Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

[5mn_Major]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Scoobs headline of the day:

8 people have as much wealth as half the world

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...port/96545438/

[joecct]

Scoobs headline of the day:

8 people have as much wealth as half the world

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...port/96545438/

Go back to 1900
Morgan
Carnegie
Rockefeller
Rothschild
Rhodes?
Krupp??

Not much has changed except the names.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Go back to 1900
Morgan
Carnegie
Rockefeller
Rothschild
Rhodes?
Krupp??

Not much has changed except the names.

I would go with the top five:
Vanderbilt, Ford, Carnegie, Morgan, and Rockefeller. I'm guessing those five had as much as the bottom 50% at one time.

ETA: http://www.businessinsider.com/riche...s-ever-2011-4#

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...orical_figures

Interesting.

I'm actually curious, since 1850, when was wealth equality the absolute worst? Not sure how to define that, but I'm guessing it was the Gilded Age. Wiki estimates the top 1% had 51% of the property though the top 10% had 75% of the wealth (which is no different than today apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth..._United_States)

[Kepler]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

I'm actually curious, since 1850, when was wealth equality the absolute worst? Not sure how to define that, but I'm guessing it was the Gilded Age. Wiki estimates the top 1% had 51% of the property though the top 10% had 75% of the wealth (which is no different than today apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth..._United_States)

My guess is 1893, 1929, and 2006. I leave it as an exercise for the reader why I picked those three dates.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

My guess is 1893, 1929, and 2006. I leave it as an exercise for the reader why I picked those three dates.

2006? I would have said closer to 2007 or 2008.

[joecct]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

My guess is 1893, 1929, and 2006. I leave it as an exercise for the reader why I picked those three dates.

I'm having a panic attack that I can't come up with the answer. I feel so depressed.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

My guess is 1893, 1929, and 2006. I leave it as an exercise for the reader why I picked those three dates.

Mostly well done by the board. It appears that there is likely a high point around the turn of the century, 1929 and actually today. Graph one says the 'today' high point was in 2007, but I expect its 2016 (not shown on these graphs).

http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/

If you consider that the US as a percent of world wealth probably maxed between WWI (prior Europe) and 1980 (after emerging markets), then that would make 1929 the worst wealth disparity post antiquity in the history.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

My guess is 1893, 1929, and 2006. I leave it as an exercise for the reader why I picked those three dates.

Pretty obvious why you picked them, though I would say the inequality is even worse today, given the record number of people on food stamps and at/below the poverty line.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Pretty obvious why you picked them, though I would say the inequality is even worse today, given the record number of people on food stamps and at/below the poverty line.

And yet STILL, you want everything privatized, and think taxation is theft. Hilarious.

[joecct]

And yet STILL, you want everything privatized, and think taxation is theft. Hilarious.

It's not theft. It's a "Protection Fee".

[unofan]

It's not theft. It's a "Protection Fee".

It's the admission price for living in a civilization.

[joecct]

It's the admission price for living in a civilization.

And yet, for the most part, we didn't have/need an income tax until a century or so ago. Duties and excise taxes, sure. But confiscating personal income? Nada and they needed a constitutional amendment to do it.

Our federal government is notably inefficient. Give them $1, they'll spend $2. Give them $2, they'll spend $3. Toss in a foreign entanglement and spending goes though the roof. THAT'S when you need an income tax. Once the entanglement ends, abolish the tax.

[Kepler]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

And yet, for the most part, we didn't have/need an income tax until a century or so ago. Duties and excise taxes, sure. But confiscating personal income? Nada and they needed a constitutional amendment to do it.

The vast majority of people living in dire poverty, and we didn't "need" an income tax until they had the vote and newspapers that espoused their views?

What an incredible coincidence!

[unofan]

And yet, for the most part, we didn't have/need an income tax until a century or so ago. Duties and excise taxes, sure. But confiscating personal income? Nada and they needed a constitutional amendment to do it.

Our federal government is notably inefficient. Give them $1, they'll spend $2. Give them $2, they'll spend $3. Toss in a foreign entanglement and spending goes though the roof. THAT'S when you need an income tax. Once the entanglement ends, abolish the tax.

If you think that the standard of living in 19th century America was anywhere close to today's, I've got a bridge to sell you.

[Kepler]

Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0

Another good consequence of low oil prices: the Saudis and Kuwaitis have taken it in the shorts.