Author

Topic: Thomas Sowell Quotes on Greed, Socialism, Racism, and More (Read 129 times)

legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
Well, then you have a different conception of Wealth tax than the way it is being applied, because in those countries they simply add up all the assets and if you exceed a certain limit, you have to pay. It doesn't matter if your main source of income is your job.
Sure. Let's not get bogged down by semantics. This is about the ultra-rich. I'd say it's unfair to tax wealth that has already been taxed as income. Or to define an 'ordinary' person as someone to whom a 'wealth' tax should be applied.

Man, Argentina is precisely one of the worst examples you can give me, you just need to give me Chavez and his "Expropriate it!" as a good example.
Hey, it was you who brought up Argentina! I simply pointed to an Argentinian example that was more appropriate to the point I was trying to convey.
Let's not go into Chavez again. I agree, as discussed previously, that he was part of the problem in Venezuela.

In your example you were talking about $50M, in the Argentine example it was the equivalent of $2M. It is clear that the higher you raise the limit the less you are going to collect.
In an individual country, yes. If the threshold was $50m, you'd get a lot less from Argentina than you would from say the US. I'm not advocating a specific threshold, merely arguing the general point that the ultra-rich don't pay as much tax (proportionally) as normal people, that this isn't a good thing, and that a wealth tax on the ultra-rich is a way to address this. The higher you raise the threshold, the less you collect, yes. Same as with anything. But the amount can still be significant.

To conclude, I have to say that I am playing a bit of devil's advocate as it is not that I am absolutely against a Wealth tax under any circumstances.
And I don't think that enforced absolute equality of outcome is a good thing. I think people who are talented, or innovative, or who work harder should be rewarded for that. I think that capitalism is the best system we have - it's just that I believe that governments should rein in some of its wildest excesses. Our respective positions, as you've mentioned before, whilst different, are nevertheless probably closer than they appear.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1888
Wealth tax has to be considered not in isolation but as a component of the overall tax system. Many of the taxes in that article are taxation on property ownership, which we have in many countries, but generally by another name. I'm not familiar with the nuances of the Argentinian taxation system, but whatever that >$32k tax is, it's not on capital returns. Most people live off their income, and they pay tax on that income. Anything can be called a "wealth tax", but why I mean by the term - and as I believe it's generally understood - is a tax on those ultra-rich people whose main source of money derives not from income from employment, but rather from returns on existing capital.

Well, then you have a different conception of Wealth tax than the way it is being applied, because in those countries they simply add up all the assets and if you exceed a certain limit, you have to pay. It doesn't matter if your main source of income is your job.

what in principle are taxes for the ultra-rich, end up being taxes for everyone.
I don't think this is valid; it's an ideological position that presupposes a result.

It presupposes what has happened so far. If this tax is imposed and remains a tax only for the ultra-rich, it will be the exception and not the norm historically speaking.

And it's certainly not an argument against attempting to tax the wealthy. "We can't tax just the ultra-rich because that would involve taxing everyone" doesn't make sense.

I'm not saying that, that argument is fallacious. I'm not saying it will involve taxing everyone by any means, I am saying that there is a historical trend.

Like in Argentina, right?
Well, yes. If we are considering Argentina specifically, then a better example would be the one-off* wealth tax that they implemented as part of the post-Covid economic recovery:
Quote
Critics say a wealth tax wouldn't work. Argentina just brought in $2.4 billion with one.
In December, Argentina's Congress voted to pass a levy on those with assets over 200 million pesos [...] According to the BBC, the tax was only set to impact the top 0.8% of the population, and about 10,000 people ended up paying the tax, according to some early data. They saw a levy of up to 5.25% on their total assets [...]  The revenue raised will go toward areas impacted by the pandemic, like housing, scholarships, public health, and relief for small businesses. Overall, the amount that the taxes brought in comes to about 0.5% of the country's GDP, according to the Buenos Aires Times. The newspaper reported this was a higher amount than expected.
https://www.businessinsider.com/one-time-wealth-tax-in-argentina-brought-in-24-billion-2021-5

*note that there is no suggestion of 5% as an ongoing annual levy.

Man, Argentina is precisely one of the worst examples you can give me, you just need to give me Chavez and his "Expropriate it!" as a good example. Argentina is a failed state almost at the level of Venezuela, let them keep it that way, they are almost there.

In your example you were talking about $50M, in the Argentine example it was the equivalent of $2M. It is clear that the higher you raise the limit the less you are going to collect.

To conclude, I have to say that I am playing a bit of devil's advocate as it is not that I am absolutely against a Wealth tax under any circumstances.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
Wealth tax as generally proposed is a very small percentage taxation on wealth above a certain threshold, $50 million, for example.
Not really. If you read the Wikipedia article about wealth taxes already impused you'll see that they range from $32K in Argentina to approximately $1M. 
Wealth tax has to be considered not in isolation but as a component of the overall tax system. Many of the taxes in that article are taxation on property ownership, which we have in many countries, but generally by another name. I'm not familiar with the nuances of the Argentinian taxation system, but whatever that >$32k tax is, it's not on capital returns. Most people live off their income, and they pay tax on that income. Anything can be called a "wealth tax", but why I mean by the term - and as I believe it's generally understood - is a tax on those ultra-rich people whose main source of money derives not from income from employment, but rather from returns on existing capital.

what in principle are taxes for the ultra-rich, end up being taxes for everyone.
I don't think this is valid; it's an ideological position that presupposes a result. And it's certainly not an argument against attempting to tax the wealthy. "We can't tax just the ultra-rich because that would involve taxing everyone" doesn't make sense.

Anyway, don't think you're going to collect much if you only charge those who have more than $50M.
Again an ideological position that presupposes a result. And $50m was an arbitrary 'high wealth' figure to illustrate a general point. See the example below for the results of an actual implementation.

Like in Argentina, right?
Well, yes. If we are considering Argentina specifically, then a better example would be the one-off* wealth tax that they implemented as part of the post-Covid economic recovery:
Quote
Critics say a wealth tax wouldn't work. Argentina just brought in $2.4 billion with one.
In December, Argentina's Congress voted to pass a levy on those with assets over 200 million pesos [...] According to the BBC, the tax was only set to impact the top 0.8% of the population, and about 10,000 people ended up paying the tax, according to some early data. They saw a levy of up to 5.25% on their total assets [...]  The revenue raised will go toward areas impacted by the pandemic, like housing, scholarships, public health, and relief for small businesses. Overall, the amount that the taxes brought in comes to about 0.5% of the country's GDP, according to the Buenos Aires Times. The newspaper reported this was a higher amount than expected.
https://www.businessinsider.com/one-time-wealth-tax-in-argentina-brought-in-24-billion-2021-5

*note that there is no suggestion of 5% as an ongoing annual levy.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1888
No, you'd pay nothing and could keep your painting. A wealth tax wouldn't affect people with a "normal" level of wealth.

Like in Argentina, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax
Wealth tax as generally proposed is a very small percentage taxation on wealth above a certain threshold, $50 million, for example.

Not really. If you read the Wikipedia article about wealth taxes already impused you'll see that they range from $32K in Argentina to approximately $1M.  Anyway, don't think you're going to collect much if you only charge those who have more than $50M.

legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
Say I have a painting that is worth 10,000 USD. Say I have zero USD in my bank account. My net worth is 10,000 USD, my wealth is valued at 10,000 USD.
Does a wealth tax mean I must liquidate my painting in order to pay?

No, you'd pay nothing and could keep your painting. A wealth tax wouldn't affect people with a "normal" level of wealth. Progressive taxation of income is a good thing, but it is not an effective means of taxing the ultra-rich whose "income" derives in large part from returns on existing wealth rather than income in the true sense. Wealth tax as generally proposed is a very small percentage taxation on wealth above a certain threshold, $50 million, for example. It's a mechanism for ensuring that the ultra-rich can't avoid paying tax. And some of the ultra-rich are even asking for a wealth tax...

You can't tax wealth, you can tax income. The moment you start taxing wealth is when you start driving rich people out of your country, or of course, they start stashing their money away in the cayman islands.
I suppose he will think, like others, that wealth tax must be imposed globally.

Yes.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1888
True, but we can't say that some correlations are spurious, therefore all correlations are spurious.

Yes, that's what I meant with the second part:

However, I also often say that correlation does not negate causation either.

As for the rest of what you say, I think it is a brilliant exposition. The only thing I would like to comment on is:

I believe that we should strive to give everyone, not the same outcome, but the same chances... or at least close to the same chances.

That's not going to happen in our world unless we get an AI to make policy decisions. The children of politicians will always have better chances than the rest, no matter if you are talking about Bush, Boris Johnson or the children of the Castro and Maduro. The best thing to do is to improve the scholarship and other systems so that the most disadvantaged have better opportunities.

And I think this might result in fewer $5 billion yachts built from 10,000kg of gold, and more safe drinking water that doesn't contain faeces.

I prefer a world where there are the same of more yachts and safe drinking water for everybody.

You can't tax wealth, you can tax income. The moment you start taxing wealth is when you start driving rich people out of your country, or of course, they start stashing their money away in the cayman islands.

I suppose he will think, like others, that wealth tax must be imposed globally.




legendary
Activity: 2744
Merit: 1512
I think disparity of outcome should be addressed somewhat, but not excessively. And I think a small wealth tax (not just an income tax) might be a good idea. But my main problem is with inequality of opportunity. There is a widespread belief that the rich 'deserve' to be rich, and the poor 'deserve' to be poor... certainly this is true in some cases and to an extent, but in large part wealth is inherited, and opportunities are inherited with it. Did Trump become president entirely on merit, did it have absolutely nothing to do with inherited wealth? Same with Boris Johnson here. Most of the leaders of my country went, as children, to the same private school, an opportunity which is out of reach of all but the very richest in society.

I believe that we should strive to give everyone, not the same outcome, but the same chances... or at least close to the same chances. And I think this might result in fewer $5 billion yachts built from 10,000kg of gold, and more safe drinking water that doesn't contain faeces.

What does a wealth tax accomplish? How do you tax wealth?

Say I have a painting that is worth 10,000 USD. Say I have zero USD in my bank account. My net worth is 10,000 USD, my wealth is valued at 10,000 USD.

Does a wealth tax mean I must liquidate my painting in order to pay?

You can't tax wealth, you can tax income. The moment you start taxing wealth is when you start driving rich people out of your country, or of course, they start stashing their money away in the cayman islands.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
When I see statistics like those, I always remember that correlation does not imply causation: Deaths by Swimming Pool Drowning vs. Nicholas Cage Films and Other Spurious Correlations. However, I also often say that correlation does not negate causation either.
True, but we can't say that some correlations are spurious, therefore all correlations are spurious. If it seems logical that the datasets might be related, such as income disparity vs health or crime, and the patterns are similar both across and within countries, then the case becomes more compelling.


In general what you say seems reasonable to me in principle: countries where there is a great disparity of wealth, it is logical to think that they will have more problems than those where wealth is more equally distributed.
Yes, I think so.


What happens is that I am far from believing that the solution consists of a politician making laws to take a piece of the supposed cake from some to give it to others. Mostly because we already know how the story ends: if we put too much emphasis on equalizing from above, we kill incentives, initiative and effort. Although I suppose we would come to agreements on this issue somewhere in the middle.
I'm sure we can agree in general that it's a question of degree. I would agree that too much emphasis on equalising outcomes can be a disincentive - but I'd also argue that there is a lot of fear-mongering here. Every time someone proposes even a very modest corporate tax increase, there are wealthy companies screaming that they can't possibly survive and would have to shut down their factories and move abroad, etc. In the same way that whenever anyone proposes anything even marginally left of centre, there are people screaming that it's communist.

I am in favour of reducing disparity of outcome somewhat, but at the same time I think that if someone is a self-made multi-millionaire they deserve to keep most of their money. But I don't see that progressive taxation, for example, is a bad thing. And I do think that the ultra-rich use exploitative and manipulative practices as a matter of course, notably to evade/avoid taxation:

Quote
[the 25 richest Americans] saw their worth rise a collective $401 billion from 2014 to 2018. They paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those five years, the IRS data shows. That’s a staggering sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.

It’s a completely different picture for middle-class Americans, for example, wage earners in their early 40s who have amassed a typical amount of wealth for people their age. From 2014 to 2018, such households saw their net worth expand by about $65,000 after taxes on average, mostly due to the rise in value of their homes. But because the vast bulk of their earnings were salaries, their tax bills were almost as much, nearly $62,000, over that five-year period.
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax

I think disparity of outcome should be addressed somewhat, but not excessively. And I think a small wealth tax (not just an income tax) might be a good idea. But my main problem is with inequality of opportunity. There is a widespread belief that the rich 'deserve' to be rich, and the poor 'deserve' to be poor... certainly this is true in some cases and to an extent, but in large part wealth is inherited, and opportunities are inherited with it. Did Trump become president entirely on merit, did it have absolutely nothing to do with inherited wealth? Same with Boris Johnson here. Most of the leaders of my country went, as children, to the same private school, an opportunity which is out of reach of all but the very richest in society.

I believe that we should strive to give everyone, not the same outcome, but the same chances... or at least close to the same chances. And I think this might result in fewer $5 billion yachts built from 10,000kg of gold, and more safe drinking water that doesn't contain faeces.








legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1888
-snip

When I see statistics like those, I always remember that correlation does not imply causation: Deaths by Swimming Pool Drowning vs. Nicholas Cage Films and Other Spurious Correlations. However, I also often say that correlation does not negate causation either.

In general what you say seems reasonable to me in principle: countries where there is a great disparity of wealth, it is logical to think that they will have more problems than those where wealth is more equally distributed. What happens is that I am far from believing that the solution consists of a politician making laws to take a piece of the supposed cake from some to give it to others. Mostly because we already know how the story ends: if we put too much emphasis on equalizing from above, we kill incentives, initiative and effort. Although I suppose we would come to agreements on this issue somewhere in the middle.







legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
If you give examples, we can analyze it.

I suppose this might be a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_economic_inequality
Everything below is either on that page, or linked to from that page. For clarity, I'm presenting the charts from the Wilkinson/Pickett studies, but note that these are not isolated findings, and there are plenty of other studies linked to from that page that share the same conclusions. In order to counter any suggestions of a cultural explanation, we'll look at inequality within a nation as well as between nations.

Quote
Effects of income inequality, researchers have found, include higher rates of health and social problems, and lower rates of social goods, a lower population-wide satisfaction and happiness and even a lower level of economic growth when human capital is neglected for high-end consumption. For the top 21 industrialised countries, counting each person equally, life expectancy is lower in more unequal countries (r = -.907). A similar relationship exists among US states (r = -.620).
I would say that -0.907 in particular is an overwhelmingly strong correlation, and particularly evident when visualised:




Quote
higher rates of health and social problems (obesity, mental illness, homicides, teenage births, incarceration, child conflict, drug use), and lower rates of social goods (life expectancy by country, educational performance, trust among strangers, women's status, social mobility, even numbers of patents issued) in countries and states with higher inequality. Using statistics from 23 developed countries and the 50 states of the US, they found social/health problems lower in countries like Japan and Finland and states like Utah and New Hampshire with high levels of equality, than in countries (US and UK) and states (Mississippi and New York) with large differences in household income.

We can also look at crime (homicides) by itself. Obviously the US is a bit of an outlier here due to its extreme gun laws, but this doesn't detract from the overall trend, nor from the differences between states within the US.

Quote
The most consistent finding in cross-national research on homicides has been that of a positive association between income inequality and homicides.
Economic inequality is positively and significantly related to rates of homicide despite an extensive list of conceptually relevant controls. The fact that this relationship is found with the most recent data and using a different measure of economic inequality from previous research, suggests that the finding is very robust.



copper member
Activity: 155
Merit: 8
TL;DR: Thomas Sowell believes that there is no such thing as inequality of opportunity, no such thing as systemic discrimination, no such thing as the rich and powerful exploiting the poor and vulnerable. He believes that the son of a white billionaire has the exact same chances in life as the daughter of a Mexican illegal immigrant who has to work three jobs just to pay the rent. He's also - although there are no quotes on this above - a climate-change denier.

I'm wary of taking isolated quotes out of context, but there's a clear pattern that many of his statements and opinions are driven by the almost rabid antipathy characteristic of an extremist ideologue, and many, notably his aversion to foreign aid, are morally indefensible. If you genuinely believe that there is no problem with a largely untaxed billionaire spending a hundred million dollars on a new yacht rather than saving millions of lives in poorer nations by providing safe drinking water or malaria nets, then it says a lot about your position on a lot of subjects. But who cares about anyone else, right, so long as you have enough $$$ yourself? 'F*** the poor' appears to be the overriding sentiment, as if poverty were entirely a choice.

No one in their right mind would suggest that everyone has equal opportunities. Sowell and I would argue that any official attempts to "equalize" people are inherently unjust, and destined only to create greater hardship. Theft is theft. It cannot be justified from a utilitarian standpoint.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1888
But I think we need to try a different angle. If you believe that wealth is effectively infinite, then do you believe that poverty and inequality are entirely unrelated, and that it's not true that a way to reduce poverty is to reduce inequality?

No. The discourse on inequality has replaced the discourse on poverty. Until not so long ago the problem was poverty, but as poverty in the world has been drastically reduced and that discourse no longer works, now the same ideology talks about inequality.

Which benefits the economy most, and increases wealth amongst the population the most, a) one billionaire earning another $1 billion, and stashing it in a bank account in some tax haven, or b) 1,000 millionaires each earning an extra $1 million, stashing half of it in a tax haven and spending the other half on luxury goods from specialist retailers, or c) one million average people each earning an extra $1,000 and spending all of it on a huge range of normal everyday goods from everyday retailers? Is there a sliding scale of benefit here?

It's just that you're positing an isolated thought experiment that has no correspondence to the real world and is based, again, on seeing wealth as a pie, so we take it away from the rich and give $1k extra to workers, and it doesn't work that way. For starters, the rich usually have that money in investments, in Amazon stock, for example, so that money is not sitting idle.


Even if you don't agree with that, do you agree that there is a tendency for the rich to exploit the poor?

In Victorian England, there was that tendency, in modern societies with open economies and full employment, employers have to provide good working conditions to fill vacancies. Apart from that, there are exceptions, of course, but they are not the norm.

Or (don't make me get the charts out!) can you explain why for rich countries with roughly equivalent per capita GDP, there is a strong link between levels of inequality and life expectancy and criminality?

If you give examples, we can analyze it.

He believes that the welfare system has turned out to be complete garbage over the last 30 or 40 years because it displaces blacks even further. His arguments are that the cure can't be worse than the disease.

This is what usually happens, simple socialist measures end up producing the opposite effects of what they said they were going to produce.
legendary
Activity: 2744
Merit: 1512
TL;DR: Thomas Sowell believes that there is no such thing as inequality of opportunity, no such thing as systemic discrimination, no such thing as the rich and powerful exploiting the poor and vulnerable. He believes that the son of a white billionaire has the exact same chances in life as the daughter of a Mexican illegal immigrant who has to work three jobs just to pay the rent. He's also - although there are no quotes on this above - a climate-change denier.

I'm wary of taking isolated quotes out of context, but there's a clear pattern that many of his statements and opinions are driven by the almost rabid antipathy characteristic of an extremist ideologue, and many, notably his aversion to foreign aid, are morally indefensible. If you genuinely believe that there is no problem with a largely untaxed billionaire spending a hundred million dollars on a new yacht rather than saving millions of lives in poorer nations by providing safe drinking water or malaria nets, then it says a lot about your position on a lot of subjects. But who cares about anyone else, right, so long as you have enough $$$ yourself? 'F*** the poor' appears to be the overriding sentiment, as if poverty were entirely a choice.

He believes that the welfare system has turned out to be complete garbage over the last 30 or 40 years because it displaces blacks even further. His arguments are that the cure can't be worse than the disease. Take minimum wage for example, he says raising the minimum wage which might help out black people because they are lower down on the income scale means that only those that actually have a job benefit. When businesses begin to slash their work force because they can't afford the minimum wage increases, what happens to all the minorities that lose their jobs? Do they get to reap the benefits of the 15 dollar minimum wage?

Watch his interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERj3QeGw9Ok It's very informative to his real positions.

Also worth watching his views on AOC type policies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SprRnUBAruw
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
Do we agree on defining wealth as the bundle of goods and services?

Not in the context of poverty, no. We need also to consider availability of natural resources, good housing etc, which is not (and can't be) infinite.

But I think we need to try a different angle. If you believe that wealth is effectively infinite, then do you believe that poverty and inequality are entirely unrelated, and that it's not true that a way to reduce poverty is to reduce inequality?

Which benefits the economy most, and increases wealth amongst the population the most, a) one billionaire earning another $1 billion, and stashing it in a bank account in some tax haven, or b) 1,000 millionaires each earning an extra $1 million, stashing half of it in a tax haven and spending the other half on luxury goods from specialist retailers, or c) one million average people each earning an extra $1,000 and spending all of it on a huge range of normal everyday goods from everyday retailers? Is there a sliding scale of benefit here?

Even if you don't agree with that, do you agree that there is a tendency for the rich to exploit the poor? There are more people than there are jobs. If you as an owner of a large company have a vacancy that will earn you $500 per day, then do you a) decide what a fair wage would be, depending on skills/experience required and the cost of living in the society, and advertise the vacancy for say $300... or b) look at the labour market and work out what is the absolute minimum you could pay and still get someone sufficiently qualified willing to take the job, and then advertise for say $100? And if you think this is not exploitative, compare the income of Jeff Bezos to the horror stories from Amazon employees (and the nominally 'independent' workers who work for Amazon but who, through legal sleight of hand, don't get to enjoy even meagre company benefits and protections).

Or (don't make me get the charts out!) can you explain why for rich countries with roughly equivalent per capita GDP, there is a strong link between levels of inequality and life expectancy and criminality?

legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1888
I'm not denying that global wealth increases over the long-term... but it's certainly a cake.

It's not a cake. Wealth is potentially much greater than could have been imagined a few centuries ago, and that's just taking into account physical wealth. If you take into account intangible wealth it is potentially infinite.

Do we agree on defining wealth as the bundle of goods and services?

If so, think of the goods and services that have been created so far with the Internet. There is no limit to what can be created.

Jeff Bezos' money doesn't magically appear, it comes to him from other people.

Again, I don't agree with this. This is the same vision of the cake. Wealth is created, not just transferred from some people to others.

Is global wealth infinite? No?

Yes, it's potentially infinite as I've explained above.

Saying that rich people didn't have cable TV a few decades back, but everyone has it now, therefore poverty doesn't exist... is clearly nonsense.

It's clearly nonsense to say that poverty is increasing in the world if we change the concept of poverty.The poor until relatively recently did not have enough to eat, and today we consider people who are fat to be poor.

Are any of the facts below false? How can there not be a moral case for taxing the ultra-rich to support foreign aid?

In reality, we are back to the same thing. For me, the best way to solve the problems of those people is with a system that fills their countries with rich people and not thinking that we have to take from one to give to others, as if it were a cake.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
I knew I shouldn't have got involved in this thread, but I couldn't help myself Cheesy


I don't know why the guy in the example has to be white
He doesn't have to be, any more than he has to be a 'he'. The example was made purely in the interests of concision and economy. If I combine the advantaged groups, it means I can use a single example rather than three (comparing rich white male to poor non-white female, rather than taking wealth, race and gender separately).


If you genuinely believe that there is no problem with a largely untaxed billionaire spending a hundred million dollars on a new yacht rather than saving millions of lives in poorer nations by providing safe drinking water or malaria nets, then it says a lot about your position on a lot of subjects.

That is a false dichotomy. It is the classic false dichotomy of socialist ideology (not to mention your trigger word) that considers wealth to be analogous to a cake, so that if the evil rich get richer, there is less of a piece of the pie left for the rest. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I'm not denying that global wealth increases over the long-term... but it's certainly a cake. Jeff Bezos' money doesn't magically appear, it comes to him from other people. Is global wealth infinite? No? Then it is finite... even if expanding.
Saying that rich people didn't have cable TV a few decades back, but everyone has it now, therefore poverty doesn't exist... is clearly nonsense.
Are any of the facts below false? How can there not be a moral case for taxing the ultra-rich to support foreign aid?

Quote
Owner: Robert Knok
Price: $4.8 Billion
Solid. Gold. At $4.8 billion, the History Supreme, owned by Robert Knok, is the world’s most expensive, largest superyacht in the whole world. At 100 feet in length, History Supreme took three years to build, using 10,000 kilograms of solid gold and platinum, both of which adorn the dining area, deck, rails, staircases, and anchor. If that weren’t luxurious enough, the master suite features a meteorite rock wall, a statue made of Tyrannosaurus Rex bones, a 68 kg 24-carat gold Aquavista Panoramic Wall Aquarium, and a liquor bottle adorned with a rare 18.5-carat diamond.
https://www.atlasmarinesystems.com/most-expensive-yachts/
Quote
Globally, at least 2 billion people use a drinking water source contaminated with faeces.
Contaminated water can transmit diseases such diarrhoea, cholera, dysentery, typhoid, and polio. Contaminated drinking water is estimated to cause 485 000 diarrhoeal deaths each year.
By 2025, half of the world’s population will be living in water-stressed areas.
In least developed countries, 22% of health care facilities have no water service, 21% no sanitation service, and 22% no waste management service.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/drinking-water
Quote
Each year, more than 400 000 people die of malaria – a preventable and treatable disease. An estimated two thirds of deaths are among children under the age of five.
https://www.who.int/teams/global-malaria-programme/reports/world-malaria-report-2020
Quote
Each net costs about $2.00, lasts for 3 to 4 years, and protects on average two people.
The statistics are well known given the scale of the problem. Every ~600 nets we put over heads and beds, one child doesn't die and 500 to 1,000 cases of malaria are prevented.
Every single net matters
Every $2 donation matters because each $2 buys a net that protects two people when they sleep at night from the bites of malaria-carrying mosquitoes, that would otherwise cause severe illness, or worse.
https://www.againstmalaria.com/WhyNets.aspx
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1888
He believes that the son of a white billionaire has the exact same chances in life as the daughter of a Mexican illegal immigrant who has to work three jobs just to pay the rent.

Does he really believe that? I find it hard to believe that an intelligent person would think that. And I don't know why the guy in the example has to be white, by the way. Maybe if he was the son of a black billionaire, the Mexican would feel less oppressed.

If you genuinely believe that there is no problem with a largely untaxed billionaire spending a hundred million dollars on a new yacht rather than saving millions of lives in poorer nations by providing safe drinking water or malaria nets, then it says a lot about your position on a lot of subjects.

That is a false dichotomy. It is the classic false dichotomy of socialist ideology (not to mention your trigger word) that considers wealth to be analogous to a cake, so that if the evil rich get richer, there is less of a piece of the pie left for the rest. Nothing could be further from the truth.

legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
TL;DR: Thomas Sowell believes that there is no such thing as inequality of opportunity, no such thing as systemic discrimination, no such thing as the rich and powerful exploiting the poor and vulnerable. He believes that the son of a white billionaire has the exact same chances in life as the daughter of a Mexican illegal immigrant who has to work three jobs just to pay the rent. He's also - although there are no quotes on this above - a climate-change denier.

I'm wary of taking isolated quotes out of context, but there's a clear pattern that many of his statements and opinions are driven by the almost rabid antipathy characteristic of an extremist ideologue, and many, notably his aversion to foreign aid, are morally indefensible. If you genuinely believe that there is no problem with a largely untaxed billionaire spending a hundred million dollars on a new yacht rather than saving millions of lives in poorer nations by providing safe drinking water or malaria nets, then it says a lot about your position on a lot of subjects. But who cares about anyone else, right, so long as you have enough $$$ yourself? 'F*** the poor' appears to be the overriding sentiment, as if poverty were entirely a choice.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1888
I quite agree with what he says, although the world in general seems to be going in the opposite direction lately.

What I miss is for you to comment on something or provide some conclusion other than providing his quotes.
copper member
Activity: 155
Merit: 8
“Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good. In area after area—crime, education, housing, race relations—the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them.”

“There a three questions that I think would destroy most of the arguments on the left. The first is, ‘Compared to what?’ The second is, ‘At what cost?’ And the third is, ‘What hard evidence do you have?’”

“The assumption that spending more of the taxpayers’ money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse.”

“Most people living in officially defined poverty in the 21st century have things like cable television, microwave ovens and air-conditioning. Most Americans did not have such things, as late as the 1980s. People whom the intelligentsia continue to call the ‘have-nots’ today have things that the ‘haves’ did not have, just a generation ago.”

“Elections should be held on April 16th – the day after we pay our income taxes. That is one of the few things that might discourage politicians from being big spenders.”

“Unfortunately, the real minimum wage is always zero, regardless of the laws, and that is the wage that many workers receive in the wake of the creation or escalation of a government-mandated minimum wage, because they either lose their jobs or fail to find jobs when they enter the labor force.”

“Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them.”

“Scarcity is the first lesson of economics. Now the first lesson of politics is to forget the first lesson of economics.”

“It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.”

“When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.”

“People who enjoy meetings should not be in charge of anything.”

“When we hear about rent control or gun control, we may think about rent or guns but the word that really matters is ‘control.’ That is what the political left is all about, as you can see by the incessant creation of new restrictions in places where they are strongly entrenched in power, such as San Francisco or New York.”

“One of the most ridiculous defenses of foreign aid is that it is a very small part of our national income. If the average American set fire to a five-dollar bill, it would be an even smaller percentage of his annual income. But everyone would consider him foolish for doing it.”

“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”

“Barack Obama’s political genius is his ability to say things that will sound good to people who have not followed the issues in any detail — regardless of how obviously fraudulent what he says may be to those who have.”

“When President Obama keeps talking about ‘violent extremists’ in the abstract, you might wonder whether Presbyterians are running amok.”

“Ronald Reagan had a vision of America. Barack Obama has a vision of Barack Obama.”

“President Obama keeps telling us that he is ‘creating jobs.’ But more and more Americans have no jobs. The unemployment rate has declined slightly, but only because many people have stopped looking for jobs. You are only counted as unemployed if you are still looking for a job.”

“While the Obama administration in Washington is not the root cause of the ominous dangers that face this country, at home and abroad, it is the embodiment, the personification and the culmination of dangerous trends that began decades ago. Moreover, it has escalated those dangers to what may be a point of no return. The specifics of the missteps and the misdeeds of this administration are among the things chronicled, here and there, in the essays that follow, which were first published as my syndicated newspaper columns.”

“The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department.”

“Racism has never done this country any good, and it needs to be fought against, not put under new management for different groups.”

“The blacks, say, in the West Indies had all sorts of experiences growing their own food, selling the surplus in the market, and, in fact, being responsible for budgeting what they had. Blacks in the United States were deliberately kept from having that. Dependence was seen as the key to holding the slaves down. It’s ironic that that same principle comes up in the welfare state 100 years later.”

“The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state. Most black children grew up in homes with two parents during all that time but most grow up with only one parent today.”

“I haven’t been able to find a single country in the world where the policies that are being advocated for blacks in the United States have lifted any people out of poverty.”

“Nothing could be more jolting and discordant with the vision of today’s intellectuals than the fact that it was businessmen, devout religious leaders and Western imperialists who together destroyed slavery around the world. And if it doesn’t fit their vision, it is the same to them as if it never happened.”

“What ‘multiculturalism’ boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture – and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture.”

“Are we to indulge in absolute fantasy and say that statistical ‘diversity’ promotes better intergroup relations, against blatant evidence that it is poisoning people against one another?”

“If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today.”

“Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”

“‘Socialism is a wonderful idea.’ It is only as a reality that it has been disastrous. Among people of every race, color, and creed, all around the world, socialism has led to hunger in countries that used to have surplus food to export.”

“Its economic disasters have afflicted virtually every industry. In its Communist version, it killed far more innocent civilians in peacetime than Hitler killed in his death camps during World War II.”

“Nevertheless, for many of those who deal primarily in ideas, socialism remains an attractive idea — in fact, seductive. Its every failure is explained away as due to the inadequacies of particular leaders.”

“Many of the intelligentsia remain convinced that if only there had been better leaders — people like themselves, for example — it would all have worked out fine, according to plan.”

“The fact that so many successful politicians are such shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, it is also a reflection on us. When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy them, and only in the short run.”

“That people on the political left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred.”

“Anyone who studies the history of ideas should notice how much more often people on the political left, more so than others, denigrate and demonize those who disagree with them — instead of answering their arguments.”

“The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.”

“The political left has never understood that, if you give the government enough power to create ‘social justice,’ you have given it enough power to create despotism. Millions of people around the world have paid with their lives for overlooking that simple fact.”

“The vision of the left, full of envy and resentment, takes its worst toll on those at the bottom — whether black or white — who find in that paranoid vision an excuse for counterproductive and ultimately self-destructive attitudes and behavior.”

Thomas Sowell Quotes on Greed, Socialism, Racism, and More originally appeared on Thought Grenades, the blog on Libertas Bella
Jump to: