed to take advantage of the salient feature of the next few decades.

  89. @Counterinsurgency

    So yes: the distribution of outcomes will be Paretian (which basically means that the top 1% will have ~50% of wealth: that literally just happens).
     
    Well, not quite. As my post pointd out, the shape parameter of the Pareto distribtution affects wealth concentration significantly, and societies vary in wealth concentration. The percent of wealth owned by the top 1%, for example, has been increasing in the US since the late 1960s, which is about the time that the political class cut itself loose from the rest of society. Its only remaining connection was lying about "morality", which (as the #MeTo campaign pretty much made clear) it did not practice itself.


    The power law (also called the scaling law) states that a relative change in one quantity results in a proportional relative change in another. The simplest example of the law in action is a square; if you double the length of a side (say, from 2 to 4 inches) then the area will quadruple (from 4 to 16 inches squared). A power law distribution has the form Y = k Xα, where:

    X and Y are variables of interest,
    α is the law’s exponent,
    k is a constant.

    So: here's my initial argument (making things illegal increases wealth concentration) re-case in a more abstract form:

    Any inverse relationship like Y = X-1 is also a power law, because a change in one quantity results in a negative change in another.
    [1]
    Let's say that X represents relatedness to some group holding political power, and the power law is of the form
    wealth=1*X*X
    Relatedness to a power group will then increase wealth. If that is the only way to get wealth (as it is in warrior civilizations -- the fighting nobility is made wealthy so that it can and will fight, and provide its own support groups), then wealth concentration is extreme.
    However, suppose that one has a merchant/manufacturing society that offers several ways to get wealthy -- trading, manufacturing, accumulating capital. In tht case, one has:
    wealth = a*X*X + b*X*X +c*X*X+d*X*X, where a, b, and c represent ability in trading, manufacturing, and accumulating capital. In that cae, wealth concentration is not so extreme -- there are many ways to get wealth.
    Now, suppose government says that it will tax away income from a, b, and c, leaving only d nonzero. In that case, we're back to the distribution of the warrior aristocracy case.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.com/power-law/

    I’ve actually tried some simulations now, generating functions of random numbers and looking at the resulting histograms, and the reasoning in my initial comment doesn’t work.
    I said:

    wealth = a*X*X + b*X*X +c*X*X+d*X*X, where a, b, and c represent ability in trading, manufacturing, and accumulating capital. In that case, wealth concentration is not so extreme — there are many ways to get wealth.

    but (of course) adding most [1] random variables yields a Normal (Gaussian) distribution, and it did in this case as well.

    What did change the skewness was the exponent for X. Defining X as x^1, X*X as x^2, X*X*X as x^3, and square root of X as X^1/2, we can call the number after the “^” an “exponent”. The exponent “n” in the power law y == x^n determines skewness of the Pareto distribution! I should have figured this out years ago.

    But the important thing is that _the varying skewness of the Pareto wealth distribution appears to be the result of the exponent of a single parameter!!!_ The larger “n” is, the larger inequality of distribution is. I haven’t seen that in print before, so it’s probably considered too obvious to mention.

    Let’s consider consequences of the “single variable” hypothesis above. The exponent “n” could be interpreted as a measure of “effectiveness” of some single mechanism.
    In heat transfer, for example, the “effectiveness” of energy transfer/sec (power flow) between two bodies is proportional to (HighTemp^4 -LowTemp^4), and is always from high temperature body to low temperature body. For conduction between two bodies, energy transfer/sec is given by (HighTemp^1-LowTemp^1). Clearly temperature difference is more important for radiative than for conductive heat transfer, and “n” (4 for radiative and 1 for conductive) as the measure of effectiveness.
    By analogy, the “n” in the power law that implies a Pareto distribution is a measure of “effectiveness” of some single variable. Could that variable be the amount of influence that politics has in wealth? If so, that would explain quite a few strange things.

    Microsoft, for example, and the importance of politics in Silicon Valley. Back at the founding of Microsoft (I’ve seen reported), its management did not consider politics important, and had no lobbyists in Washington DC. It was slapped with a threat of anti-monopoly legislation (as it was buying up or otherwise destroying competition), and fielded lobbyists in response. Clearly, Microsoft realized the importance of politics in wealth generation and retention (especially retention).

    Present day Silicon Valley is dominated by politics. To paraphrase Bloom [1], “those who appeal to power are eventually condemned to lie with it.” Bloom was referring to the eventual opinion of Classical philosophers after Don’s fiasco [2], but the phrase is applicable to Silicon Valley. What if close connection to politics were necessary to wealth retention?

    If that’s the case, then the “complexity of society” is just a proxy for the number of interactions possible when interactions are not banned by government. It’s interesting that the US industrialized itself when the Federal Government was both strong [3] and limited in scope [4]. Such a combination, if sustainable at all, would allow (even encourage) social complexity.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] Exception being the stable distributions. I’d be tempted to say that these rather weird distributions couldn’t possibly exist in reality, except for the fact that they do and are encountered surprisingly often. There is clearly a hole in my understanding here.

    3] Bloom.
    _Closing of the American Mind_.

    4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dion_of_Syracuse

    5] Strong: the US Federal government could enforce its decisions domestically

    6] Limited in scope: The US Federal government only decided in those areas specified by a written document (the US Constitution).

  90. It will never happen but how about a one time scalping of American billionaires. I would like to see 10% of their wealth being taken and used by the Feds foe very useful activities, starting with building the Trump Wall and and other measures to control illegal and legal immigration.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS