economy

[JohnRoberts]

Partially true, I think so too. But would that then not just be another reason why higher taxes on accumulated capital would not really be a big problem? It could actually be good, because then it keeps flowing constantly. And I'd think that some waste along the way is way better than huge amounts of capital stowed away not contributing anything. -- On a different note, this also makes me think of almost any department in a company, where among, let's say, ten employees there are always one or two who are less effective. Do the remaining employees wish those less effective ones rather to be gone or do they help them out when it doesn't really cost them much?
Yes, but private stockholders usually don't have that big a say in a corporation's policy. The number of free-flowing stocks vary widely across corporations. Huge stakeholders like Black Rock might have an influence, but most private people don't really. -- Apart from that paying out higher dividends is good for stockholders, but it is not 'investing', and buying back own stocks too can hardly be called 'investing', it's classic debt reduction.Tax holiday -- yeah, that might be the Trump approach, I think. The EU wants Apple's tax money in Ireland and so do the US. Apple now seems to say that they had only 'parked' the revenue in Ireland over the years for later taxation in the US (i.e., waiting for tax holiday), probably because Trump's deal is cheaper for them than the EU's claims. I'd say, make Apple et al pay split taxes in both the EU and the US (i.e., together 100% of tax).

Tax reform should make taxation roughly equivalent everywhere, so companies will not make business location decisions based purely on country tax policy as they do now.  We do not need to be cheaper that everywhere else, just close enough to not be an issue, like now.

JR

 

[tands]

Maybe some of you will find this interesting.

(1) “Free” markets do not occur naturally. They must be actively constructed through political organizing.

(2) “The market” is an information processor, and the most efficient one possible—more efficient than any government or any single human ever could be.

(3) Market society is, and therefore should be, the natural and inexorable state of humankind.

(4) The political goal of neoliberals is not to destroy the state, but to take control of it, and to redefine its structure and function, in order to create and maintain the market-friendly culture.

(5) There is no contradiction between public/politics/citizenship and private/ market/entrepreneur-and- consumerism—because the latter does and should eclipse the former.

(6) The most important virtue—more important than justice, or anything else—is freedom, defined “negatively” as “freedom to choose”, and most importantly, defined as the freedom of corporations to act as they please.

(7) Capital has a natural right to flow freely across national boundaries—labor, not so much.

( 8 ) Inequality—of resources, income, wealth, and even political rights—is a good thing; it prompts productivity, because people envy the rich and emulate them; people who complain about inequality are either sore losers or old fogies, who need to get hip to the way things work nowadays.

(9) Corporations can do no wrong—by definition.

(10) The market, engineered and promoted by neoliberal experts, can always provide solutions to problems seemingly caused by the market in the first place: there’s always “an app for that.”

(11) There is no difference between is and should be: “free” markets both should be (normatively) and are (positively) most the efficient economic system, and the most just way of doing politics, and the most empirically true description of human behavior, and the most ethical and moral way to live—which in turn explains, and justifies, why their versions of “free” markets should be, and as neoliberals build more and more power, increasingly are, universal.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/philip-mirowski-this-is-water-or-is-it-the-neoliberal-thought-collective.html

https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/research-papers/the-political-movement-that-dared-not-speak-its-own-name-the-neoliberal-thought-collective-under-erasure

 

[JohnRoberts]

I have been following the car market looking for distortions (bubble) from too easy credit. 

The auto industry tends to build autos for inventory at level rates to make running the factory easier and then manage sales by modulating cash incentives at POS. All three major US car companies are now spending more on price incentives (rebates)  to sell slow moving cars than the labor content inside to build them.

This seems unsustainable so they need to reduce factory output.

GM has announced they will pull out of european market due to unpredictable future labor conditions, ford recently pulled out of Japan and other foreign markets so it looks like the big car companies are shrinking (?) and becoming more domestic focussed.

JR

 

[fazer]

I noticed last fall when looking at pickups they were making deals and every time you said no they found more incentives and bonus cash and you name.  A used honda CRV came up for a great price  from my sister in law and  I said goodbye to the pickup for a while. 

Lots of 2016 models were available all the way into Dec.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I noticed last fall when looking at pickups they were making deals and every time you said no they found more incentives and bonus cash and you name.  A used honda CRV came up for a great price  from my sister in law and  I said goodbye to the pickup for a while. 

Lots of 2016 models were available all the way into Dec.

IIRC honda was one of the company's not discounting more than their labor cost. Big 3 US (2?) brands were. 

JR

 

[Script]

Tax reform should make taxation roughly equivalent everywhere, so companies will not make business location decisions based purely on country tax policy as they do now.  We do not need to be cheaper that everywhere else, just close enough to not be an issue, like now.

Sheer impossible. Especially with latest anti-globalization swing.

But any company can easily be taxed at the source.

Say, if company A from a country that taxes 20% has a subsidy in country B that taxes said company's revenue with 15%, that company pays 15% in country B and an additional 5% in country A, totalling max of 20%.

If country A taxes only 15% but country B taxes the company's revenue there at 20%, said company pays 20% in country B and 0% on that revenue in country A, also totalling 20%.

Said company thus never pays more than the higher of the two, but also no less.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Sheer impossible. Especially with latest anti-globalization swing.

But any company can easily be taxed at the source.

Say, if company A from a country that taxes 20% has a subsidy in country B that taxes said company's revenue with 15%, that company pays 15% in country B and an additional 5% in country A, totalling max of 20%.

If country A taxes only 15% but country B taxes the company's revenue there at 20%, said company pays 20% in country B and 0% on that revenue in country A, also totalling 20%.

Said company thus never pays more than the higher of the two, but also no less.

The taxes don't have to made exactly the same, just close enough to remove the incentive to relocate.

I am not enthusiastic about the BAT (border adjustment tax) floated to raise enough revenue to fund tax cuts in an overall  revenue neutral plan.  But if i squint my eyes the BAT looks and acts a little like a VAT. If we want to completely level the playing field with other competing nations perhaps we need a BAT/VAT whatever too?

I am generally opposed to any new added taxes since I don't trust the government to not increase spending to consume all revenue they raise and more.  BUT if a BAT/VAT is structured to offset income tax cuts, that might work. 

Allow me to be the first to observe that a sales like tax is less progressive than our current income tax system. 

JR

 

[Script]

Allow me to be the first to observe that a sales like tax is less progressive than our current income tax system. 

Yes, so true. And this practice is always based on the same neo-liberal argument: Don't tax companies and corporations too highly cos it'll kill employment and re-investment. So basically free-lunch favoritism. However, with big companies & coporations hoarding money as they do right now, I don't see why this should be upheld (any longer / for now).

Take a combination of the two suggestions I made wrt corporate taxation, and not only state debt can be reduced faster, there would also be enough money left for investments into infrastructure. I assume Mr Trump is going for the opposite (less corporate taxation revenue for the state and more debts). The only reason I see (i.e. speculation) why Mr Trump can get through with it is because the US economy has started to recover before he became presidential candidate (similar case with Mr Abe Shinzo).

 

[dmp]

And this practice is always based on the same neo-liberal argument: Don't tax companies and corporations too highly cos it'll kill employment and re-investment.

When did people start calling Republican beliefs "neo-liberal" ? I've been seeing this for years so I realize it isn't brand new, but it still seems strange to me.

 

[fazer]

Neoliberal seems appropriate for describing Washington to me.  I must admit I didn't understand the term much until Wikipedia .  To me liberal and libatarian are deceiving. Libatarian is kind of an ultra conservative in my limited knowledge.  Neoliberalism favors big global business and since campaign financing comes from special interest , we wind up with globalization/neoliberalism . Undocumented immigration that rewards some but takes from others creates dissatisfaction for those that use to have but don't today so entitlement rather than employment.  Unaffordable healthcare, collage that has become indentured serfdom, tax system laying failure on Main Street and removing from business (banks, Wall Street)hoarding profits, inflation with no adjustment for wages due to Feds bailing the financial system with little trickling to Main Street.  And since tax collection can't pay all, we just have a deficit at 20 trillion.  The 21st century needs fewer workers in the west because of things being made in the fair east.  So teach me what your meaning of neoliberalism is?  Are the Koch brothers neoliberal, conservative, libatarian?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Neoliberal seems appropriate for describing Washington to me.  I must admit I didn't understand the term much until Wikipedia .  To me liberal and libatarian are deceiving. Libatarian is kind of an ultra conservative in my limited knowledge.  Neoliberalism favors big global business and since campaign financing comes from special interest , we wind up with globalization/neoliberalism . Undocumented immigration that rewards some but takes from others creates dissatisfaction for those that use to have but don't today so entitlement rather than employment.  Unaffordable healthcare, collage that has become indentured serfdom, tax system laying failure on Main Street and removing from business (banks, Wall Street)hoarding profits, inflation with no adjustment for wages due to Feds bailing the financial system with little trickling to Main Street.  And since tax collection can't pay all, we just have a deficit at 20 trillion.  The 21st century needs fewer workers in the west because of things being made in the fair east.  So teach me what your meaning of neoliberalism is?  Are the Koch brothers neoliberal, conservative, libatarian?

I'll leave it to you guys to work out the labels for what to call each other. The real economic challenge is not globalization and cheap labor, but automation and ever cheaper robotics. I have been posting for years how Hon Hai a huge contract manufacturer in China has projected to buy/build 1 million robots to use in their chinese factories.

In the US the first shoe to drop will be truck drivers, but even white collar jobs are being replaced by AI.

An interesting education trend is how short term coding schools in 3 months for $10-15k can get a reasonably intelligent worker into the door with a decent paying entry level programming job.

Interesting times to come...sooner rather than later.

JR

 

[fazer]

I like the idea of 3 to 6 month training for a job rather than 2 to 6 years and heavy debt with lots of useless information.  It like advertising moving away from a shotgun approach to target internet individual buy habits. 

 

[dmp]

So teach me what your meaning of neoliberalism is?  Are the Koch brothers neoliberal, conservative, libatarian?

Currently my feeling is the term neo liberal is propaganda to conflate things. Take non-progressive views and represent them as new-liberal views - a marketing campaign to imply the Clinton / Obama Presidencies were too business friendly. The Koch brothers lobby towards libertarian principles, with economic liberty being dominant, I would say. But their libertarian view is generally liberty for the very wealthy, not liberty for all - i.e. the greater good.

Some definitions:
"Progressive: making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc"
my example: favor a progressive tax code that will increase the greater good over time (generally progressive taxes collect more from the wealthy while regressive collect more evenly across incomes)

"liberalism: advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. "
"conservative: averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes"
"libertarian: uphold liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the importance of individual judgment"

 

[dmp]

I'll leave it to you guys to work out the labels for what to call each other. The real economic challenge is not globalization and cheap labor, but automation and ever cheaper robotics. I have been posting for years how Hon Hai a huge contract manufacturer in China has projected to buy/build 1 million robots to use in their chinese factories.
In the US the first shoe to drop will be truck drivers, but even white collar jobs are being replaced by AI.
An interesting education trend is how short term coding schools in 3 months for $10-15k can get a reasonably intelligent worker into the door with a decent paying entry level programming job.
Interesting times to come...sooner rather than later.
JR

If you look at tech companies there are billion dollar companies with only 30 or so employees. Creating and maintaining software may not follow the traditional company structure that produced a physical product. There is a lot of creative destruction, so we may just not be into the new reality long enough to know what things will be like.
The one thing we can be sure of is the capital holders will do well, everyone else, probably not as much. Robots, digital technology, it's going to further suppress workers down the economic ladder.
In the future will opportunity be available to people without capital? Not sure.
Appreciation of all capital assets continue to climb - much faster than wages. This inflation is not called "inflation" - economists still claim inflation is <2%. But then why are capital assets (stocks) appreciating at 10% a year? Why is housing appreciating at 7%? A country where a person could earn a living and own a home is disappearing. I'm sure the era of QE and ZIRP have contributed to this buying of capital assets. Everyone cried wolf that those policies would cause runaway inflation - it didn't show up in PCI - it showed up in capital assets.
We've been experiencing a grand experiment in Capitalism where government policy heavily favors capital -  whether you call this conservatism, neo-liberalism, or something else, the direction doesn't look sustainable to me.

 

[JohnRoberts]

If you look at tech companies there are billion dollar companies with only 30 or so employees. Creating and maintaining software may not follow the traditional company structure that produced a physical product. There is a lot of creative destruction, so we may just not be into the new reality long enough to know what things will be like.

I don't know if I shared this before but I saw a futurist author when interviewed on TV and asked what was the single thing we could do to help poor people participate in sharing our growing economic wealth, he answered reduce small company regulations and red tape to make it easier for individuals to start and grow a small business.  I think his advice is spot on.

The one thing we can be sure of is the capital holders will do well, everyone else, probably not as much. Robots, digital technology, it's going to further suppress workers down the economic ladder.
In the future will opportunity be available to people without capital? Not sure.
Appreciation of all capital assets continue to climb - much faster than wages. This inflation is not called "inflation" - economists still claim inflation is <2%. But then why are capital assets (stocks) appreciating at 10% a year? Why is housing appreciating at 7%? A country where a person could earn a living and own a home is disappearing. I'm sure the era of QE and ZIRP have contributed to this buying of capital assets. Everyone cried wolf that those policies would cause runaway inflation - it didn't show up in PCI - it showed up in capital assets.
We've been experiencing a grand experiment in Capitalism where government policy heavily favors capital -  whether you call this conservatism, neo-liberalism, or something else, the direction doesn't look sustainable to me.

That sounds like the "class warfare" negative interpretation of events.  Another perspective is that this massive asset inflation strategy undertaken by central bankers was precisely to bail out the millions of underwater homeowners caught up in the housing bubble.  In 2016 alone some one million home mortgages shifted from underwater to positive equity.  Rather than making "richy rich" even richer this has helped millions of struggling households. 

Of course an unintended consequence of this asset inflation is that "all" people who own assets benefit.  My stock portfolio and fully paid for home was lifted by the same rising tide.  Despite the fact I benefitted from this program I am not a fan..  As I said at the time I would have preferred to see foreclosures on underwater mortgages and let the market settle out.  We would have recovered long ago.  While this would have been painful for many millions of people and even more disruptive to the economy.

This was in fact a massive wealth transfer to the same people who bought homes they couldn't afford.  That the wealthy got more wealthy is an unintended side effect, this was all about the millions in trouble, and trying to create a "wealth effect" where the consumers felt like they were more wealthy, and consumed more.

Now we have to see if the FED can unwind this massive economic science fair project. Yellin is telegraphing more central bank rate increases (3 or 4 expected this year).  But we are still at historic low interest rates, and many young people don't even realize  that this isn't normal.  We are about to find out who isn't wearing their swim trunks when the too low for too long interest rate tide goes out (surely economic distortions have occurred that we don't know about yet). I'm not looking forward to $20T of sovereign debt service after interest rates return to "normal".  :'(

JR

PS: The official government "measured" inflation rate is a whole 'nother can of worms.  Some commodities go up (like corn), or up and down (like oil), but some prices like computers and flat screen TVs only go down, way down.  Inflation depends on the mix of what we (they) choose to measure.

 

[Script]

I don't know if I shared this before but I saw a futurist author when interviewed on TV and asked what was the single thing we could do to help poor people participate in sharing our growing economic wealth, he answered reduce small company regulations and red tape to make it easier for individuals to start and grow a small business.

Absolutely. Start-ups are essential (the Japanese approach of late). And small businesses should be spared from too high taxation and regulations, which is effectively doable by administration, but rarely done.

This was in fact a massive wealth transfer to the same people who bought homes they couldn't afford.  That the wealthy got more wealthy is an unintended side effect, this was all about the millions in trouble, and trying to create a "wealth effect" where the consumers felt like they were more wealthy, and consumed more.

Thanks for bringing that up. I too feel that this is too often and too easily forgotten. Add to this that low interest rates on mortages also helped many people (at least at the beginning) to afford a house in the first place. -- Sure, this was not the only incentive for QE.

Of course an unintended consequence of this asset inflation is that "all" people who own assets benefit. [...] Now we have to see if the FED can unwind this massive economic science fair project.

The biggest problem I see is that people were told from too many sides that not only is capital = greed = evil -- but that post-Lehman was a bad time to invest (into stocks or houses or anything). In general, private US Americans seem much cleverer when it comes to money and investments.

Looking at Europe, the situation is very different. Private people avoided investing into anything and instead decided to hoard money on checkings accounts. Across Europe, an average of only 10% of the population actually owns stocks. Another 40% or so would have had the financial means to invest and participate in rising stock markets (effectively they hold same amount as would be necessary to cover all state debts, it's a massive amount in total).

However, people didn't invest -- mainly because 1929 horror scenarios were conjured again and again and way too much focus was laid on banks being saved and corporations being greedy and managers earning too much etc (which is all true, but was not really relevant at the time -- note: the opposite of greed is envy). Thus, effectively, many people (I claim: much of the now 'suffering' middle class) missed a historic chance.

And last but not least, most states across Europe did not deliver on the prerequisite for QE of such dimension by the ECB -- namely the implementation of better policies to balance unequal wealth distribution and increasing accumulation of capital (the latter indeed being an unwanted side effect). Anyone remembers how many times Mr Draghi scolded national governments for not doing their homework? How many times he rejected national complaints that his policy destroyed private savings?

Inflation across Europe is roughly at 2% on average now. Nonetheless, interest rates (will) stay low.

 

[tands]

Capital does equal Evil, let's not pretend otherwise.

Suppose the working-day consists of 6 hours of necessary labour, and 6 hours of surplus-labour. Then the free labourer gives the capitalist every week 6 x 6 or 36 hours of surplus-labour. It is the same as if he worked 3 days in the week for himself, and 3 days in the week gratis for the capitalist.

Capital, in the social forms of instruments of labor, raw materials, and labor power, produces surplus value in the production sphere. Capital, in the social forms of commodities and money, realizes surplus value for the capitalist class in the sphere of circulation. Capital, in the social forms of merchants' (trading) capital, interest bearing (lending) capital, and landed (renting) capital, distributes the surplus value among industrial, commercial, financial, and landed capitalists. Surplus value appears mainly as industrial profits, commercial profits, interest, and rent.

...

A worker sells his labor power- his mental and physical capabilities- to a capitalist for its value, and the capitalist uses the labor power to obtain commodities which have a value higher than that of the labor power purchased. Thus, the secret of surplus value is that labor power is a source of more value than it has itself. The capitalist is able to capture the surplus value through his ownership of the means of production and his historically established right to purchase labor power as a commodity, to control the work process, and to claim the product as his property. This surplus value, according to Marx, is the measure of capital's exploitation of labor.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#S2

http://rbutler.sdsu.edu/gurely2.htm

 

[Script]

Capital does equal Evil, let's not pretend otherwise.

It is indeed the discourse (Foucault) of our time (since Lehman the latest),  reinforced and fed to the people time and again (and not just for political purposes). But please, if we have to agree that 'capital' is evil per se, we also have to agree that the human being is (and has been since times long BC) fundamentally stupid. So we need more education, I agree.

Personally, however, I really don't see that much of a problem in 'capital' per se -- the problems are lax regulations (i.e., policies) and the human character trait of ego(t)ism paired with lack of solidarity (i.e., psychology). Yes, I know the answer: Capitalism per se (and maybe only capitalism!?) fosters egoism. Sure, just as much as going to the supermarket fosters obesity, and taking long strolls through the woods makes everybody feel, think and act like H.D. Thoreau. Honestly, show me one political/economic system that (1) is not prone to nepotism, corruption and exploitation to some sort and degree (agreed, some probably more than others), and (2), more importantly, a system that actually works on a LARGE scale (as in nation states as we have now). I don't think quoting indiginous people living in the Amazonas really helps.

I absolutely agree that 'capital' can and way too often does equal Greed, but then let's also agree (system immanently) that 'not-having capital (while others do)' equals Envy. Both also written with caps as in the Bible! The problem is not so much the political/economic systems (yes, they are of course, but), the problem is essentially people, it's psychology, it's us.

Feeding the Envy beast in people to change the 'system' (as has been done by governments, media outlet, some political activists alongside self-proclaimed experts and gurus) is an attempt to change things by working from within the system (here: greed/envy dichotomy). All good so far. But telling people again and again that they should oppose the system and simply stop taking part in it economically has effectively made those very same people pay the bill. And I really don't see much merit in that.

Last but not least, as for the 'economically disadvantaged', 'have-littles', and 'have-nothings', I clearly see the blame on governments. Anyone with the fundamental obligation to pay taxes (so basically all of us) should also have the fundamental right to expect and receive support from the state in times of hardship. I know I am utopian here.

P.S.:
To support my views I quote: www

 

[tands]

You seem to be doing a lot of arguing with yourself. I'm trying to see the morality in one person renting a house they don't need to live in to another person. Nothing to do with envy.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Personally, however, I really don't see that much of a problem in 'capital' per se -- the problems are lax regulations (i.e., policies) and the human character trait of ego(t)ism paired with lack of solidarity (i.e., psychology). Yes, I know the answer: Capitalism per se (and maybe only capitalism!?) fosters egoism. Sure, just as much as going to the supermarket fosters obesity, and taking long strolls through the woods makes everybody feel, think and act like H.D. Thoreau. Honestly, show me one political/economic system that (1) is not prone to nepotism, corruption and exploitation to some sort and degree (agreed, some probably more than others), and (2), more importantly, a system that actually works on a LARGE scale (as in nation states as we have now). I don't think quoting indiginous people living in the Amazonas really helps.

Setting aside for a second that I suppose there's a difference in how we define "capital" (i.e. financial vs goods etc), I think your points are.... missing something.

I agree that no system is perfect of course, but your first point really is irrelevant if it's true that no system is perfect. Really what we should look at is which system provides the best net benefit for the most people. I suppose one could argue that being the best for the most people isn't the way to go, and if so that's a discussion worth having. But anyway, on that note then, would any system provide less of the negatives you mentioned? I think the key to answering that lies partially in semantics (unfortunately).

Nepotism for example, as well as corruption, relies heavily on the system providing the means for it. After all, you can't appoint someone that abuses the system if the system doesn't provide "appointments". That of course sounds so obvious it also appears nonsensical, but on the other hand Anarchism in a sense does away with a huge amount of such opportunities. So if this is a big issue Anarchism scores highly here.

Exploitation on the other hand becomes a two-fold discussion depending on how you see the word. If by "exploitation" you just mean that someone else is profiting from my labor then again Anarchism solves it by allowing me to only engage in commerce when I feel like it. By being a subset of Socialism people in Anarchist societies cooperate and co-organize voluntarily. There is no coercion that forces it, and thus simply opting-out of exploitative relationships becomes a viable option.

But your last point on whether or not the system works on a large scale hints at a different interpretation of that word. Because the word "works" is actually highly debatable. In the case of Anarchism for example we're looking at a much, much higher likelihood of it working far more effectively than ever before simply because of the advancements of information technology. However, historically these sort of societies don't "work" in the sense that they're exploited from outside.

So in other words the problem isn't inherent in the system, it's inherent in other systems which attack Anarchist ones. The Anarchist societies in Spain were such examples, examples of Anarchist organization that worked very well - until they were attacked from the outside. We don't typically hear that very often though in a discussion, and instead are just presented with "Oh well, are there any such societies today? No? Ok, well then it didn't work!" A very shallow analysis.

And of course this extends to the history of capitalist nation-states and their attacks on various types of Socialist or Communist societies all over the planet. People on the right love to take pot-shots at Venezuela's shortages of goods for example, but fail to mention that it's actually the capitalist system outside that perverts the domestic one.

I absolutely agree that 'capital' can and way too often does equal Greed, but then let's also agree (system immanently) that 'not-having capital (while others do)' equals Envy. Both also written with caps as in the Bible! The problem is not so much the political/economic systems (yes, they are of course, but), the problem is essentially people, it's psychology, it's us.

I can't agree with that really. Not because there aren't problems with people and that we aren't the ultimate source of what we end up with, but because it's an objection that isn't effective in a discussion such as this one. Because unless we decide to physically alter humanity, by identifying the "greed" gene and the "altruist" gene and then modifying humans to act better, unless we do that we're really talking about doing it through other means, i.e. politics etc. So we're really not escaping the need for picking a system that is good, and therefore we can't shift the conversation to human nature (since we're not going to change it anyway). So yes, greed is a problem, but the solution to it isn't talking about human nature, the solution is understanding human nature and then picking a system that is good.

And as for "envy"; yeah, I think that's partially true, but I think only to a small part. It hink to a large degree a lot of this "envy" really is an innate subconscious understanding of things simply not being fair. I agree with Tands that there's something perverse with the system we've chosen, and the only reason we're not talking about such perversions explicitly is because they're a) hidden from us through by system itself, and b) because so many people have been indoctrinated into not even investigating it in depth, despite it being so essential to our communities.

I think another way of illustrating what Tands said (which was good enough as it was actually) would be to simply ask 100 random workers if they think it's a good idea for them to work harder / longer so that some person they've never met can buy an extra boat. It's a nonsensical question when put that way. All else being equal, why work more or harder if you don't have to?

Last but not least, as for the 'economically disadvantaged', 'have-littles', and 'have-nothings', I clearly see the blame on governments. Anyone with the fundamental obligation to pay taxes (so basically all of us) should also have the fundamental right to expect and receive support from the state in times of hardship. I know I am utopian here.

Totally agree with that. Not really utopian, just more like Scandinavia, or at least the way it was decades ago before it turned right. Again though, those governments are required to maintain the system that creates the discrepancy in the first place.... which is worth remembering I think, since it's a bit ironic....