tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post2951249529218463255..comments2024-03-29T00:15:52.716-07:00Comments on Idiosyncratic Whisk: Our discomfort with reward from risk leads us astrayKevin Erdmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-14992017298712266882015-05-18T10:58:48.978-07:002015-05-18T10:58:48.978-07:00Brilliant, baconbacon. Those are all such great p...Brilliant, baconbacon. Those are all such great points, so well put, I'm embarrassed that I didn't fully imagine them before reading your comments. Your last sentence is a great postscript to my post.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-7840267882814045362015-05-18T10:16:31.313-07:002015-05-18T10:16:31.313-07:00There are like 10 things wrong with his treatment....There are like 10 things wrong with his treatment.<br /><br />1. If wealth/savings provide more benefits than we currently think then wouldn't that be a reason to tax them LESS? You want more incentives to produce thigns that are good, not fewer. <br /><br />2. He implicitly assumes the case that there is a linear relationship between wealth and its "other" values. If you can self insure a car with $10,000 in the bank, it doesn't automatically imply that two people with $5,000 each has an equal or greater value than 1 guy with $10,000. Take it to the extreme, 10,000 people with $1 each in the bank means that zero people can self insure, while 1 guy with 10k and 9,999 with 0$ hs 1 guy that can self insure. His post assumes there are benefits to wealth accumulation without even mentioning costs of reducing wealth accumulation.<br /><br />3. It is even worse than that- since 1 guy wqith 10k can start a small business with his wealth, which will provide opportunities for the other 9,999 people to increase their wealth. <br /><br />4. If there is any variation in people's individual decision making then transfering from savers to non savers converts savings into consumption. Even without considering incentives of savers you end up with less wealth, and more consumption. The better you think accumulation of wealth is, the less you want this. <br /><br />its feeding time, but you get the gist. If our current levels of quality of life are due primarily to any one thing it is savings. The invention of savings is by far and away the single greatest thing that has ever happened to man. Baconbaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13511082564082971086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-89810701455358398172015-05-18T08:59:37.558-07:002015-05-18T08:59:37.558-07:00Hmm... I wasn't sure what you were getting at,...Hmm... I wasn't sure what you were getting at, but then I saw your comment at WCI. Interesting.<br /><br />Do you think there is anything to the idea that wealth provides utility beyond the potential income?<br /><br />Even if it does, there is the question of whether taxation should reflect efficiency or utility equalization. I can accept the concept of this qualitative value of wealth, but I'm not sure if it holds any weight if a wealth tax is less efficient.<br /><br />Property taxes are a sort of wealth tax, and I think it may be an effective tax for several reasons. But, maybe the difference between a wealth tax and a capital income tax is mostly semantic. If the tax was applied to wealth with a flat rate, that would favor higher risk investing over lower risk investing, I think, which might have a positive effect. But, as your comment at WCI points out, there are always subtle unintended consequences when we nudge markets from their chosen equilibriums.<br /><br />Interesting issue.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-91443510664752357552015-05-18T08:24:52.783-07:002015-05-18T08:24:52.783-07:00I know what you mean. I love reading Nick Rowe...I know what you mean. I love reading Nick Rowe's posts, but whenever Woolery opines I shudder. Today's argument for a wealth tax is shockingly, but no surprisingly, ignorant.Baconbaconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13511082564082971086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-24434136078974143292015-05-16T19:08:07.259-07:002015-05-16T19:08:07.259-07:00Yes. If they were privatized and managed half as ...Yes. If they were privatized and managed half as poorly as they are today, there would be marching in the streets to socialize them again. It seems that there is a vestigial biological imperative to consider "profit" demeaning. "Profit" makes everything unclean, in the Biblical sense. There have been many other urges which we have managed to lose in our path to modern civilization. It would be nice to lose this one, too, but if it ever happens, I'm afraid it's decades, if not, centuries away.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-49377647493309718012015-05-16T03:16:08.011-07:002015-05-16T03:16:08.011-07:00Privatize the FAA...and the VA. For a start.Privatize the FAA...and the VA. For a start.Benjamin Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14001038338873263877noreply@blogger.com