Any (post 2008) Economists in the house? - Inflation.

[Terry - Somerset]

Bezos and space flight. We continually confuse and combine moral and economic judgements - they are quite different.

Spending $BNs on a space flight is economically little different to spending a similar amount on social needs etc. Money pays salaries of people who design, build, mine materials etc etc who in turn spend money on food, holidays, transport, dental care etc etc.

Whether it is morally justified to spend the money on the indulgence of a few very wealthy whilst denying those with greater basic needs is another matter.

Precisely the same question could be asked of all inordinately high income individuals - footballers, tennis players, musicians, film stars etc.

Their economic value and income is determined by the sales generated by their performance. A moral judgement may conclude very differently.

There is even an argument that space ships represent a far better way to improve social well being in the medium and long term by improving capabilities. A little along the lines of "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, give him a rod and he eats for life". Bit of a rabbit hole!!

 

[jcassidy]

Just plopping this in here: maybe jcassidy would input.
(660) Aaron Russo on the Federal Reserve - YouTube

I'm not inclined to take anything a Libertarian says seriously and I'm glad my prejudices are confirmed by this interview!

The Federal Reserve isn't a private bank - that's just nonsense. It's part of the Federal Government, accountable to Congress. It's Board is appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation. Who owns the Federal Reserve

 

[jcassidy]

Debasing the currency was either outlawed by monarchs since the days of Archimedes or occasionally used as a trick to raise funds by medieval monarchs, until inflation caught up with them.

Many of the design features of modern coins derive from attempts to stop counterfeiting or debasing gold or silver coins. The milled edges of coins (all those little ribs) prevents the edges being shaved off - take a few shavings from each coin and soon an unscrupulous wealthy merchant would have a good pile of gold...

The dots near the edges of the face of coins is to prevent discrete clipping.

The Vikings for one were very fond of silver and saw no harm cutting coins into bits to make up the required weight - a quarter or half penny was literally a quarter or half of a penny.

I expect most of us are old enough to remember half-pennies! You could buy a sweet from the jar for a half penny in my local shop (or a single cigeratte for 6 pence)

 

[TominDales]

Many of the design features of modern coins derive from attempts to stop counterfeiting or debasing gold or silver coins. The milled edges of coins (all those little ribs) prevents the edges being shaved off - take a few shavings from each coin and soon an unscrupulous wealthy merchant would have a good pile of gold...

The dots near the edges of the face of coins is to prevent discrete clipping.

The Vikings for one were very fond of silver and saw no harm cutting coins into bits to make up the required weight - a quarter or half penny was literally a quarter or half of a penny.

I expect most of us are old enough to remember half-pennies! You could buy a sweet from the jar for a half penny in my local shop (or a single cigeratte for 6 pence)

My father could buy as a child a small ice cream for 1/2d and a big for 1d, two small was bigger than one bigone so they collected up hapnies to buy ice creams. Farthings went out around when I was borne but you could still collect them in the 1960s are they were in circulation overseas, Falkland, Bermuda (until it went to $ - they were cross about that change as Birmuda earned a lot of overseas cash), it had nice image of a wren on the back.

 

[Flynnwood]

This is the best answer I have found to my OP.
(666) Inflation - A New Era? - YouTube
"Wood" is mentioned at 3 mins 30 secs ...
Thanks to all (and the algo for the above)

 

[J-G]

Many of the design features of modern coins derive from attempts to stop counterfeiting or debasing gold or silver coins. The milled edges of coins (all those little ribs) prevents the edges being shaved off - take a few shavings from each coin and soon an unscrupulous wealthy merchant would have a good pile of gold...

The dots near the edges of the face of coins is to prevent discrete clipping.

The Vikings for one were very fond of silver and saw no harm cutting coins into bits to make up the required weight - a quarter or half penny was literally a quarter or half of a penny.

I expect most of us are old enough to remember half-pennies! You could buy a sweet from the jar for a half penny in my local shop (or a single cigeratte for 6 pence)

English silver pennies prior to about 1300 had a small cross in the centre to guide the cutting into half or quarter. Pennies then were too thin to have milled edges so to combat 'clipping' Edward I introduced the 'Long cross' Penny ~1302 where the 'cross' was the same width as the diameter of the coin with a bar on the end helping to show that the coin was 'complete'. The general population didn't have the means (or knowledge probably) to weigh each coin they were given as payment.

 

[J-G]

My father could buy as a child a small ice cream for 1/2d and a big for 1d, two small was bigger than one bigone so they collected up hapnies to buy ice creams. Farthings went out around when I was borne but you could still collect them in the 1960s are they were in circulation overseas, Falkland, Bermuda (until it went to $ - they were cross about that change as Birmuda earned a lot of overseas cash), it had nice image of a wren on the back.

The last (UK) Farthing was minted in 1956 and ceased to be 'legal tender' on Dec. 31st 1960.

Overseas territories, such as Bermuda & Malta had one-third Farthings minted up to 1913.

 

[Jacob]

Bezos and space flight. We continually confuse and combine moral and economic judgements - they are quite different.

They coincide all the time inextricably. The whole left/right argument is about the economics of welfare for all

Spending $BNs on a space flight is economically little different to spending a similar amount on social needs etc. Money pays salaries of people who design, build, mine materials etc etc who in turn spend money on food, holidays, transport, dental care etc etc.

So sending a few wealthy berks into space will improve the NHS? Seems very unlikely to me!
Would it work the other way - spend billions on health services and improve space travel by some mysterious process?

Whether it is morally justified to spend the money on the indulgence of a few very wealthy whilst denying those with greater basic needs is another matter.

Same issue, inseparable

Precisely the same question could be asked of all inordinately high income individuals - footballers, tennis players, musicians, film stars etc.

Their economic value and income is determined by the sales generated by their performance. A moral judgement may conclude very differently.

People pay for entertainment but the wealthy should be properly taxed. It's very simple. They don't need the wealth, others do

There is even an argument that space ships represent a far better way to improve social well being in the medium and long term by improving capabilities. .....

Far better way than what?

 

[Jameshow]

They coincide all the time inextricably. The whole left/right argument is about the economics of welfare for allSo sending a few wealthy berks into space will improve the NHS? Seems very unlikely to me!
Would it work the other way - spend billions on health services and improve space travel by some mysterious process? Same issue, inseparablePeople pay for entertainment but the wealthy should be properly taxed. It's very simple. They don't need the wealth, others doFar better way than what?

Interesting aviation fuel tax is 39% however road fuel is taxed at 59%.

Those who take private planes and believe you me there are more than you think pay almost a half less in tax to pollute much more!

Crazy!

Cheers James

 

[Terry - Somerset]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - popularised by Karl Marx.

A moral or ethical argument may conclude this has real substance. I am personally unconvinced by its wisdom as it ignores the purely pragmatic:

• that which motivates people to make exceptional efforts, take personal risks, etc includes human competiveness, money, material possessions, status etc.. Remove the benefits and the motivation for many will evaporate
• those who are content to ride upon the efforts of others will have their indolence reinforced with no obvious motivation to do otherwise
• people should all be treated with respect - but are not born equal. Genetics impact both the important and trivial - health, intellect, height, hair colour etc. They may or may not be equal in the eyes of the Lord, but they are not equal!
• I am not aware of any large and complex society that has embraced the philosophy and lasted for any length of time. Russia, China, N Korea all reward those at the top of the political pile over the general population.
• there are limited examples where for short periods the philosophy may have worked - Ghandi, and the Kibbutz movement being two possible examples.
• If policies applied to the wealthy are not acceptable, they have the freedom to take their wealth and residence to wherever suits them. Taxation of the wealthy is necessarily by consent, not a moral imperative.

Conclusion - a balance between economic and moral imperatives needs to be generally acceptable. The alternative - the ultimately a futile pursuit of the unachievable.

In the UK this seems to extend (for instance) to free access to decent healthcare, education, justice. It is acceptable that the wealthy pay more than the less well off.

Parties with broadly centrist policy agendas may succeed, those at the extremes of "left" and "right" will fail. Personally I will not waste time on that which ultimately leads to failure.

 

[Jacob]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - popularised by Karl Marx.

A moral or ethical argument may conclude this has real substance. I am personally unconvinced by its wisdom as it ignores the purely pragmatic:

• .....

Exactly wrong. As wrong as you could be.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is in fact the ultimate in pragmatism.
It's the rule which applies in an emergency, whether it's on a national scale like war or other impending catastrophe, or on a small scale like a few dozen people in a life boat. All of a sudden personal interest is forgotten and working for the common good is taken for granted.
This is what people realised in 1945 - if this sort of pragmatism could win the war then it could win the peace.

It has never stopped being a basic tenet of civilised society as life for many has continued to be in an emergency situation. It's also the basic rule of most communities from family, tribe, upwards - invoices are not exchanged!

If policies applied to the wealthy are not acceptable, they have the freedom to take their wealth and residence to wherever suits them. Taxation of the wealthy is necessarily by consent, not a moral imperative

Was that intended as a joke?
When have they ever consented? The whole ethos of the right has been to hang on to every penny - that is their agenda and that is why they are such a problem worldwide.
Who cares whether or not it's a moral imperative; it's a pragmatic necessity to keep lifeboat world afloat and everybody in it safe and sound.

 

[RobinBHM]

If policies applied to the wealthy are not acceptable, they have the freedom to take their wealth and residence to wherever suits them. Taxation of the wealthy is necessarily by consent, not a moral imperative

high levels of tax mean business and the wealthy go elsewhere.

Macron introduced tax incentives and the uber rich started to pile into Paris

socialism looks good on paper....reality is rather different.

 

[D_W]

Interesting aviation fuel tax is 39% however road fuel is taxed at 59%.

Those who take private planes and believe you me there are more than you think pay almost a half less in tax to pollute much more!

Crazy!

Cheers James

How much wear and tear do they put on the roads?

 

[D_W]

So sending a few wealthy berks into space will improve the NHS?

Do a chart for us - chart technological capability by country and then also average and median income, PPP.

Let us know what you find.

 

[Jacob]

high levels of tax mean business and the wealthy go elsewhere.

Macron introduced tax incentives and the uber rich started to pile into Paris

Trickle down theory? It won't do Paris workers any good. Or anybody for that matter, except the uber rich. City of London has become major money laundering world centre. Won't do any of us any good at all - just ask a typical rent paying working person in London.

 

[RobinBHM]

Trickle down theory? It won't do Paris workers any good. Or anybody for that matter, except the uber rich. City of London has become major money laundering world centre. Won't do any of us any good at all - just ask a typical rent paying working person in London

unfortunately simplistic ideological models don’t fit reality.

the UK when it was an EU member benefitted from high levels of foreign direct investment, partly because of single market access but also because of UKs light touch employment laws….at least compared to France, Germany etc.


I know trickle down theory doesn’t work on a macro level, but it certainly works on a local level.

If a multi millionaire moved in to a grade II listed manor and got a local joinery shop to make £100k worth of windows……that joiner would benefit from trickle down.

 

[Jameshow]

How much wear and tear do they put on the roads?

Wasn't thinking about road wear and tear more about the environment.

Cheers James

 

[D_W]

Wasn't thinking about road wear and tear more about the environment.

Cheers James

You guys may have a different justification behind fuel taxes. Here, they supposedly fund road use and road expenses, but the reality is that in some states, none of the fuel tax is used for that at all, and overall, road taxes in fuels only cover about 30% of actual road costs.

Avgas here is far more expensive than motor fuel in most places. The taxes in it are probably higher by a long shot, too (they tend to cover air costs and certain government services that require flying so as to keep governor's pilots out of the line of fire of budget cutters and partisans). Gas here is $3.45 a gallon for road fuel and 100LL avgas is $5.66.

Jet A is about five bucks.

 

[Ozi]

Wars are hugely profitable - to the arms trade primarily.
Following the final withdrawal of US troops, President Joe Biden quoted two figures for the total cost of the war.
He said: "After more than $2 trillion spent in Afghanistan... [or] you could take the number of $1tn, as many say."
A trillion is a million million - or $2,617 per head of USA population or $26,315 per head of Afghan population.
For a mere $half trillion they could have given every single Afghani $13,150 and told them to stop messing about.
But there'd be no profit in this for arms industry and the American tax payer wouldn't be happy to hand out cash to Afghanis even though it would have saved 2000 odd USA military deaths and 20000 odd casualties, not to mention collateral damage to the Afghan population of 41000 innocent civilian deaths.
But it kept the wheels of industry turning and many thousands of Americans earning a good wage and getting a return on their investments.
If they'd mobilised a similar size $1trillion op to do something like digging an enormous hole in the ground the size of texas and then filling it in again, the financial benefit would be the same, but you could have a problem persuading people that it was a good idea.

Or gone in and built power stations, hospitals and Mosques, it would be hard for extremists to call them the great Satan then. Exactly what China is doing in parts of Africa right now. Buys a lot of respect, it's the modern way to build an empire and it's profitable.

 

[Keith Cocker]

If a multi millionaire moved in to a grade II listed manor and got a local joinery shop to make £100k worth of windows……that joiner would benefit from trickle down.

If the Grade II listed Manor was bought by public money, throughly renovated to become a well equipped and well run care home a lot more people would benefit for a much longer time. That would be a good ROI.