tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post8204561854060893121..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: A fat chance with trans fats...but chance of what?Anne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-83924922265265440642013-11-12T10:18:53.003-05:002013-11-12T10:18:53.003-05:00Yes. To illustrate your point, Steve, see Figure 4...Yes. To illustrate your point, Steve, see Figure 4 <a href="http://montreal.degrowth.org/downloads/papers/R108_Farley_et_al.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. A paper by ecological economists Josh Farley et al., "Monetary and Fiscal Policies for a Finite Planet".Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-48890800947862141562013-11-12T10:12:04.394-05:002013-11-12T10:12:04.394-05:00Yes, I'm talking about fairness. I wouldn'...Yes, I'm talking about fairness. I wouldn't even dare to hope, except that the US was once a "[h]igh top-level taxation" society, and the entire economy ran better as a result: you can't run a consumption-driven economy without lots of consumers with money to spend. I continue to hope, not because I think it will happen, but because the sorry state I live in, Texas, has a <a href="http://www.newschannel10.com/story/22671282/child-poverty-rate-increases-in-texas" rel="nofollow">child poverty rate of about 26%</a>. To quote the late great Duke Ellington, "Things ain't what they used to be."Steve Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07587223243120009776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-7393890180916879022013-11-12T07:40:30.769-05:002013-11-12T07:40:30.769-05:00You're referring to fairness, but not to typic...You're referring to fairness, but not to typical human behavior I fear. High top-level taxation does keep societies more even and doesn't even prevent some from being wealthy. But if those who have control the levers, then we get what we get.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-33140102750143292132013-11-12T00:34:15.821-05:002013-11-12T00:34:15.821-05:00I don't mean to oversimplify a complex problem...I don't mean to oversimplify a complex problem (or perhaps I do), but there's a fairly straightforward solution suggested by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Distribution_of_Wealth_v3.svg" rel="nofollow">this chart</a>. If indeed the top 0.001% of the global population holds 30% of the wealth, the next 0.01% holds 19%, and the next 0.1% holds 32%, the obvious (not easy... just obvious) solution is to place a cap on maximum wealth, tax the rest away and redistribute it. Why? because there is an intrinsic right to be alive, but there is no intrinsic right to hold wealth vastly beyond need. But I am absolutely certain there will be individuals who refuse to see the logic in this... :-)Steve Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07587223243120009776noreply@blogger.com