/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>297684
haven't read it

but I'm not in a position to lower inequality so I don't know how the book is relevant to me

>>297705
>Not in a position to lower inequality.

Eat the rich. Join a union. Fight for higher taxes. Don't allow public schools or infrastructure to be underfunded. Fight to get money out of politics.

http://www.wolf-pac.com/
http://inequalityforall.com/

>>297684
Just so you guys know, today it got announced that the American Middle class is no longer the richest in the world. We got passed by Canada this month.

Even the Spanish middle class income grew 4% since 2000; the US middle classes' real income didn't grow AT ALL. Not even half of a percent. Zip, zero, nada.

That being said.

I don't get the objection to progressive taxation on the rich, especially given all the jewish, nepotism, and rothchild bashing going on in 4chan.

You have to understand that we're not talking about taxing your boss who makes 100k a year, or the guy who just managed to make it big and become a millionaire. Those are small fry.

The people that Pikkety is bashing on are the fucking Jews: with their dynastic hold on wealth and political power. You know, people like the Kosches (who inherited their company from their daddy) and just have clever managers that do their work for them while they claim all of their hard work as their own.

The progressive taxation that we're talking about IS taxation on their obscene amounts of inherited capital income. Again, we're not talking about millionares, we're talking about the real 1%, who make hundreds of billions of dollars through their family fortunes and use those policies to spread disinformation and push for policies that favor them, like the Bush tax cuts. Don't believe me? Guess who funds the Cato Institute? A hallmark of anti corporatism and anti government? The fucking Koshes.

The data backs Picketty.

Wealth in the form of capital tends to get concentrated in the hands of a few if proper taxation isn't done and it makes it that much harder for the common man to make it big.

>>297733
You sir have obviously never been in a union.

>fight to get money out of politics
>Don't allow public schools or infrastructure to be underfunded
I can get behind that.

Let's lower the corporate tax to 0% (and in the process, remove the need for teams of corporate accountants and lawyers to hack the tax code) before we ask high income people to hand over more shekels.

>>297758
I agree with that but only for small sub million dollar corporations.

The burden should fall on the Exxon Mobils and Walmart, not mom and shop stores.

>>297684

Inequality should be lowered, but the best way to do this is through marginally higher inflation to encourage productive (read: riskier) investment, and stronger inheritance taxes. This has the added benefit that both policies that can easily (and feasibly!) be pursued by the US alone. A global wealth tax is a Marxist pipe dream.

>>297758

>lower corporate tax to 0%

No. Corporate tax exists for a reason. Limited liability is an incredibly valuable commodity, and people should have to pay a price in some form to obtain it. Corporate taxes happen to be a very convenient and theoretically elegant way to do that.

>>297762
Bah.

A corporation is just a group of people. If we kicked out this corporate personhood business, we might have a decent thing going.

Structuring your economy around make believe and unicorn farts is just a bad idea.

>not wanting to attract every corporate investor on the planet
>meaning more jerbs and staff for us
>creating a strong middle class tax base, and keeping toxic rent seeking rich fags out

>>297758
I agree with lowering the corporate tax rate to 0, but only in conjunction with raising capital gains rates, especially on higher income. That removes the stupid "double taxation" argument from the board, and since corporations will just weasel out of taxes, whereas it's a bit harder for people to, then everything's covered.

>>297767
Yeah, but it will expose people to the risk of liability if some asshole decides to sue you because his toast wasn't buttered the right way.

To preface, I haven't yet read Piketty's book, though I do plan to sometime this year. That said, most (even many liberal) economists agree that the optimal taxation of interest, dividends, and capital gains is zero or close to zero.

Based on what I know of Piketty's argument, it doesn't sound like he provides many genuine, realistic solutions. "Implement a wealth tax" is not a serious policy proposal, and I think any attempt by any party in the US to introduce a wealth tax would end up majorly backfiring.

Also, there's nothing "bad" about the growth of capital. If anything, high rates of capital growth predict high rates of income growth.

Lastly, there are highly superior solutions to easing inequality. The focus should be on raising the poor rather than diminishing the wealthy. Education, wage subsidies, and improved regulation could all ameliorate inequality without reducing capital accumulation.

>>297774
>That said, most (even many liberal) economists agree that the optimal taxation of interest, dividends, and capital gains is zero or close to zero.

Yes, but the argument for doing so are beginning to become shaky, and Piketty covers this to some extent. The argument for 0% marginal taxation of capital is that it leads to the fastest overall growth rate, but that says nothing about the distribution. Put it this way: Would you rather live in an economy that sees 5% growth a year, but where the top 10% who own substantially all the capital capture the gains and everybody else stagnates, or an economy that sees 3% growth a year with the results distributed in the form of higher real wages? Most liberal economists in the recent past handwaved distributional questions away, but they're very real concerns given what we're seeing today.

>>297744

Who the fuck are "the Kosches"?

If you mean the Koch brothers, they're not Jewish they're dutch roman catholics, and back to /pol/ you go.

>>297772
You can provide limited liability without giving corporations more rights than a living, breathing human being.
>letting corporations spend consumer dollars on political causes and even campaign contributions
>Giving legal personhood to a gestalt entity with no body to imprison
Spend money out of your own salary if you believe in something so much.

Incorporation is just a way of saying "ok, I'm in business mode now! If I crash my business mode truck into your house, you can only sue me for this subset of assets!"

And that's a great thing that should be available to anyone, with nothing more than a fee to cover the recordkeeping overhead.

>>297774
The problem with that is that the high capital growth rates are going directly to the hands of the already rich; and I don't mean millionares, I mean multi billionaire dynasties like the Koches, Walton, and Rothschilds: you can't become well off when all the good factories, robots, manufacturing techniques, and patents are all own by the same cabal.

Its about how much it grows, and how it gets distributed. The classical growth theories in economics don't deal with allocation very well, it just assumes that everyone's income and utility curve will shift up when income rises.

>>297774
I suggest you read this short guide to the book Capital:
http://www.vox.com/2014/4/8/5592198/the-short-guide-to-capital-in-the-21st-century
Or Krugman's breakdown here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/may/08/thomas-piketty-new-gilded-age/
Or watch the interview Piketty had with MSNBC host Chris Hayes(30 minutes):
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/not-born-rich-out-of-luck-229868611955

Please do one/all of the above before theorizing on the matter of "not diminishing the wealthy". Also don't forget that we are not a democracy, we're an oligarchy
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/
and that the rules of the wealthy don't apply to the poor:
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/06/297857886/in-books-trial-of-u-s-justice-system-wealth-gap-is-exhibit-a

>>297786
Now you're getting into IP issues.

You definitely need some kind of patent structure to allow innovators to gain shekels from their novel ideas, but at some point, it's ridiculous to let a bunch of middle managers make a living off a cartoon mouse whose inventor died decades ago.

>>297792
Patents are fine. They have a 20 year life span and they haven't been altered.

IP though is a fucking mess. 120 years fucking years.

>>297803
Yes, sorry for my loose terminology.

We've really lost sight of putting people at the top of the hierarchy. A corporation is a great tool, but we've kind of let it run wild.

>ok, this piece of paper called Disney owns the cartoon mouse forever. Nobody can draw this cartoon mouse! Nobody! Don't you dare use this cartoon mouse without our permission!
>No, we didn't invent it. The piece of paper did!

>>297809
Yeah, and 30% tax rate on people's savings when they retire is fucking criminal.

Capital gains needs to be restructured.

>>297812

>what are Roth contributions to retirement accounts?

>>297787

>linking to vox, krugman, and msnbc all in one post

You are doing nothing to encourage a high level of debate. Based on the shill websites you read, I'd guess you have little academic understanding of economics, and thus nothing to add to the discussion. Please stop posting; or better yet, leave.

>>297782
>>297786

These are interesting points. I'll have to do some reading on these topics.

>>297815
And what happens when you take the money out?

Roth's are preferable because of the time value of money, but you should not in my opinion get taxed for your fucking retirement. At 30% to boot.

Capital gains should be a flat 5% until 5 million. And then it starts getting progressive.

>>297812
>30% tax rate on people's savings

Do you even know what you're talking about? You probably don't even understand what marginal rates are.

Long term capital gains taxes(and rates) of 15%(~20% over 400k/year, fuck you if you make that much)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States
401k is income that is deferred taxes until withdrawal.
ROTH money doesn't get taxed again.

>>297817
>hating on Vox

Reality has a liberal bias!!!

>>297825

>And what happens when you take the money out?

All distributions after age 59 /12 are 100% tax-free, because you elected post-tax (Roth) contributions. Seriously, this is personal finance 101.

>>297831

Klein is overrated, though really it's not his fault, because journalists are so phenomenally shitty that anyone with even basic numeracy and capacity for critical thinking can literally become the top journalist at the Washington Post.

Having a rich as fuck 1-2 percent is great. thats why capitalism works.

The problem is thats not what we have now. we have a rich 1 percent and a 50 times richer .1 percent and an incredibly richer .01 percent.

That benefits nobody but those people.


.01 percent can only make so many jobs and invest so much of their money.

plus most of those people pay less taxes because capital gains swag. If you make 90% of your money off cap gains you sould have a higher capital gains tax rate
Raise taxes on .1% and leave 1% alone

Why is inequality bad? Why is the distance between the richest person and the poorest person a problem?

>>297850
Asymmetry of power, basically.

This problem is exacerbated in a country where super PACs and lobbying groups with secret funding channels exist.

>>297860
so the only problem is that the rich will bribe the govt to do their bidding at the expense of the people at the bottom? thats what all the fuss is about? political corruption? the biggest Super PACS are leftwing groups mostly unions.

>>297850
(psuedo)Zero sum game. If the economy is only growing at 1%, and the middle class isn't getting any of those gains, and the poor are getting poorer... you're going to have a bad time.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/10/some-95-of-2009-2012-income-gains-went-to-wealthiest-1/
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/02/26/taxing-rich_n_4858942.html
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/52384/1/MPRA_paper_52384.pdf

>inb4 Huffington Post
sorry brah, first thing popped up on Google

>>297828
>>297832
Damn, my mistake.

Guess I have some catching up to do.

Still sucks that you get taxed at 10% if you're trying to get some extra income that's not in those accounts.

>>297875
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/18/the-many-ways-to-measure-economic-inequality/

>>297875
>(psuedo)Zero sum game. If the economy is only growing at 1%, and the middle class isn't getting any of those gains, and the poor are getting poorer... you're going to have a bad time.
Except economics isn't a zero sum game at all. Because the rich are doing better does not mean its causing the poor/middle class etc are doing worse. Leftwing policies cause income inequality by increasing expensive and difficult regulations that only a few can follow.

>>297886

>>297874
I'm not fund of union rent seeking either.

But basically, yes. Our representatives are supposed be elected by a majority of their peers. Other human beings, that share the same fundamental needs.

If all of the employees at walmart, from the cash register to the back office, think that things should be run a certain way, and vote accordingly--well that's just dandy.

But If a handful of short sighted executives and shareholders place empty suits in congress to do their bidding--that's not okay.

>>297891

It's non-zero sum in the long run, sure- I'd rather be just about anybody living in the US today vs. 150 years ago- but it's pretty damn close to zero-sum in the short run. Any increase faster than the rate of growth, which is almost always in the low single digits, even in the best of times, must necessarily come at someone else's expense.

>>297891
PSEUDO zero sum. I didn't say it was entirely zero sum, but here, let me post it again, from the FUCKING WALL ST JOURNAL.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/10/some-95-of-2009-2012-income-gains-went-to-wealthiest-1/

If 5% of the gains over 3 years, after a devastating destruction of the wealth of the country, went to 99% of the people, do you really think you're on the right side of the debate? And "leftwing policies"? We're an oligarchy m8, the Koch brothers will buy their way to more riches, as will Intuit(turbo tax, against simple taxes) and other corporations lobbying for corporate welfare.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/27/turbotax-maker-funnels-millions-to-lobby-against-easier-tax-returns/

>>297891
>Because the rich are doing better does not mean its causing the poor/middle class etc are doing worse.

But that's exactly what's going on.

Average real income for workers hasn't increased since the 70s.

Its not that inequality is bad, but extreme inequality is also not good.

>>297911
>Any increase faster than the rate of growth, which is almost always in the low single digits, even in the best of times, must necessarily come at someone else's expense.
How do you figure that? how did Mark Zuckerberg earning 30 billion dollars make anyone else poorer?

its not a zero sum game because wealth is stuff. Of course the rich are going to grow faster than the typical person. The typical person doesn't have extremely rare skills. they just live their lives with typical skills etc. the rich are finding new and different technologies in a more globalized society. There are more billionaires and milllionaires than ever before.

If John has 10 apples and I have 10 apples and then one day john has 100 apples, my situation hasn't changed, except I'm now jealous of John.

>>297922
>But that's exactly what's going on.
That doesn't mean that income inequality is bad it just means that something is keeping the middle class down. The very existence of inequality is meaningless. The fact that the middle class and poor are stagnating is an actual issue. The existence of any inequality is meaningless other than it makes people jealous. The problem is leftist policies make entrepeneurship so difficult and expensive that only the super rich can become wealthy. inequality is a symptom of the overarching problems of leftist policies. Inequality in and of itself is not something that needs to be solved.

>>297928
Because although the pie is growing, the rich's piece of the pie is growing faster.

>>297915
The Plutonomy memo:
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/01/08/plutonomics/
http://pissedoffwoman.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/citigroup-plutonomy-report-part-1.pdf

": 1) the
world is dividing into two blocs - the plutonomies, where economic growth is powered
by and largely consumed by the wealthy few, and the rest. Plutonomies have occurred
before in sixteenth century Spain, in seventeenth century Holland, the Gilded Age and
the Roaring Twenties in the U.S."

"2) We project that the plutonomies (the U.S., UK, and Canada) will likely see even more
income inequality, disproportionately feeding off a further rise in the profit share in their
economies, capitalist-friendly governments, more technology-driven productivity, and
globalization."

"There are rich consumers, few in
number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take.
There are the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for
surprisingly small bites of the national pie. "

I don't begrudge those that have earned their wealth, but wealth begets wealth. I know, because I'm on my way to middle class wealth. But open your eyes. You're not a dissafected rich person whose time has not yet come. Slowing/stopping the slide into plutonomy, into new-feudalism doesn't lessen the rich, but it helps the rest of us.

>>297745
>Wealth in the form of capital tends to get concentrated in the hands of a few if proper taxation isn't done and it makes it that much harder for the common man to make it big

Why is it some great revelation that money begets more money, and that over long periods of time it will (without outside intervention) tend to gravitate into the hands of fewer and fewer people?

>>297928

If you're going to insist on the ridiculous use of analogies to explain economic concepts, fine.

>Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John own an orchard that produced 400 apples per year.
>Each one harvested 100 each last year and sold them as their only income
>Thanks to a new fertilizer, their orchard produced 10% more apples than before.
>But somehow John managed to sold 200 apples this year

In the aggregate, they're richer than before. But because John's "income" doubled despite only a 10% increase in productivity, then one (or, more likely, all) of Mark, Matthew, and Luke are poorer on both a relative and absolute bases.

This is, essentially, what's happening with our economy. We're richer in the aggregate, but somehow the elite have become even richer then they "should" have been. See, eg, the chart posted above comparing CEO pay to the S&P 500.

>>297933
I agree that its a policy problem, especially

But you must understand that we're not talking about millionares. The 1% are dynastic families with multi-billion dollar companies. Those are the ones that have seen the income rises.

Someone post the pdf.

>>297928
Well, one of the problems is that having a huge pile of wealth that you don't need allows you to pursue ventures that will create even more wealth.

This alone isn't really an issue, but we effectively put this income in a different category than earned wages.

And our byzantine tax code favors corporations and extremely high wage earners, just by virtue of how complicated it is.

>>297928
If apples are your only medium for transferring wealth, than John's 100 apples allow him to buy influence among people who want his apples. He probably also spends them more freely, meaning the cost of living rises.

People want John to move into their neighborhood, so that they can tax him more apples. So they drive up your property tax until you have to move.

Fuck... you analogy is just bullshit on so many levels.

Never mind that John probably did nothing of note to earn those apples. For every richfag who clawed themselves up out of the middle class, there's another that won a genetic lottery.

>this kills the meritocracy.

>>297839
>Having a rich as fuck 1-2 percent is great. thats why capitalism works.

In the good old days when it took weeks to send a message across an ocean or a continent, it was necessary to have concentrated wealth if you wanted to get big shit done. In an age of advanced telecommunications, it simply isn't necessary any more.

>>297935
You're jealous of the rich getting richer so instead of trying to make it easier for the poor to move up you make it harder on the rich. As if just bringing the rich down will somehow help the poor etc.

>>297945
Why does it matter how much more John has than you? You're literally just jealous that the person next to you is richer than you or becominng more successful than you. There is nothing that makes you worse off when he is more successful. The rich becoming richer doesn't limit anyone else from becoming rich or make them poorer.

its all correct, but doesnt add to anyones bottom line. its just bullshit people who read the nyt will spout.

>>297783
He's trying to appeal to the racism on 4chan because we are torn between hating liberals and hating jews. Thus, it seems 4chan, as a collective group, are hypocrites that really just follow the hate bandwagon without understanding that when you FiGHT for a free market, you empower the Jewish aristocracy as well. Pick you poison 4chan.

>>297951
If John and and I live in the same neighborhood and he becomes wealthier and he fixes up his houses with his apple money he's making my property worth more. Who cares if he earns his apples or not? His possession of lots of apples doesn't diminish my apples. and if you're complaining about high taxes talk to your leftist friends.

>>297758
Public unions are a fucking nuisance. UAW is nuts. Destroying the very industry that gave them jobs. All unions should operate similar to the rail unions. They do a good job, of managing the needs of the employees and the needs of the company. They are the only union that legally opts out of social security and have their own self funded retirement plan. NOW that is a union.
Public union<Private unions
But privates can't be co-opted by poor peoples "gib me dat" mentality. It takes strong leadership, and yes, the occasional pay cut. I'd rather have a pay/hour cut then the company I work for go under. Unions have to be receptive, and so do companies when the times are good.

>>297951
>Well, one of the problems is that having a huge pile of wealth that you don't need allows you to pursue ventures that will create even more wealth.
why is this a bad thing? isn't it good that the rich are investing their money? and is that money better spent in a ridiculous bureaucracy than in the hands of skilled investors or their kids who use that money to invest in shit like restaurants or bars etc or spend on expensive luxuries that require labor etc.

>>297957
Again, I have to qualify the word rich, I'm not talking about the small fry millionare, I'm talking about people with multi billion dollar fortunes.

I'm not jealous but I do have a problem when they get tax cuts for themselves through crony capitalism.

>>297957
you honestly are not understanding that guy's point. I am a free market advocate to an extent, but you need to understand that this:
> The rich becoming richer doesn't limit anyone else from becoming rich or make them poorer

is simply not true. Please explain why you believe this. Cite historical examples where this panned out or show me a thought experiment where the rich do not create monopolies. Again, i'm not arguing for socialism here, I'm arguing against a complete free market.

>>297973
>Again, I have to qualify the word rich, I'm not talking about the small fry millionare, I'm talking about people with multi billion dollar fortunes.
Who cares how rich they are?

If John and I live in trailers and all of the sudden John invents a teleporter and now he is crazy stupid rich with yachts and mansions and caviar and hookers and fancy cars etc how does that make my trailer any worse than it was before?

Not to mention the possibility for wealth of everyone has increased with the invention of the teleporter so in fact John has made everyone else richer by making himself crazy rich.

>>297957
>Why does it matter how much more John has than you?

Did you read what I wrote? If John had become 1 or 10 or hell, even 40 apples richer, I'd have no complaint. But he managed to capture _more than 100%_ of that toy economy's growth rate. He's actively making me poorer by his actions. That's not jealousy that he has more, that's anger that he has more because he took it from me.

>>297963
Your example is extremely simplistic.
Consider this:
John owns an oil rig. John's oil rig raises gas prices. You have a car. You can either:

Not drive a car.
Give into John's gas prices.

What do you do?

>>297957
If John is stuck just sitting on a pile of money, then it doesn't matter.

But John can put his friends into public office, and have them send no-bid contracts his way. Or maybe put his kids into public office, and start a dynasty that lasts for generations. Then they can outlaw guns, or put christian doctrine into law, or whatever bugfuck crazy thing they want.

People like power. People like to boss other people around. It just feels good. There doesn't need to be a rational reason for it.

>>297963
I'm no leftist friend. I'm the guy arguing for a 0% corporate tax, so that people who want to work and make something of themselves don't have their balls nailed to the starting line.

>>297971
It's not a bad thing, but when a tiny minority has great power over hundreds of millions or billions of people, and enjoys special protections under the law, then things start to look an awful lot like the system we had a revolution to get out of.

>>297966
Yes, unions have pretty much chewed off the hand that fed them. Some are ok, but many have hobbled the industries they relied on.

>>297977
>you honestly are not understanding that guy's point. I am a free market advocate to an extent, but you need to understand that this:
I don't see a point. Other than we need to decrease inequality solely for the sake of decreasing inequality. I see no argument for why inequality in and of itself is a negative.

Is it bad that the poor are stagnating? of course but is this a result of inequality or is inequality a symptom of what is causing the poor etc to stagnate? You're trying to fix a symptom just to fix a symptom without actually looking at the cause.

what monopolies are you talking about? When monopolies crop up they only last briefly and never last.

Complain about the problem with upward mobility of the poor and middle class don't complain about inequality because the rich are doing well. especially when there is no evidence its at the expense of the poor etc.

>>297981
John buys Wal-shit, where you work.
John prevents Wal-shit from raising your wages, because he wants that money.
John pays Super-Pac to blast the airwaves with libertarian free market bull shit.
John conspires with Tar-shit and other employers to keep your wage down to enrich themselves.

>mfw you don't even realize that your wage isn't even keeping up with inflation, let alone your worth to the company.

>>297981
It won't make it worse in a world without depreciation, but you're not any better either AND in addition to that, if this example was to reflect the real world, you won't see any income gains off the productivity of his invention; it all goes to John.

Yes, believe it or not, the average worker has not seen any real income off their own increase in productivity.

Furthermore, it actually makes it harder for you to become rich yourself because capital tends to concentrate on the hands of the very few and thus becomes static.

>>297985
except you aren't showing how John has made me poorer. He is just richer.

If I have a car and a trailer and so does John and then one day John is Bill Gates he hasn't made my car and a trailer any worse.

>>297988
Are we talking about wealth inequality or an overegulated industry where the democrats refuse new companies into the market place because they don't like deep sea drilling? more deep see drilling means more competition more competition and more oil means cheaper prices.

>>297996
John cuts your benefits, citing "economic conditions". Wal-shit continues to produce record profits.
John cuts your hours to prevent you from getting socialistic health insurance, which cuts into his bottom line.
You now have to work at Tar-shit, part time because you already have a part time job at Wal-shit. You're too bleary eyed from working 3 jobs to even manage to complain.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/04/09/3424629/florida-medicaid-charlene-dill/

>>297989
>But John can put his friends into public office, and have them send no-bid contracts his way. Or maybe put his kids into public office, and start a dynasty that lasts for generations. Then they can outlaw guns, or put christian doctrine into law, or whatever bugfuck crazy thing they want.
If you want to talk about political corruption fine but that has very little to do with income inequality. The problem that causes corruption is regulation. Remove overregulation and you remove the incentive to lobby/bribe

>It's not a bad thing, but when a tiny minority has great power over hundreds of millions or billions of people, and enjoys special protections under the law, then things start to look an awful lot like the system we had a revolution to get out of.
Then fix what is fucking over the middle and poor class, mainly taxes and over regulation. make the poor and middle class richer. don't bring the rich down.

>>298007
Because you're in a shit life, you give your children a shit life. Imagine the economic consequences of generations of people not able to produce the next Microsoft or Facebook?

Sure, Fuckerberg created most of his wealth, but it all started from him being in the upper crust already, at Harvard.

>>297995
I agree. Inequality in and of itself is not inherently evil. If anything, it is positive because it spurs for competition.

However, what is inherently evil is, exactly what you said, prevention of upward mobility. How can you argue in favor of when this barrier of entry is placed on the lower-class, allowing the rich to lobby in favor of the disparity.
I think you would agree this is a problem. I'm am not suggesting anything about a solution, let's just agree on a problem.

>>297989
I hate to say it, but really a lot of the problems with this country is because of the decline of the unions, and it's mostly self-inflicted. Ronald Raygun smashing the Air Traffic Controllers didn't help either. (though to this day they make fairly good wages, hours are shit though, much like rail)

Strong Unions that can respond and act as a good middle man between ever growing powerful corporations and their employees (read the rest of the voting bloc) needs to happen.

Unfortunately with the "Gib me dat" mentality, a stronger union now means that the company can't compete, rather than help it's nation grow alongside it's employees.

>>298002

>except you aren't showing how John has made me poorer. He is just richer.

This is BASIC ARITHMETIC. There are 4 people trying to split up a pool of wealth. Last year, everyone had 400/4=100 apples. This year, John has 200 apples and everyone else has 240/3 = 80 apples. 80 < 100. You are now 20% poorer than you were last year. Get it?

>>298001
>It won't make it worse in a world without depreciation, but you're not any better either AND in addition to that, if this example was to reflect the real world, you won't see any income gains off the productivity of his invention; it all goes to John.
How am i not going to see the benefits of a teleporter? now shipping costs next to nothing. it costs next to nothing to travel across the world. John has made himself rich but by extension the entire world richer. just as the invention of the car made everyone richer.

>Furthermore, it actually makes it harder for you to become rich yourself because capital tends to concentrate on the hands of the very few and thus becomes static.
Okay explain to me how someone becoming insanely wealthy keeps me from becoming wealthy or well off myself?

>>297996
If you want to talk about inflation shouldn't we talking about the FED pumping tens of billions of dollars into the economy. Please stay on topic. This is why liberals love talking about inequality, because its the all encompassing boogeyman for all things bad.

>>298010
>Then fix what is fucking over the middle and poor class, mainly taxes and over regulation. make the poor and middle class richer. don't bring the rich down.

You don't get it. Taxes aren't what's keeping the middle class down.
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-google-recruitment-emails-lawsuit-2014-1

>>298017
>This is BASIC ARITHMETIC. There are 4 people trying to split up a pool of wealth. Last year, everyone had 400/4=100 apples. This year, John has 200 apples and everyone else has 240/3 = 80 apples. 80 < 100. You are now 20% poorer than you were last year. Get it?
lol, except there isn't a finite amount of apples. just as there isn't a finite amount of "stuff"

since we're not running out of "stuff" ie yachts mansions, ferraris, technology etc if one person becomes super wealthy it doesn't make me less wealthy.

When Mark Zuckerberg became a multibillionaire did it make you poorer? when Bill Gates became a billionaire did it make you poorer?

>>298010
>If you want to talk about political corruption fine but that has very little to do with income inequality. The problem that causes corruption is regulation. Remove overregulation and you remove the incentive to lobby/bribe

You're implying the rich lobby against regulations. That is not always the case, look at the lobbying for increasing the barriers of entry for small businesses, a source of competition that can hurt big businesses.

>>298025
>You're implying the rich lobby against regulations. That is not always the case, look at the lobbying for increasing the barriers of entry for small businesses, a source of competition that can hurt big businesses.
of course. and if you want to talk about the problems with regulation or what causes lobbying etc fine. But don't use it as an excuse to go after "income inequality" in this case the problem is what causes lobbying. and income inequality does not cause lobbying.

>>298010
I agree. There are many regulations that only serve to increase the influence of the wealthy (because they're the ones who are able to afford the legal-fu to weasel out of it).

And until we figure out how to keep money from running politics (without keeping them so separate the the politicians have no idea what's going on), then inequality and political corruption will be intertwined.

I don't want to bring the rich down. I just want equality under the law. Why is a petty thief treated differently from a banker who knowlingly robs millions of investors?

>steal a little and they throw you in jail
>steal a lot and they make you king

>>298018
>How am i not going to see the benefits of a teleporter? now shipping costs next to nothing. it costs next to nothing to travel across the world. John has made himself rich but by extension the entire world richer. just as the invention of the car made everyone richer.

Look at the graph. This is a period where the computer and the internet were introduced into the workplace and revolutionized the way we process information. Yet workers haven't seen zip, zero, nada of that income rise.


>Okay explain to me how someone becoming insanely wealthy keeps me from becoming wealthy or well off myself?
>>297745

In higher unequal societies, fathers tend to produce poorer sons.

Why? Capital concentration. Its hard to build yourself a factory when all the land is owned by some guy who inherited it.

>>298021
no indebting the poor through essentially mandatory and unnecessary college degrees, forcing them to buy overpriced insurance, forcing people to take retarded courses and ridiculous licenses that further discourage people to stay out of certain industries.

>>298022
You're both right and wrong. Many types of wealth are indeed created--a worker's soviet is not going to magically come up with the same advances as a handful of motivated inventors who are rewarded for their diligence. Why bust your ass if it doesn't lead to greater status and gratification?

But clean air is not infinite. Living space is not infinite. There are not enough wild forested river valleys for everyone to have their own. Many other types of wealth are not infinite or created.

>>298031
>Look at the graph.
>the exact time we took the dollar off the gold standard.

>Why? Capital concentration. Its hard to build yourself a factory when all the land is owned by some guy who inherited it.
There is land all over the place for sale. Of course the democrats like faggot Frank and Chris Dodd, made investing cheaper for the super rich and without any risk which artificially raises prices making it harder to afford property for the average person. and even so the rich aren't hoarding land or buildings.

>>298029
I see, so this is the point we disagree on:
>income inequality does not cause lobbying
So if i was a billionaire and you were poor, you're saying that inequality is not explicitly causing lobbying, I see.

So you're saying wealth has nothing to do with lobbying. When wealth is the way you lobby?

>>298040
>But clean air is not infinite. Living space is not infinite. There are not enough wild forested river valleys for everyone to have their own. Many other types of wealth are not infinite or created.
let me know when we run out of clean air or living space. let me know when the rich buy up all the water and river valleys. I'll buy stock in desalinators.

>>298034
And that my friend, is an example of how inequality(small form, between the upper and lower 20%) has insinuated itself in the US over time. Thanks for making one of my points.

Now you just have to realize that taxes on wealth, on capital gains don't impoverish the top 10%, they only slow the growth of the top .01 percent. The Kochs and the Waltons.

Don't forget that we're an oligarchy, and you're not invited.

Oh, and complain that economic regulations and federal campaign donation restrictions are hurting your voice in politics, even though it's really only slightly lessening the Koch's voices really.

>>298042
>Guys, this correlation fits perfectly with this causation!

>>298046
Now there's some ignorant shit right there.

Did you know that you used to be able to set the Ohio river aflame, and it would burn for days off of all the industrial waste dumped into it?

>>298022
>when Bill Gates became a billionaire did it make you poorer?

Arguably yes- my company is forced to pay out obscene amounts of money to support products produced by a monopoly (Windows/Office) that could instead be paid out in higher wages. Likewise for Zuckerberg- Facebook hurt overall productivity and decreased the rate of growth of the overall economy by billions of dollars.

But the more important point isn't about people like Gates or Zuckerberg, it's about people like Sandy Weill or Jimmy Cayne or Hang Greenberg, people who objectively DID make millions poorer through the destruction of wealth (housing bubble) while enriching themselves.

>>298044
>So if i was a billionaire and you were poor, you're saying that inequality is not explicitly causing lobbying, I see.
The distance between the rich and poor isn't causing the lobbying.

and considering the power of unions and Actblue(i think thats the name) the lobbying problem of the super rich is an overblown problem played up by leftists. make laws limiting regulation and watch lobbying completely dry up. if the govt can't affect a market or industry through regulation or taxation there is no reason to lobby.

>Now you just have to realize that taxes on wealth, on capital gains don't impoverish the top 10%, they only slow the growth of the top .01 percent. The Kochs and the Waltons.
why are you so intent on making the rich poorer instead of the poor richer?

You're literally trying to fix the symptom of a problem affecting the poor by punishing the rich.

>And that my friend, is an example of how inequality(small form, between the upper and lower 20%) has insinuated itself in the US over time. Thanks for making one of my points.
I don't see how I could've proved your point given none of those problems has anything to do with inequality or the rich.

>>298042
>the exact time we took the dollar off the gold standard.

Inflation, which is what goldbugs fear, hasn't been out of the ordinary after the oil shocks.

Remember that it includes the cost of imports used by consumers too.

>>298050
the entire "wahh income ineqauality argument" is correlation equals causation.

>>298059
who gives a shit and how is this related to inequality? Fucking hell, I swear you fucks like income inequality because you can literally bring anything and everything under its completely nonsensical and all encompassing umbrella of "wahh the rich have too much money global warming, look at how much debt I have, koch etc"

>>298060
>Arguably yes- my company is forced to pay out obscene amounts of money to support products produced by a monopoly (Windows/Office) that could instead be paid out in higher wages. Likewise for Zuckerberg- Facebook hurt overall productivity and decreased the rate of growth of the overall economy by billions of dollars.
so you think you'd be more productive using paper and faxes and snail mail? shut the fuck up. and inequality has nothing to do with monopolies. stay on topic.

>>298066
yeah inflation sucks. again unrelated to inequality.

>>298064
>punishing the rich

Arguably, the super-rich got that way by manipulating a bad system, and didn't pay back into the system at the same rate as those who earned less.

I know my arguments will be lumped in with leftist handout seekers, but I really don't care if people get filthy stinking rich, as long as they put their fair share in the pot.

>>298068
I was merely demonstrating that we really can run out of that type of "wealth".

And the correlation/causation link is much clearer when you can't get a meeting with your congressperson outside of a $20,000 a plate fundraiser.

I don't have any debt. I think you're assuming too much from what I'm writing (which is understandable, since you can't separate my posts from the others).

>>298083

No, I'd be as just productive if we could use, say, LaTeX or OpenOffice instead of Word, and we'd save tens of thousands per year in licencing fees that could go towards higher salaries, not claiming I'd be better off if we abandoned computers entirely. Are you even reading people's comments, or just saying the first moronic thing that comes into your brain?

>>298017
The creation of wealth is not an expansion in the supply of money, but an increase in the value of the supply of money, as money is worth the amount of products and services it can purchase. If I have an economy with 100 coconuts and 100 coconut dollars, and I produce more coconuts, the exchange rate has increased; you can purchase more for your money, as money is always fungible.

Nobody steals from you by producing more, creating more, building more, and so on, and thus creating more value for other people when they sell these things to the people who want them. People trade because they expect to profit, i.e., they value what they receive more than they trade away, as such the economy expands. Don't be so fucking stupid.

>>298091
I'm sympathetic to your point anon, but OpenOffice and other such products only exist because the boys at Redmond did the hard work for them.

>>298085
>I know my arguments will be lumped in with leftist handout seekers, but I really don't care if people get filthy stinking rich, as long as they put their fair share in the pot.
what do you mean by "pot"? do you mean taxes? or is the pot the overall economy?

>Arguably, the super-rich got that way by manipulating a bad system, and didn't pay back into the system at the same rate as those who earned less.
if the rich manipulated a fucked up system we should fix the system. not try to fix a symptom of the problem. The problem isn't that the rich are getting richer. its that the poor etc are stagnating.

>And the correlation/causation link is much clearer when you can't get a meeting with your congressperson outside of a $20,000 a plate fundraiser.
I think people exagerrate the power of the rich. The power of the every man and his vote is very clear. People just get mad at rich people lobbying when they disagree with them.

>>297922
>>298031
I wonder what happened around 1973? Could that be the same year the U.S. dollar stopped having any relationship with hard money and 0 feedback from the market, and therefore allowed for sole control and extreme manipulation by the central bank and its associates, at the expense of the populace?

No, couldn't be.

>>298091
jesus christ are we talking about the problems of inequality or copyright and patent law. Jesus fuck leftists.

>>298095
Fucking this.

Imagine an island community. The community spends all day fishing in the bay. It takes all day to catch 1 or 2 fish. They have no time for other pursuits. Then one man invents the fishing pole and sells his fishing pole for a couple fish. Now people can catch 10 fish in less than half the time. and with all the extra free time they can do other pursuits like invent even faster way to fish, spend their time relaxing, or inventing other things etc. The inventor is very rich but now the whole island is also richer.

>>298104
By "the pot" I mean the gubmint--the general fund that is (at least in theory) available for all voters (rich and poor) to use at their discretion for the betterment of all sentient beings on this material plane (through their representatives, who are of course ethical, conscientious people--not saints, but decent people with a basic regard for their fellow beings).

In theory.

>we should fix the system
That's more or less exactly what I'm talking about. I don't want to rob anyone--just to rethink things so that everybody pays in at the same rate.

>I think people exagerrate the power of the rich.
Maybe. But I I don't think there are too many people in congress who know what it's like to sit in a dark apartment eating oatmeal for the third night in a row.

I do. And I still don't want to eat the rich. Just plain old equality *under the law*.
>under the law
>not in our bank accounts

>>298066
>Hasn't been out of the ordinary.

>Prices of basic products and services drops year-after-year on account of innovations in production, logistics, and so on.
>Items cost 25% U.S. Dollars more since 2004.
Okay.

>>298122
>By "the pot" I mean the gubmint--the general fund that is (at least in theory) available for all voters (rich and poor) to use at their discretion for the betterment of all sentient beings on this material plane (through their representatives, who are of course ethical, conscientious people--not saints, but decent people with a basic regard for their fellow beings).
Money is better spent in the private sector than in the govt. Taxes go to bureaucrats and retarded pet projects and to failed social programs like welfare that has destroyed the black community not to mention marriage. but thats me going off on a tangent. The point is that money even in the hands of the super rich is better spent in their hands.

rich billionaire keeps his money, he puts it in stocks that go to companies, he puts it in the bank that is loaned out to "poorer" people, he gives it to his children who spend it on expensive luxuries that others have to make and maintain or they start business ventures like clubs that hire people etc. Not to mention lower taxes allows more money for corporations to use in other areas like increasing wages or benefits.

>Maybe. But I I don't think there are too many people in congress who know what it's like to sit in a dark apartment eating oatmeal for the third night in a row.
You don't have to have been poor to understand economic theory and history.

>>298105
Again, the primary fear of going off the gold standard was inflation, and that has been relatively mild.

Besides the whole tax structure being fucked, a big reason why average earnings haven't gone up is FLSA, which was written in the 30s.

As the US economy became more reliant on services, more and more people started to qualify for salaried wages and thus there's been an explosion in the number of salaried positions relative to hourly ones.

If you're not familiar with it, hourly positions are paid based on how much time your ass is in the chair, whereas salaried positions have a guaranteed biweekly pay as long as you show up for work (doesn't matter the number of hours) Above 40 hours per week, and hourly positions qualify for overtime but salaried positions get jack squat. They are exempt from overtime.

This of course, leads to exploitation, where your boss asks you to work over 40 hours for no pay and no extra benefits.

Hence this graph
>>298031

Yep, its legalized theft.

>>298134
Yes, to some degree we're counting angels on the head of a pin. Any money given to the government is likely going to be wasted. Probably by giving it to somebody's cousin in the private sector on a no-bid contract for a website that doesn't work, or some planes that require company technicians to maintain, or bomb detectors that work about as well as a divining rod.

>You don't have to have been poor to understand economic theory and history.
No, but if you're hired to represent "the people", it helps to have a broad understanding of their daily predicament--whether they are wealthy or poor. I hear a lot of conservatives complain that Obama/other liberals have never had to work a real job in the private sector to make ends meet. If someone has no personal connection to your life, they are much more likely to dismiss your problems as irrelevant.
>Those people must be lazy, I've never had a problem getting a job!
>Those rich people owe me a 6 figure job because I worked hard on my Women's Studies degree!

>>298141
>Again, the primary fear of going off the gold standard was inflation, and that has been relatively mild.
Tell that to people in the 1970s and early 80s. and the fact that the world has a vested interest in keeping the US dollar's value high gives a lot of incentive to keep inflation down which means countries buying bonds. It literally is a ponzi scheme.

and what do you think of overtime laws? they also encouraged more salary positions. not to mention encourage bosses to keep people from working more than 40 hours a week. thus making them poorer. or not as rich as they could be.

>>297767
>Trickle down

>>298122
When has Government ever been anything except the tool of a minority elite to further its own interests? The only major deviation between the days of absolute despotism and the modern mafia state is that it has evolved to be more efficient at its usual hobbies of slavery and theft without upsetting the population too much. (Consider how it is now intelligent enough to use plain confiscation sparsely, taxation uncommonly, but inflation, the hidden thief, all the time.)

Who affords legal existence to Corporations? Who provides for their Personhood? Who writes their tax loopholes? Who issues them monopolies through erecting high barriers of entry? Who licenses on their behalf? Who allows them to write the rules? Who's pocket are they in? And it's proper to let this entity direct an economy? For whose benefit?

People command other people for their own interests, not the interests of other people. When there are voluntary transactions, which are by definition positive sum, both parties expect to benefit. When there are involuntary transactions, one party expects to profit at the expense of another. All that is wrong in society is an instance of a violation of a person's property rights, whether it is murder, theft, or enslavement. Governments are ONLY reckoned by their ability to murder, steal, and enslave with impunity. Ask yourself, what is a Government that cannot tax, but must rely on voluntary contributions to survive, like a business? Why call it a Government?

>>298147
I guess I don't really mind that theyre rich or poor. There is a lot of problems with our electoral process mainly how the two parties have entrenched themselves and made it so its virtually impossible to have a third party. but none of the shit about income inequality would do anything to fix that. Inequality is the leftwing boogeyman that includes anything and everything. This thread is a perfect example. Try to talk to leftists about inequality and they talk about everything but inequality. inequality is just a vague meaningless term that in the end means "punish the rich gimme moniez"

>>298150
Go move to France.

>>298149
It encourages more salaried positions because there's a loophole in the law.

To be considered qualified for salaried positions, your job must be "administrative", "professional", or "executive" which is basically fucking everybody nowadays.

>not to mention encourage bosses to keep people from working more than 40 hours a week.

That's actually a very good thing for most people. The average work week for salaried positions is 45 hours compared to the 40 for hourly. Anecdotally I've seen people work 60 hours or more due to them being salaried.

Working less hours for the same pay just because your boss dislikes paying overtime is a good thing.

But shit still needs to be done, so either it will cause them to hire more people, or let some overtime go through.

>>298171
>Working less hours for the same pay just because your boss dislikes paying overtime is a good thing.
how is being forced to only work 40 hours a week instead of being able to work more if you want a good thing?

>>298175
Remember that the problem is with salaried workers and not hourly.

Salaried workers are paid the same no matter how much hours they work over or under. If you made salaried workers eligible for overtime, and the boss decided to say fuck you and only made them work 40 hours, they wouldn't feel a thing to their paychecks.

Most likely what would happen is that the boss would hire part time workers so that he doesn't have to pay overtime and allow some overtime work to be done. So it would be a net gain for almost everyone except the boss.

>>298183
except overtime laws arguably caused the influx of salaried positions. theyre avoiding overtime costs.

>>298160
>government is tool of moneyed elite
>if we get rid of government, then everything will be better
>Nothing about corporate abuses of power
??????????????

>>297684
>Be me
> Notice book buzzing
> Agree with general premises most of time
>Realize not much will change for too many reasons to count
> Stop at Mcdonald's on way to job at Walmart

>>298192
I don't see how corporate power can hurt me without the govt. look at the big evil corporations. monsanto etc. the worse things they do are because the govt has laws that protect them.

>>298192
Welcome to what Government is, the precise abuse of "power" you speak of.

If you oppose invasions into other people's lives, and want to create a system where these invasions do not happen on a systematic scale, you must, by definition, inevitably take aim at Government.

>>298200
>I don't see how corporate power can hurt me without the govt

>>298211
instead of making snarky comments why don't you actually make an argument.

>>298211
There has never been an instance of systematic violence without a State apparatus, which is merely the alpha criminal entity in a certain territory.

>>298217
I'll make this really easy:
- Bands of thugs: Small-time punks.
- Gang, Syndicate, Mafia: Medium-sized semi-professional criminals.
- State: Dominant/alpha, large, professional criminal enterprise.

You're welcome.

Great unbiased review:

www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141218/tyler-cowen/capital-punishment


>Piketty derives much of his analysis from a close examination of an important but generally overlooked driver of economic inequality: in contemporary market economies, the rate of return on investment frequently outstrips the overall growth rate, an imbalance that Piketty renders as r > g. Thanks to the effect of compounding, if that discrepancy persists over time, the wealth held by capitalists increases far more rapidly than other kinds of earnings, eventually outstripping them by a wide margin. To measure this effect, Piketty focuses on the annual capital-to-income ratio, which expresses the size of a country’s total stock of wealth relative to the income generated by its economy in a single year. Capital wealth is generally much larger than yearly national income -- in the case of today’s developed economies, about five to six times as large.
>At the core of Piketty’s story are the tragic consequences of capitalism’s success: peace and a declining population bring notable gains, but they also create a society dominated by wealth and by income from capital. In essence, Piketty presents a novel and somewhat disconcerting way of thinking about how hard it is to avoid growing inequality.

Yet there are flaws in this tale. Although r > g is an elegant and compelling explanation for the persistence and growth of inequality, Piketty is not completely clear on what he means by the rate of return on capital. As Piketty readily admits, there is no single rate of return that everyone enjoys. Sitting on short-term U.S. Treasury bills does not yield much: a bit over one percent historically in inflation-adjusted terms and, at the moment, negative real returns. Equity investments such as stocks, on the other hand, have a historical rate of return of about seven percent. In other words, it is risk taking -- a concept mostly missing from this book -- that pays off.

>>298017
>Last year, everyone had 400/4=100 apples
John plants an apple tree. Within a few years John's tree is producing apples. John's tree has increased the supply of apples. The price of apples drops slightly, but John can sell them and you can buy apples cheaper.

>>297995
Larger amounts of inequality produce lower quality of living and lifespan in a society. We are genetically tribal and are happier and healthier when we all have roughly the same resources.

Many resources are fixed and zero-sum competition exists in these. Real estate is a prime example. There is only so much beach front property and if John has enough money to buy all of it for his super mansion, none is left for the middle class. I've literally seen this happen in my area.

>>298018
>implying all inequality is due to technological invention
>forgetting the Communists were first into space
>ignoring John's relative wealth now lets him price land so high the others will never afford to move out of the trailer park

>>298064
>ignore all counter arguments
>endlessly restate your thesis without support
>pepper posts with pejorative references to "democrats", "leftists", and "regulation"

yep we're on /biz/

>>297733
>Join a union. Fight for higher taxes. Don't allow public schools or infrastructure to be underfunded.
>Fight for higher taxes
>For higher taxes
>Higher taxes
Get out you welfare nigger.

>>298113
Now imagine that two major fishing companies own all the fleets and employ laborers. They take all the extra productivity for themselves and lower wages while they're at it because they need fewer workers to produce the same amount of fish. Then the fishing fleets are relocated to a country with no safety regulations and the cheapest workers in the world are hired for them. The former fisherman have all lost their jobs, are too poor to get a business loan to buy their own fishing boats and can't survive off the third world wages earned thereby anyhow. Meanwhile a private equity firm uses the former workers' pensions to buy up the fishing fleets, enriching all the owners and themselves with massive dividends paid for by more borrowing. In two years the heavily indebted fleet company goes bankrupt and workers lose their pensions as well.

This is precisely what we in the first world have been seeing.

>>300607
>>forgetting the Communists were first into space
The communists had abysmal income equality. The Soviet Union was an oligarchy.

>>298167
>implying it isn't incredibly difficult to get an EU work permit, trust me I know

>>298200
Read The History of Standard Oil, it's in the public domain.

>>298215
>>>298211
> instead of making snarky comments
> why don't you actually make an
> argument.

>implying this isn't 4chan

>>299384
On what land?

John buys up all the land useful for growing apples. Keeps charging more until he gets ideal monopoly pricing. Fewer apples produced and they are more expensive.

Looks and sounds like blatant rehash of Das Kapital. Heck it even has the same name.

Recent trading book purchases. All mostly talking about stuff I already know, but it's good practice to read again and have it explained slightly differently, also some nuggets here and there, would recommend.
Trader Vic seems to be the most complete, technical, fundamental, risk management and psychology, attitude and so on.
Trades About To Happen mostly balls to the walls technical, no risk management or anything. Haven't read the other two much yet.

typical book lauded by the liberal cabal
>tome sized
>full of wonky facts and charts
>impossible feel good theory to solve world problems
>pundits call out everyone disagreeing or arguing with the book (yet the author himself concludes by saying the book should be "questioned and debated"
>doesnt address the value of capital
>doesnt address what would be an optimal level of inequality (if you say none, than the liberal pundits have all been lying)
>doesnt address the optimal amount of tax

>>300891

Maybe because the subject is similar?

>>300924
>tome sized
>full of wonky facts and charts

So are academic textbooks.

Holy fuck there are some stupid people in this thread.