> These repeated accusations of dishonesty don't contribute to a real debate.
Neither do all the fallacies. I'll stop pointing them out when you stop throwing them in.
> I see capital's potential to improve returns as limited only by human creativity and the capital (physical and intellectual) available. Labor's productivity is largely determined by the capital applied. This is why modern workers produce so much more than stone age workers - they have the resources, techniques, and equipment needed to produce more than our ancestors could.
You see wrong, then. Did it ever occur to you that people might be more productive because of advances in knowledge, which are independent of capital? Because of markets in which people can exchange the fruits of their specialized labor, even if little or no capital was involved? Physical capital certainly can improve productivity in many industries, but there's way too much financial capital out there that's not really tied to the physical kind. There's no reason arbitrage, rent seeking, and flat-out betting should be taxed more favorably than making stuff.
> Like when FDR banned Ford
Yeah, like decades after Ford had already become a tycoon, and had no effect on whether he remained one. Exactly like that, except not at all.
You haven't yet proposed any alternative reality that differs from what you call fallacies. You've nit-picked a few misstatements and cited the benefits of general infrastructure and advocated increased taxes on capital gains, which I haven't argued against.
>> they have the resources, techniques, and equipment needed to produce more than our ancestors could.
> Did it ever occur to you that people might be more productive because of advances in knowledge, which are independent of capital?
> There's no reason arbitrage, rent seeking, and flat-out betting should be taxed more favorably than making stuff.
Agreed. Rent-seeking is harmful, speculation is likely harmful, and though arbitrage may be helpful, I doubt it's valuable enough to justify preferential treatment.
I said above "Maybe [capital gains] should not be taxed as much as labor. Maybe more. Maybe less. It's not immediately obvious that either should be taxed more." And I believe that applies even on applications of capital that are beneficial.
I do think the incentive structure of income and capital gains taxes is inferior to consumption taxes, but that's probably a different debate.
> > Like when FDR banned Ford
> Yeah, like decades after Ford had already become a tycoon, and had no effect on whether he remained one. Exactly like that, except not at all.
It was a mildly humorous aside, showing that Ford faced definite government discrimination, regardless of any unspecified government support he received. (I'd be interested if you know of any specific government assistance to Ford during Henry's lifetime that wasn't general infrastructure available to everyone).
I'm quite satisfied with the conclusion we reached a few posts above:
"I have no problem at all with people getting just as rich as they want through fair trade. What I do have a problem with is whole dynasties persisting because of corruption, privilege, and ignored externalities."
And my addendum: "I'd also suggest that a huge fortune should only be earned by actually improving wealth for others, not through coercion, rent-seeking via government power, etc. "
Neither do all the fallacies. I'll stop pointing them out when you stop throwing them in.
> I see capital's potential to improve returns as limited only by human creativity and the capital (physical and intellectual) available. Labor's productivity is largely determined by the capital applied. This is why modern workers produce so much more than stone age workers - they have the resources, techniques, and equipment needed to produce more than our ancestors could.
You see wrong, then. Did it ever occur to you that people might be more productive because of advances in knowledge, which are independent of capital? Because of markets in which people can exchange the fruits of their specialized labor, even if little or no capital was involved? Physical capital certainly can improve productivity in many industries, but there's way too much financial capital out there that's not really tied to the physical kind. There's no reason arbitrage, rent seeking, and flat-out betting should be taxed more favorably than making stuff.
> Like when FDR banned Ford
Yeah, like decades after Ford had already become a tycoon, and had no effect on whether he remained one. Exactly like that, except not at all.