Let's see... If Bill Gates "entire net worth" could be perfectly liquidated and stolen: It'd run "just US federal gov" for < a week. The "entirety" of Elon Musk's net worth (IRL largely stock) would run "just federal gov" for 21 days. Taxing the rich hard would: 1. Nuke the country. 2. Do little.
Also, taxing billionaires would be an act of self-defense for the middle class. Nothing has "trickled down" after 50 years of tax cuts to the wealthy. We were better off without them. academic.oup.com/ser/article/...
The fundamental mistake these people are making is in thinking that the US exists independently of the world economy. "Trickle down" requires that you be contributing to systems that are creating value. Chinese standards of living have gone up a lot, because they are doing more. (Simplification)
Ah, you mean the pocket change. Yes, I would include taxing their corporations at the same rates we did in 1958. Elon only owns 12% of Tesla. Growth would solve a lot of problems. www.epi.org/publication/...
The post WW2 boom was because Europe was ruined, the rest of the world was underdeveloped, and the US had the biggest manufacturing plant in the world. So it could drain resources from the entire planet! But it was a temporary situation, and there's little useful that you can learn from that time.
Mancur Olson argued that the war was responsible for breaking up industrial cartels that accelerated growth in Japan and Germany after the war (Phoenix Factor). Industry consolidation is a problem, especially when it results in a 22,000 percent ROI in lobbying expenditures at public expense.
I think it depends. For a mature industry, you're likely better off with economies of scale, and thus consolidation. For industries that are young, with learning ongoing, it's too early to try and consolidate. Random example: American Tobacco Company being broken up, "increased" consumer prices.
Stock buybacks should be taxed at 150%. If it's that important, make them pay.
It may be easier for you to understand this if you think of putting out stock in terms of taking out a mortgage against your house (and its ownership). Especially in times of uncertainty, or when you have no immediately better use for your money, you're better off paying down the mortgage.
We don't do that with massive tax cuts. It's also not the best way to fight two wars, as W did. The answer to everything is not another tax cut. We have an aging infrastructure issue to solve, and tax cuts don't solve it.
I agree with you, in that most government decisions shouldn't be made carelessly or at too large a scale, without testing. And that there are investments worth making. Fundamentally though, what the country needs is "growth". Even though I don't agree with Trump, that the US was a sinking ship.
There are myriad ways to cut spending and identify waste (start at DoD). What is happening is not a good-faith effort at honest analysis or implementation. Cutting essential services, breaking risk-moderating regulations, and destroying safety-net programs are a completely different agenda.
I'm actually inclined to say that it may be in good faith, "but without much analysis". The problem is that DoD spending can't be cut enough. Most of the real spending is in entitlements and national debt. Ideally, more analysis should be done, but you probably are still going to have to go there
Although there is (or was) a side question to be asked there of "How much of a deficit can the US run indefinitely?" Because, the USD's reserve currency status means that the rest of the world benefits from a regular supply of additional dollars injected for trade as the world economy grows.
There's overwhelming evidence that Musk used his powers to destroy entities with which he had legal issues. The rest was mere sabotage, especially in the layoffs at the Social Security Administration. That will be used to declare that the system doesn't work. I recommend reading Project 2025.
Re: Musk. I doubt his intention is to "destroy entities with which he had legal issues". It's more that his style "feels chaotic". But look at Twitter: It now has lower cost, higher profits, offers more features, and has major AI potential. His approach is very unusual for government, of course.
Where I generally cringe at this kind of disruptive attitude towards government - which IMO, is mainly meant to be a source of stability. It's also worth noting that the Civil War and the disruptive changes from that, were part of what enabled the US' sudden rise thereafter once oil was discovered.
Corruption is not unusual. It's a well-traveled path. The speed may appear chaotic, but it is very precise. Data coordination with other activities tied to OMB, Treasury, and immigration violate privacy laws. Musk also has specific interests, like installing Starlink at the capitol.
It's very targeted chaos. If you're promising a trillion-dollar cut, you don't start with an agency that's barely a rounding error. USAID was investigating Starlink contracts. That's not an accident or mere 'chaos.' Twitter was bought with Saudi help to avoid another Arab Spring, a propaganda tool.
Project 2025 is definitely more ideological than practical. To some degree, both Democrats and Republicans idealize the post WW2 period (for different reasons). Not realizing that the post war boom was mainly a result of environmental factors that no longer exist, and can't be recreated.
Project 2025 is purely ideological and a practical guide to achieving the objectives of the Heritage Foundation, all else be damned. Bannon said they needed to be Leninists (most people don't understand what that means). Instead, they're being Maoists.
Taking the cap off social security taxes would help a lot. Tax enforcement and beefing up the IGs would improve efficiencies. Allowing Medicaid and Medicare to negotiate drug prices could make a major cut in expenditures. Just 10 drugs could save $6 billion. www.kff.org/medicare/iss....
There are definitely many ways to cut costs on medicine. Like if we allowed for "capitalism", and allowed importing insulin from places like Germany (almost definitely safe enough). Coupling AI (or foreign doctors) with US doctors could reduce average costs.
There's an army of lobbyists in the way of each one of those avenues. Big Pharm, the AMA (in all 50 states), and even the pension funds. AI can't vote (yet), but when it does, I doubt that Grandma's heart meds will be considered efficient enough to deserve renewal. Insurance gets 15% "admin."
We don't have medical records integrated as was supposed to happen with the ACA (a portion that was struck down). Two of my doctors in the same hospital can't share records electronically. AI is a pipe dream until that gets fixed. Creating a virus that eliminates lobbyists is the answer.
