Billionaires love an analysis that start with the assumption that the markets have been valued but for a few periods or a few actors. It's always been a game to exact as much control and power through wealth multipliers as possible. The only arguably redeeming quality of the markets have been the benefits to the rich countries and the ability to regulate the world with less violence by using a payment system that creates billionaires in every country to play ball. You understate how that system is being attacked and why workers should hate it.
You tell partial truth. Speculative markets are not truly free markets, because they are weighted give the original investors incentive to promote the product beyond its value. The value from increasing stock prices far in a weigh exceed profits or losses. The stock market also has unseen victims anyone who doesn't participate in an unearned wealth multiplier is a loser.
Into the night when it was clear Donald Trump was the 2016 election, I turned to my husband and said,
‘Now all of us will experience what it is like to live in an abusive family.” We have and are. Clearly, Trump is a malignant narcissist/sociopath. He is not addicted to alcohol, but he is an addict. Here is his addiction: getting away with something AND hurting someone/s in the process. It isn’t just the rush of power that satisfy his craving; it is getting away with something while hurting and/or demeaning someone in the process. This is how he gets his high. Like any addiction he has to increase the dose in order maintain the high. His destructive acts become more outrageous, more destructive, more hurtful.
Like an addict, he won’t stop. He has to be stopped by those around him.
Justin’s comment on billionaires implied that, say, $100 million would be a sufficient plateau for a person’s wealth, in that wealth beyond that level provides diminishing utility (in the economist’s jargon). This is a meaningful example for an attorney who needs to take on more cases or a real estate developer who needs to do more deals to continue to grow their wealth, but the corporate billionaires and multi-millionaires that we’re usually thinking of are founders, major shareholders and executives of public companies. Their job is to grow the wealth of their company thereby benefiting, either directly or indirectly, employees, suppliers, the communities in which they operate, and (usually) their customers if their services are provided in a competitive market and thus at a competitive price. Accordingly, Justin cannot expect them to sub-optimize their strategies and decision-making in order to stop further wealth creation.
I’m not a “trickle down” guy, but some of this wealth creation can, indeed, flow into public / social purposes via taxation (although more redistributive taxation is urgently needed), the creation of foundations (see the work of the Rockefeller and Ford foundations) the founding or support of hospitals and universities, and other pursuits. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have pledged to liquidate their wealth in their lifetime in the pursuit of addressing social and medical issues. Of course, having the wealth (eventually) dispersed according to the criteria of the rich, and not of society in general (when that society created the basis for the creation of that wealth through, for example, basic publicly funded research, an educated consumer base through public education, and a legal framework that protects property and enforces contracts), is an interesting but separate issue.
But please don’t misunderstand me. While the dynamism of markets and the fluidity of capital chasing high returns is a marvelous system for creating wealth, both public and private, in a capitalist economy, that same dynamism in a capitalist economy creates pervasive economic insecurity among its agents, including most importantly employees, and that same fluidity of capital creates economic inequality which today rivals the Gilded Age. The problem, as always, is to preserve the dynamism, incentives, and competition that creates wealth while ensuring that the wealth that is created thereby flows more broadly through all sectors of the economy. Yes, a difficult task! Senator Warren has some interesting ideas on taxing wealth, although taxing wealth has historically (except for real property, e.g., your home) been difficult because it can be made portable and thus “hidden.”
The thing overlooked in Trump’s $1.776 billion slush fund is the way Trump found a way to pardon himself using civil litigation and without using the pardon power. Let’s say for example, he murders someone on 5th Ave and is investigated for it. He can then file a civil suit against his own government claiming the govt wrongfully investigated him, and then settle that civil lawsuit and have the justice department promise, as part of the settlement, never to prosecute him for the 5th Ave muder. Voila!
You’ve disarmed yourself: You can’t refute Wolfers’ arguments if you don’t listen to him to know what his arguments are. Well, you might say that you know his arguments already, and that might be true, but simply saying you put your fingers in your ears when he’s speaking is not a refutation of any of his arguments. One can infer that you can’t refute his arguments or you would do so. By putting your fingers in your ears while failing to refute his arguments, you surrender the argument to Wolfers.
I don’t agree with Wolfers on everything, but he is right about some pretty basic concepts, such as the importance of competition to improve economic efficiency and increase the quality of goods available to consumers—while he also acknowledges the need for prudent rules and regulations to counteract the risks that can arise in competitive free market economies. He and I share most of the same basic economic principles, although we disagree somewhat about the best ways to address practical prudential problems.
The issue is not, I believe, whether or not we should want or have billionaires. The issue is the damn US tax code where almost every Tom, Dick, and Harry gets exemptions, carve-outs, loop holes, etc., depending on his business. First fix the tax code; then, let's revisit this.
Excellent interview, Charlie! Your interaction with Justin was superb, resulting in discussions of numerous difficult and contentious topics that were clarifying and, ultimately, uplifting - thank you!
Even if we have no billionaires that is not going to help the average person. You are still going to be as broker as you were. Don't fall into a trap that says oh you will gain if Billionairs are somehow eliminated. It is not going to effect you one bit. There are things that can help you but getting rid of billionairs without proper reform for the working class, is just going to make someone other than the billionaires rich BUT IT IS NOT GOING TO BE YOU!!! Remember the goal should be to help YOU, getting rid of billionairs without helping You, well it does not make me feel any better.
Excellent!
Billionaires love an analysis that start with the assumption that the markets have been valued but for a few periods or a few actors. It's always been a game to exact as much control and power through wealth multipliers as possible. The only arguably redeeming quality of the markets have been the benefits to the rich countries and the ability to regulate the world with less violence by using a payment system that creates billionaires in every country to play ball. You understate how that system is being attacked and why workers should hate it.
You tell partial truth. Speculative markets are not truly free markets, because they are weighted give the original investors incentive to promote the product beyond its value. The value from increasing stock prices far in a weigh exceed profits or losses. The stock market also has unseen victims anyone who doesn't participate in an unearned wealth multiplier is a loser.
If only they had been warned…🤣
I love when you say that!
I really enjoyed that podcast and learned a lot as well. I shared it with a number of my friends.
Next time you get Wolfer back, it would be great to talk about the national debt.
There aren’t too many podcasts or columnists that I religiously. listen to and read, but you are the one. Thanks for all the work you put into it.
Into the night when it was clear Donald Trump was the 2016 election, I turned to my husband and said,
‘Now all of us will experience what it is like to live in an abusive family.” We have and are. Clearly, Trump is a malignant narcissist/sociopath. He is not addicted to alcohol, but he is an addict. Here is his addiction: getting away with something AND hurting someone/s in the process. It isn’t just the rush of power that satisfy his craving; it is getting away with something while hurting and/or demeaning someone in the process. This is how he gets his high. Like any addiction he has to increase the dose in order maintain the high. His destructive acts become more outrageous, more destructive, more hurtful.
Like an addict, he won’t stop. He has to be stopped by those around him.
“Markets need public support” as stated by Justin Wolfers. Enough said.
Jason makes me smarter, Charlie makes me think
Justin’s comment on billionaires implied that, say, $100 million would be a sufficient plateau for a person’s wealth, in that wealth beyond that level provides diminishing utility (in the economist’s jargon). This is a meaningful example for an attorney who needs to take on more cases or a real estate developer who needs to do more deals to continue to grow their wealth, but the corporate billionaires and multi-millionaires that we’re usually thinking of are founders, major shareholders and executives of public companies. Their job is to grow the wealth of their company thereby benefiting, either directly or indirectly, employees, suppliers, the communities in which they operate, and (usually) their customers if their services are provided in a competitive market and thus at a competitive price. Accordingly, Justin cannot expect them to sub-optimize their strategies and decision-making in order to stop further wealth creation.
I’m not a “trickle down” guy, but some of this wealth creation can, indeed, flow into public / social purposes via taxation (although more redistributive taxation is urgently needed), the creation of foundations (see the work of the Rockefeller and Ford foundations) the founding or support of hospitals and universities, and other pursuits. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have pledged to liquidate their wealth in their lifetime in the pursuit of addressing social and medical issues. Of course, having the wealth (eventually) dispersed according to the criteria of the rich, and not of society in general (when that society created the basis for the creation of that wealth through, for example, basic publicly funded research, an educated consumer base through public education, and a legal framework that protects property and enforces contracts), is an interesting but separate issue.
But please don’t misunderstand me. While the dynamism of markets and the fluidity of capital chasing high returns is a marvelous system for creating wealth, both public and private, in a capitalist economy, that same dynamism in a capitalist economy creates pervasive economic insecurity among its agents, including most importantly employees, and that same fluidity of capital creates economic inequality which today rivals the Gilded Age. The problem, as always, is to preserve the dynamism, incentives, and competition that creates wealth while ensuring that the wealth that is created thereby flows more broadly through all sectors of the economy. Yes, a difficult task! Senator Warren has some interesting ideas on taxing wealth, although taxing wealth has historically (except for real property, e.g., your home) been difficult because it can be made portable and thus “hidden.”
The thing overlooked in Trump’s $1.776 billion slush fund is the way Trump found a way to pardon himself using civil litigation and without using the pardon power. Let’s say for example, he murders someone on 5th Ave and is investigated for it. He can then file a civil suit against his own government claiming the govt wrongfully investigated him, and then settle that civil lawsuit and have the justice department promise, as part of the settlement, never to prosecute him for the 5th Ave muder. Voila!
Thank you always Charlie Sykes. But
I will never watch Justin Wolfers.
I love him, what don't you like?
You’ve disarmed yourself: You can’t refute Wolfers’ arguments if you don’t listen to him to know what his arguments are. Well, you might say that you know his arguments already, and that might be true, but simply saying you put your fingers in your ears when he’s speaking is not a refutation of any of his arguments. One can infer that you can’t refute his arguments or you would do so. By putting your fingers in your ears while failing to refute his arguments, you surrender the argument to Wolfers.
I don’t agree with Wolfers on everything, but he is right about some pretty basic concepts, such as the importance of competition to improve economic efficiency and increase the quality of goods available to consumers—while he also acknowledges the need for prudent rules and regulations to counteract the risks that can arise in competitive free market economies. He and I share most of the same basic economic principles, although we disagree somewhat about the best ways to address practical prudential problems.
Bezos has an addiction to money (and power). Addictions make you do things you might not otherwise do.
The issue is not, I believe, whether or not we should want or have billionaires. The issue is the damn US tax code where almost every Tom, Dick, and Harry gets exemptions, carve-outs, loop holes, etc., depending on his business. First fix the tax code; then, let's revisit this.
Financial COUP. ✅✅
Excellent interview, Charlie! Your interaction with Justin was superb, resulting in discussions of numerous difficult and contentious topics that were clarifying and, ultimately, uplifting - thank you!
Even if we have no billionaires that is not going to help the average person. You are still going to be as broker as you were. Don't fall into a trap that says oh you will gain if Billionairs are somehow eliminated. It is not going to effect you one bit. There are things that can help you but getting rid of billionairs without proper reform for the working class, is just going to make someone other than the billionaires rich BUT IT IS NOT GOING TO BE YOU!!! Remember the goal should be to help YOU, getting rid of billionairs without helping You, well it does not make me feel any better.