>> Even your straw man version of this argument is pretty convincing to me...
> Wouldn't that make it not a straw man argument?
I think the "even" and "..." are doing a lot of work in my sentence. You presented a less strong version of the argument than that given by people who support it, thus it is a straw man, period.
> an assumption that voting or committee can be better at allocating resources than a free market
Would you say we had a free market in the 1970s, when the chart I linked showed the top .01% by wealth's share of taxes exceeded their share of wealth? That's essentially what I'd like to go back to, perhaps by a wealth tax. I would say we had a free market then, showing progressive taxation and free markets are absolutely compatible. This isn't Soviet-style central planning.
I'm still a bit lost on what the point of difference is. You seem to be saying that you've seen evidence that makes this "strawman argument" convincing to you, but you don't seem to accept that I've generally argued with people who believe it. If you think there is evidence and it is convincing evidence then the obvious interpretation of what I said seems to be that I'm just being logical and straightforward. I don't see the strawman.
I mean I might not know what a strawman is, but I thought it was claiming people were making an argument that in fact they were not.
> Would you say we had a free market in the 1970s, when the chart I linked showed the top .01% by wealth's share of taxes exceeded their share of wealth? That's essentially what I'd like to go back to, perhaps by a wealth tax. I would say we had a free market then, showing progressive taxation and free markets are absolutely compatible. This isn't Soviet-style central planning.
I mean, sure. I've long argued that the US strategy of printing money and giving it to asset owners is bad. I doubt a wealth tax would help, IMO the real issue is the welfare for wealthy people. Seems kinda dumb and the people claiming that the economy would collapse without it appear to be making up their principles as they go along. But we should all want to encourage wealth. It makes people wealthy.
> I mean I might not know what a strawman is, but I thought it was claiming people were making an argument that in fact they were not.
What I mean is: I expect you originally heard a version of this that was more nuanced and supported by data than what you presented. Your paraphrased form is weaker, which I call a strawman. (The "duh, QED" was kind of a give-away.)
Wikipedia lists (among other things) "Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version." and "Exaggerating (sometimes grossly) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version." as characteristics of a strawman.
btw the opposite is sometimes called a "steelman": arguing against the most solid version of the opponent's argument that you can imagine.
> I mean, sure. I've long argued that the US strategy of printing money and giving it to asset owners is bad. I doubt a wealth tax would help, IMO the real issue is the welfare for wealthy people. Seems kinda dumb and the people claiming that the economy would collapse without it appear to be making up their principles as they go along.
As in Quantitative Easing? I confess I don't understand it as well as I probably should, but I think it's cyclical? and inequality is increasing even when it is not happening? Would a pinky-promise that we will stop and never do it again achieve start reducing inequality, as opposed to just lessening the increase? If not, I don't think that's radical enough on its own. What serious alternative is there to a wealth tax or going back to 70+% highest marginal tax rate?
> But we should all want to encourage wealth. It makes people wealthy.
To the extent anyone and everyone can become wealthy, I agree. What policies would you suggest to achieve that meaningfully (obviously inflation doesn't count)? What I see in these charts is instead a zero-sum game in which the most wealthy become even more so at the expense of the least wealthy.
> As in Quantitative Easing? I confess I don't understand it as well as I probably should, but I think it's cyclical? and inequality is increasing even when it is not happening?
QE, inflation policy and the fairly regular bailouts. And probably funnelling money away from markets and towards golf buddies through the government.
It's continuous [0]. The US money supply went from something like 16 trillion to 23 trillion since COVID. In percentages, that means nominal wages and expenses should probably have gone up by around 40% all else equal. Typically though, most of the gains are in asset prices first then flow into the broader market second - so I see things like US wages are up around 20% [1], so I'd expect asset prices to be up >40%. And people with political connections probably do better again.
> What policies would you suggest to achieve that meaningfully (obviously inflation doesn't count)?
Me personally? I'd start by targeting stable prices before technological improvements (stable as in they tend not to change, not the weirdness where people are supposed to use 'stable' to describe exponential increases). Let badly run companies go bankrupt. Tax people directly instead of trying to pay for government policies through inflation. Then once a clearer picture emerges of where the real resources are coming from and going to, start talking about whether there is an actual problem to solve in real terms.
[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881500Q