Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 645690249351266317
What do you define as unearned income?
because welfare is unearned income but marx wholly supported that
My view is one thing. Marx more or less looked at 'non work' as unearned
The elite that marx wanted to eliminate worked
not really, they were rentier
they worked jobs were not as exploited or as dangerous
but they worked
nah that's not what marx was talking about
in fact they worked jobs that workers at the time werent intelligent enough to do
You keep saying that
yea cuz it's true lol
Marx was talking about capital, stock owners bond owners, primarily
not skilled labor
but it is precisely the goal of Marxism without getting ultra specific
A more sophisticated modern-day "Marx" might look at the federal reserve's balance sheet and point the finger at those stock owners who got their bad paper bailed out
or the corporate farmers getting bailouts or the carry-trade
Corporate farmers!
(getting bailouts)
With more sophistication, I think marx would understand things better, the pricing of risk etc, to arrive at a justification for stocks and bonds, but he would be against the socialization of risk
like Nassim Taleb is today or Steve Keen
The most hard working people in America are suddenly people with obvious unearned income, and while im not a huge fan of bailouts, they can be necessary in making sure the economy stays in balance
His economic tool kit was limited, built on the English classicals and they were not very good
He would be smarter than that, he pre-dated futures contracts and all the risk analysis that has come from learning them, he would understand some people are socializing their risks on society and not 'earning' the income of those capital gains or coupon payments
He's still quoted by modenr day economists for that reason, he 'got it' just not in depth
and nah the bailouts are not necessary for that at all, they do the exact opposite
the whole point of capitalism is the creative destruction that comes from poorly run businesses going bankrupt, out of business, and their assets sold off
Nobody would rail against bailouts harder than karl marx, they are the epitome of the 'worst of both worlds': private profits, socialized losses
Why have 3 big automakers when we can have 300 smaller yeoman car makers!
Keen explaining a few pieces of Marx's written bits on complexity
gross
<:political_thinking:583244726040264704>
Fed was starting to shrink the balance sheet, Trump brow beat them until they started expanding it again, QE4 baby, i traded that
along with the rate cut
that trend of workers' share of gdp is scary, and the turn around that was happening 'under Obama' seems like it will start declining since the tax cuts are and gov deficit growth isn't being paired with any real populist gov spending
```The U.S. government’s budget deficit ballooned to nearly $1 trillion in 2019, the Treasury Department announced Friday, as the United States’ fiscal imbalance widened for a fourth consecutive year despite a sustained run of economic growth. The deficit grew $205 billion, or 26 percent, in the past year.
The country’s worsening fiscal picture runs in sharp contrast to President Trump’s campaign promise to eliminate the federal debt within eight years. The deficit is up nearly 50 percent in the Trump era. Since taking office, Trump has endorsed big spending increases and steered most Republicans to abandon the deficit obsession they held during the Obama administration.```
usually gov incomes soar during boom times