u/Dizzy-Drink6119

​

This is the first wish out of 3, I'm looking for holes in this wish:

I wish to be able to preview all subsequent wishes.

I wish that, upon explicitly declaring 'I wish to preview:' followed by a proposed wish statement, I will instantaneously perceive a clear, fully understandable overview of the highest-probability outcomes—along with significant edge-case risks—that would result from that proposed wish statement.

This overview must be delivered to me in zero subjective time, consuming no physical time, and causing zero physical, psychological, emotional, or cognitive harm, impairment, or alteration to me or anyone else, nor altering the real-world state of the universe prior to my final decision.

Upon receiving this overview, I will retain total free will to either (a) finalize the wish by stating 'Execute', (b) discard the wish entirely by stating 'Cancel', or (c) submit a revised draft under these exact same terms, without any limit on revisions and without any penalty or execution occurring until I explicitly state 'Execute'."

According to most available data on average people with with more than a 100 mil net worth pay less percentage wise than the average/median (I can't remember which one) in tax, through tax loopholes and hiding wealth assets.

If there was a tax hike on these individuals that made them pay the same effective tax rate as everyone else. Would that be good or bad for the economy?

Not more tax just fair, as if they closed all loopholes.

I am studying some economics and this is the basis of my question.

I am referring to georgist and post-keynesian economic rent which is value exchanged due to ownership of a barrier or access to resources rather than the resource itself. Example being land rents. Rents are generally bad for the economy, profits are good. In every transaction you will have a mixture of both.

Contestability in the market refers to the ability for consumers or producers to change buyers or sellers is determined by demand elasticity, market friction, economies of scales, cost of entry and government regulations.

Does the market intrinsically under capitalism reward undue economic rents directly proportional to the size and concentration of capital and inversely proportional to the contestability of the market, without government intervention?

Ie monopoly rents.

Because if it did it would explain why some markets work well under capitalism and others don't. Healthcare has high contestability while barber shops don't, hence one is much more extractive

​

I think it's something that pro-capitalist economics don't really put mind.

They don't really put a political analysis into economical thinking when it comes to wealth and capital.

High levels of inequality will always hurt democracy because the wealthy will be incentivized to use their power to corrupt, regardless of whether they got their wealth legitimately, hence creating barriers to trade they can reap rents from and disrupting markets, like American car companies do to prevent Chinese competition from coming in.

wealth is just another form of power if you can coerce someone economically that's not really consequentially different from coefficient someone physically through political Force the result is the same.

I think it's something that economics don't really put mind.

They don't really put a political analysis into economical thinking when it comes to wealth and capital.

High levels of inequality will always error democracy because the wealthy will be incentivized to use their power to corrupt, regardless of whether they got their wealth legitimately, hence creating barriers to trade they can reap rents from.

wealth is not just another form of power if you can coerce someone economically that's not really consequentially different from coefficient someone physically through political Force the result is the same.

After 13 years politzane has finally made a follow up video.

Like in a wealth tax there most also be a land value tax within. If the part that doesn't have to do with land fails but part that taxes land works, that's effectively a LVT.

And if the whole wealth tax works that is a bonus.

According to most Christians sex outside of marriage and same sex marriage should are bad because they do not produce a family.

If we reduce the legitimacy of romantic and sexual expression strictly to biological reproduction, the logic has to apply across the board. Every form of romantic intimacy from kissing to physical affection would have to be strictly reserved exclusively for a reproductive partner. Any affection shared outside of that exact procreative intent would be categorized as invalid, forcing every other human bond into a strictly platonic or familial box.

This includes birth control because why would you need that in a christian marriage?

Is the idea that radical, unregulated free-market capitalism is the most effective way to organize society, solve economic problems, and distribute resources successful or feasible?

Things like Extreme Deregulation, Privatization and Minimalist Government. Does it work?

I understand embargoing them during the cold war, but why past that?

The US is friends with many dictatorships, so that can't be a good reason?

So why does both the establishment liberal and Republican aisle want it to fall so badly, to the point of sieging the place?

If paying more money means you get better legal representation, hence you are more likely to win a case. Then wouldnt that mean that within a certain bound of obscurity, where who is at fault is not obvious the person who has more money is more likely to win?

That would mean if your rich, regardless of wether the system is working well or not the law effectively treat you better, no?

Is the idea that radical, unregulated free-market capitalism is the most effective way to organize society, solve economic problems, and distribute resources successful or feasible?

Things like Extreme Deregulation, Privatization and Minimalist Government. Does it work?

​ Edit: I meant US capitalism, typo in the title The modern capitalist economic system requires money to circulate quickly in order to induce economic growth, this requires a mixture of high investment and high consumption.

Different income and wealth groups have something economists call marginal propensity to consume and invest.

This is how likely each additional dollar is to be invested or used in consumption.

Rich people have a high marginal propensity to invest but have a low marginal propensity to consume.

Poor people on the other hand have a high marginal propensity to consume but a low marginal effect propensity to invest.

The modern increase in wealth inequality and the k shaped economy is a sign of more money in the hands of poor consumers.

A normal economy would either increase taxes to redistribute income or increase export to take advantage of high consumers elsewhere (like in China)

But since neoliberal economists have hit their skulls on a hammer anytime they hear "taxes" or "wealth distribution". The US is posturing itself to do neither of that and chicken it's economy with debt and low productivity

I personally don't see a way for the us to pay back it's debt without raising taxes and investing in infrastructure.

Is there another way?

Austerity didn't work in the UK it just made stuff worse, because it reduced median income growth.

They can borrow more money because the yeilds are up.

And Reducing taxes won't cause more outside investment because most foreign investment already comes from the US .

The tax is going to have to be some form of wealth tax because most rich people already store their savings in assets.

It is the middle class that pays the majority of taxes now because they their money is in cash.