Gyroscopic Investing

Some of the worlds richest are growing concerned at implications of gross inequality especially in a world of increasing automation: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102752368

Doodle,

Recently someone posted here on elements of risk around super high wealth and why the wealthy should (and perhaps do) care about distribution of wealth issues...

Because a higher tax on the interest isn't as expensive as losing the principal in a revolution.

Or something like that.

You might have been part of that. But I thought I'd give you a heads up if you weren't. Perhaps someone can find the thread...

Thanks, ill look for it. Im interested in this because It looks like unlike in times past, we might be able to anticipate the problems with the present situation and transition into a new economic system in a smoother manner than having a revolution with heads rolling in the streets. Its reassuring to see people at the top recognizing that there is a potential systemic problem and engaging in ideas about how to move things forward.

doodle wrote: Thanks, ill look for it. Im interested in this because It looks like unlike in times past, we might be able to anticipate the problems with the present situation and transition into a new economic system in a smoother manner than having a revolution with heads rolling in the streets. Its reassuring to see people at the top recognizing that there is a potential systemic problem and engaging in ideas about how to move things forward.

People at the top are the problem.  Will they be getting themselves out of the way?

I'm pretty split on this topic.  Overall, here are some general axioms I'm inclined to respect:

- Don't have kids if you can't afford them.  If you do, it's on you.
- Employment is a contract between two parties... nothing more... nothing less.
- We should have a safety net of human misery beneath which people (especially kids) do not fall below.
- Inequality matters far more to the degree it prevents needs from being met vs wants.
- Inequality, as it is currently measured, doesn't include FMV of services/aid of government, nor does it (usually) include taxes net against income.  This creates a false narrative (unless, of course, we are discussing removing those services/aid).
- Wealth concentrations can get to very unhealthy levels, and be self-fulfilling rather than self-adjusting.

There's more... but that'll give you an idea of where my head(s) are at on this issue. :/

Income inequality is just a narrative to influence political outcomes, IMO.

I think if people just focused on doing things to improve their lives (income or otherwise), they'll get much further ahead than if they worry about income/wealth inequality.

Inequality is simply a matter of relativity from what I can tell.  But why should I care how obscenely rich someone else (who I probably don't even know, but I know they exist) is?  Rather a better use of my time and effort is to plan and perform actionable tasks each day to improve my life, health, income, relationships, education, entertainment and happiness.

clacy wrote: Income inequality is just a narrative to influence political outcomes, IMO.

I think if people just focused on doing things to improve their lives (income or otherwise), they'll get much further ahead than if they worry about income/wealth inequality.

Inequality is simply a matter of relativity from what I can tell.  But why should I care how obscenely rich someone else (who I probably don't even know, but I know they exist) is?  Rather a better use of my time and effort is to plan and perform actionable tasks each day to improve my life, health, income, relationships, education, entertainment and happiness.

clacy,

From an individual philosophy standpoint, I agree with you 200%.

From a public policy standpoint, we are kind of having a different discussion.  It's one where we take ourselves outside our bodies and discuss what government should do, or if there's a structural problem on a macro scale.  And I think there is.

From a "rich people" standpoint of discussing public policy, it actually makes a decent amount of sense for them to not want revolution or too-radical of thinking within the masses if you have billions of dollars at risk.  Think about it, if you have exactly $1 Billion dollars, all invested in diversified funds with a tax-load of perhaps about 1%, you are being "stolen" from to the tune of 1% of your assets every year (more if you include inflation, but  that is baked into the expected RoR and capital markets, usually).  This could get MUCH worse for you.  There could be a big asset-tax movement. A one-time  "10% of everything above $100 Million" tax due to some sort of mini socialist revolution in this country would mean $90 million dollars in tax.

So from a public policy standpoint, and being conscious of the infinite downside risk you hold at any given moment (and how important that is compared to upside potential), it does very much behoove rich folks, when discussing public policy, to explore the "unthinkable."

clacy wrote: [1] Income inequality is just a narrative to influence political outcomes, IMO

[2] I think if people just focused on doing things to improve their lives (income or otherwise), they'll get much further ahead than if they worry about income/wealth inequality.

Inequality is simply a matter of relativity from what I can tell.  But why should I care how obscenely rich someone else (who I probably don't even know, but I know they exist) is?  Rather a better use of my time and effort is to plan and perform actionable tasks each day to improve my life, health, income, relationships, education, entertainment and happiness.

Both superlative points. 

Moda,

"A one-time  "10% of everything above $100 Million" tax due to some sort of mini socialist revolution in this country would mean $90 million dollars in tax."

Because history has shown the gov't would actually use the $90 million to help less fortunate people?

Because the last half century of "the great society" has brought positive changes? 

There is a saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  And my signature is there for a reason.

Benko wrote:

clacy wrote: [1] Income inequality is just a narrative to influence political outcomes, IMO

[2] I think if people just focused on doing things to improve their lives (income or otherwise), they'll get much further ahead than if they worry about income/wealth inequality.

Inequality is simply a matter of relativity from what I can tell.  But why should I care how obscenely rich someone else (who I probably don't even know, but I know they exist) is?  Rather a better use of my time and effort is to plan and perform actionable tasks each day to improve my life, health, income, relationships, education, entertainment and happiness.

Both superlative points. 

Moda,

"A one-time  "10% of everything above $100 Million" tax due to some sort of mini socialist revolution in this country would mean $90 million dollars in tax."

Because history has shown the gov't would actually use the $90 million to help less fortunate people?

Because the last half century of "the great society" has brought positive changes? 

There is a saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  And my signature is there for a reason.

Benko,

Perhaps I miscommunicated a bit...

I was not making the argument that the "government would use the $90 million to help less fortunate."  Given the nature of our monetary system, it's hard for me to think of the federal government "using" tax money in a traditional sense.  Though I do think a good chunk of what the fed government spends on does help the less fortunate. 

I also am not suggesting the "welfare state works."  Just that simply-put, people that THINK it works vote, and they might vote to take a lot more of rich people's money than they have, so if rich people are going to have political discussions, the political risk of inequality to their money is a valid conversation to have in that context.  However, I think "the great society" HAS brought some positive change.  Poverty of our senior citizens is far, far less than it used to be.  I realize that comes with some unpleasant trade-offs, and I think it's a shame that our country seems to be 10x more focused on keeping old people alive than young people smart and healthy, but that's another rabbit hole.

If clacy's points are so good, and from an individual philosophy standpoint I agree that they are, then why are we on here lamenting about politics rather than improving our lives?  We're all politically active enough to realize that while we might not advocate for it to improve your lot in life, we know when we're having a public policy discussion and "just worry about yourself rather than someone else" is kind of a useless response... at least in-and-of-itself... because we could all say that about ANY political preference someone else might have, "Quit bitching about taxes and just work on your life."  "Quit worrying about U.S. foreign policy and just work on your family."  All valid points in the context of individualist well-being, but quite pointless if we're having a political debate to come up with a policy prescription to a problem.

I don't discuss politics here to hope that you'll go out and tell your friends and they'll tell their friends, etc.  I debate because it's fun (most of the time), and forces me to think about things I'm not always presented with... try to solve problems that I never am faced with.  I'm assuming most here loosely agree, and that they're not debating on this forum hoping for a revolution to stem from it.  Now we all are HB fans here, so it's always good to remind each other to not get too tied into things you can't control, but that IMO should only occur when a discussion gets ugly, or one party is obviously miserable trying to argue their case, etc.


Just my opinion, of course.  Pardon all the tangents.

clacy wrote: Income inequality is just a narrative to influence political outcomes, IMO.

It's the wrong metric to be using anyway because what "they're" really trying to get at is injustice.

moda0306 wrote: I don't discuss politics here to hope that you'll go out and tell your friends and they'll tell their friends, etc.  I debate because it's fun (most of the time), and forces me to think about things I'm not always presented with... try to solve problems that I never am faced with.  I'm assuming most here loosely agree, and that they're not debating on this forum hoping for a revolution to stem from it.  Now we all are HB fans here, so it's always good to remind each other to not get too tied into things you can't control, but that IMO should only occur when a discussion gets ugly, or one party is obviously miserable trying to argue their case, etc.

I'm here to improve my thinking skills so I can better know what social reform efforts to support or not support.  (I'm certainly not talking about populist tripe like Occupy Wall Street or The Tea Party, puhleaze....  but I certainly can understand and even share their sentiments).  I don't think intellectual honeypot is quite at the stage of being a coup d'etat yet, though! 

HB later renounced that "do only what pleases you and ignore all others" anyway.  It was just an immature attitude like individualist libertarianism is.  After all, he ran for President!  No one lives in a vacuum and it does take a village...

MG,

He clarified that point.  There's nothing wrong with living your life from an individualist mindset... we should just be honest with ourselves that to the degree to which we don't, and engage others socially, we still are, ultimately, seeking happiness.  Just a different kind.

He ran for president not to win, but to advocate for ideas.  I'm pretty sure HB found it fun to debate ideas and bring his ideas to folks, and saw it as a fulfilling project.  He openly admitted to not voting.  He was like a libertarian version of Jimmy Carter.  Just a super calm, affable, honest dude that would have made one awkward POTUS. 

To the degree that you want to "know which social reforms to support," and you support those reforms at the detriment to your own personal happiness or those you love, I'd suggest not to do that.  I think people that allow things to enter their lives in a healthy way (and do so honestly) are going to be far-better leaders to others wanting to do the same than those who become miserable martyrs to their cause (think Ayn Rand... died a miserable, unhappy person).

moda0306 wrote: To the degree that you want to "know which social reforms to support," and you support those reforms at the detriment to your own personal happiness or those you love, I'd suggest not to do that.  I think people that allow things to enter their lives in a healthy way (and do so honestly) are going to be far-better leaders to others wanting to do the same than those who become miserable martyrs to their cause (think Ayn Rand... died a miserable, unhappy person).

You gotta be kidding!  I'm no Ayn Rand. <spit>

MachineGhost wrote:

moda0306 wrote: To the degree that you want to "know which social reforms to support," and you support those reforms at the detriment to your own personal happiness or those you love, I'd suggest not to do that.  I think people that allow things to enter their lives in a healthy way (and do so honestly) are going to be far-better leaders to others wanting to do the same than those who become miserable martyrs to their cause (think Ayn Rand... died a miserable, unhappy person).

You gotta be kidding!  I'm no Ayn Rand. <spit>

I hope it was clear I was speaking generally... not just about you.  You're probably right in the healthy wheelhouse.  I just wanted to point out that it doesn't actually differ much with HB's philosophy... it actually fits well into it if you simply acknowledge that all action is taken to improve happiness, therefore we shouldn't pretend it isn't that way when we approach it.

I think it makes sense to follow the principle of helping yourself before others. It's just like they say on those canned airplane safety videos about the oxygen masks. You need to get your own life in order before you have either the means or the moral authority to help other people. Probably toward the end of HB's life, when he was successful and happy and had clearly had many positive effects on others via his commercial works, he felt comfortable settling into more of a leadership/mentorship role. I think it makes sense that the suggestions of such a person should be given more consideration. By contrast, from what I hear, the federal government is full of early 20s year-old PoliSci majors who are convinced that their 4-6 years of academic schooling has qualified them to control the world. Meanwhile, their own lives are messes.

Pointedstick wrote: By contrast, from what I hear, the federal government is full of early 20s year-old PoliSci majors who are convinced that their 4-6 years of academic schooling has qualified them to control the world. Meanwhile, their own lives are messes.

Reminds me of something that occured to me the other day.  Thought experiement:  you will be stranded in someplace deserted.  Your very survival depends on the person who is with you.  You are allowed only one pick total.  Choose one from:

Hillary Clinton, Obama, Gore, Kerry, Bill  Clinton  or
Romney, Either Bush, etc.

Who would you pick given that your life depends on the choice?

Benko wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: By contrast, from what I hear, the federal government is full of early 20s year-old PoliSci majors who are convinced that their 4-6 years of academic schooling has qualified them to control the world. Meanwhile, their own lives are messes.

Reminds me of something that occured to me the other day.  Thought experiement:  you will be stranded in someplace deserted.  Your very survival depends on the person who is with you.  You are allowed only one pick total.  Choose one from:

Hillary Clinton, Obama, Gore, Kerry, Bill  Clinton  or
Romney, Either Bush, etc.

Who would you pick given that your life depends on the choice?

Probably the best survivalist... which has little to do with who is the most moral, would be the best leader/president, etc.

If none of them are survivalists, probably Obama since he's the youngest.  I don't want someone breaking their hip while we're building a life raft.  After that, likely Romney.

Benko wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: By contrast, from what I hear, the federal government is full of early 20s year-old PoliSci majors who are convinced that their 4-6 years of academic schooling has qualified them to control the world. Meanwhile, their own lives are messes.

Reminds me of something that occured to me the other day.  Thought experiement:  you will be stranded in someplace deserted.  Your very survival depends on the person who is with you.  You are allowed only one pick total.  Choose one from:

Hillary Clinton, Obama, Gore, Kerry, Bill  Clinton  or
Romney, Either Bush, etc.

Who would you pick given that your life depends on the choice?

Obviously a conservative. Conservatism is optimized for dangerous, resource-poor, scarcity-ridden environments. However, we don't live on a deserted island or mountaintop or something. Our society combines scarcity with abundance. This is why we have both liberals and conservatives.

Pointedstick wrote: I think it makes sense to follow the principle of helping yourself before others. It's just like they say on those canned airplane safety videos about the oxygen masks. You need to get your own life in order before you have either the means or the moral authority to help other people. Probably toward the end of HB's life, when he was successful and happy and had clearly had many positive effects on others via his commercial works, he felt comfortable settling into more of a leadership/mentorship role. I think it makes sense that the suggestions of such a person should be given more consideration. By contrast, from what I hear, the federal government is full of early 20s year-old PoliSci majors who are convinced that their 4-6 years of academic schooling has qualified them to control the world. Meanwhile, their own lives are messes.

People whose personal lives are messes could be good public servants.

Thinking of my family, some of my most contributing aunts are the most loony, not-together people I know... but they'd saw off their right arm for anyone in the family.

However, generally, I don't advocate it.  I always think it's sort of a tragedy when someone revered as a public figure has a toxic personal life.

I was just thinking  I'd choose the one least likely to double cross me e.g. steal all the supplies and run off.

Simonjester wrote: i am thinking bush #1, with the new world order and cia secrets / leadership position i bet a mysterious "they" shows up and gives him a ride in no time...

Benko wrote: Who would you pick given that your life depends on the choice?

That's easy!  Romney.  The rest are all finks and the Bushes are too stupid.

Obviously Al Gore, so we could get some internet on the island!

Simonjester wrote:

Benko wrote: I was just thinking  I'd choose the one least likely to double cross me e.g. steal all the supplies and run off.

i am thinking bush #1, with the new world order and cia secrets / leadership position i bet a mysterious "they" shows up and gives him a ride in no time...

Yes, but you wouldn't be invited.

Simonjester wrote: dang a big hole in my theory.. i would probably be killed off just to make sure i couldn't tell anyone about his being a secret important person as well...

since the rest of them would be largely useless for anything other than emergency rations when it came time for the cannibal solution, i will pick whoever is the fattest at the time of the ship wreck...

Simonjester wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

Simonjester wrote: i am thinking bush #1, with the new world order and cia secrets / leadership position i bet a mysterious "they" shows up and gives him a ride in no time...

Yes, but you wouldn't be invited.

dang a big hole in my theory.. i would probably be killed off just to make sure i couldn't tell anyone about his being a secret important person as well... 

since the rest of them would be largely useless for anything other than emergency rations when it came time for the cannibal solution, i will pick whoever is the fattest at the time of the ship wreck...

Back to Gore are we? 

... Mountaineer

clacy wrote: Income inequality is just a narrative to influence political outcomes, IMO...

Possibly. But that doesn't mean that it can't be dangerous in certain circumstances.