Very interesting. It certainly makes sense as to why young people are feeling restive. I fear we will have more civil unrest in the future. Many of his ideas would really help but would be really hard to stomach.
Scott Galloway TED talk
- Thread starter l.todd
- Start date
I saw a lot of charts and graphs, heard a lot of lamenting about the situation, but I didn’t hear a lot of solutions. He did the easy part, we can all look at charts and graphs and say ooh bad, but offer some solutions.
Did you watch the whole thing?? He offered a lot of solutions. Raising the minimum wage, means testing SS, significantly higher marginal tax rates, etc.
hawkeyetraveler
HR Heisman
I disagree with some of his solutions, but I would vastly prefer someone like this in charge than two old men past their prime who will never address the root issues.
Nobody is ever going to agree on all solutions, but you have to try things to see what works. He has a lot of good ideas, but they way our political system is and how corps own our system... just don't see anything changing unless its more of the same to increase their wealth.
"politically realistic" is kind of the point. You are right, it is likely not. And that's the problem. It's not politically realistic because it would remove wealth from the older generation (who is in power) and transfer it in various ways to the younger generation. Believe me, I am in that older cohort so would be affected, but what is the cost of doing nothing? And I am not saying that all of his answers are right, but I do think he is correct in his opinion that this will be a real problem in the future, and we are likely just seeing the start of it.
Solutions and politically realistic solutions are 2 different things.
We have a lot of problems that have solutions but no "politically realistic" solutions.
That was pretty good
Some good idea and other that probably don't work but at least he is trying.
Some good idea and other that probably don't work but at least he is trying.
Problem I find with his viewpoint is that it perceives capital as some kind of unused thing. The rich are just keeping it locked in their castle while the masses are hungry.
But they're not.
Musk's riches are the Tesla factories pumping our millions of EVs for people to drive, and launching satellites to give millions of people in remote places faster internet.
If you consume his factories then not only is he poorer (yay!?!) next year we have 2 million less EVs than we would have and the growth of the internet isn't as fast.
Capital is productive under capitalism.
That's why you don't want to tax capital formation, when you consider the (un)compounding effects it costs society way, way more than it actually affords us to consume.
It's not politically realistic because people (in general) don't vote, for lack of a better term, for a generation war. If they did, the Millenials, late Gen X, and Gen Z would win. They outnumber the Boomers, Silent Generation, and Early Gen X. People vote right/left and for all of the social causes they can spin themselves up in a fit over.
If it was a simple dollars/cents and generational wealth transfer vote, the older population would lose.
i don't. i just believe the anti-trust laws have been hollowed out so much as to barely exist anymore.
Yep + tax the shit out of inheritance/any form of income that was received without any meaningful contribution back to society.
I read your tweet and thought “this is something Elizabeth Warren needs to tackle,” but of course…. “Pocahontas… socialism,” from our MAGA buddies.
I am very much Libertarian on most things but believe that inheritance should be taxed HEAVILY. Death tax is such a stupid rejoinder. I also feel, as Galloway does, that Capital Gains should be taxed at the same rate as income.
He lost me when he said 80% of the people don't need SS. If he had said 5% then I would agree with him.
Why destroy capital to increase government consumption?
Unconsumed production is savings.
Savings allow us to increase production.
Allowing the creation of more wealth and more savings, to beget higher production.
Increasing consumption by taxing capital is going to provide a short term boost of consumption, at the expense of increased wealth tomorrow and evermore, if the capital had been saved instead.
It’s a social net loss of wealth. Not just for the factory owner (seen), but for the future consumers of the factory’s production (unseen).
I'll play along. What's your solution because what has been happening for decades is only working for the wealthy... the rest are being left further and further behind. Tell us how to revive the American Dream.
Recognize the ‘funny money’ experiment has just enriched the top, and at the expense of the rest of society.
After WW2 we did grow the world’s largest middle class, then we chucked the measuring stick that got us there.
Something has to be done to reduce costs. The issue is that big ticket items are becoming to costly to build and maintain (homes, cars). Thinking you can tax the rich to solve the problem is not going to be a solution. All that does is make people feel like they got revenge on the boomers but it's not going to solve the problem. If you want to tax the ultra rich, go for it, but it's not going to help individuals.
Keep in mind that all you 40 year old people will be the new target in 20 years.
Sorry, I missed this yesterday. So, you agree that wages need to be increased and that they have not kept up, correct? Why do you think corporations have neglected their workforce over the past 40-50 years?Recognize the ‘funny money’ experiment has just enriched the top, and at the expense of the rest of society.
After WW2 we did grow the world’s largest middle class, then we chucked the measuring stick that got us there.
The sheer size and scale of the boomer cohort is driving a lot of supply side problems. Millions of homes out there owned by boomers dying on the vine. Hell, just a swarm of them leaving the workforce created a massive labor shortage and saw wages rise faster than at any point in a few generations.
We just racked up trillions in debt to “save” the least productive, unhealthiest, and costliest segment of society. This whole thing is going to blow up in a revolution before it ever gets fixed for the masses.
Any time there's a large group of people doing something there's going to be impact. There are good things that happen and bad things. The issue I have with certain people is that they believe the boomers have some master plan to screw everyone else. Everything these days is a conspiracy.
Let your revolution begin. When you start your revolution be careful because all your warriors might just quiet quit on you. They're too busy playing their video games. See, I can insult other generations too.
I don’t think they’ve neglected their workforce insomuch as the ‘financialization’ of the economy after we went full fiat means a larger share of wealth goes to those closest to the fountain of new money.
Typical boomer response to commentary. Attach that commentary to one’s personal beliefs and desires instead of understanding these are simply my observations. “Your” revolution. Lolz.
I’ve been enriched by this system. The things Galloway discussed apply to me. I am in the investor class with significant equity. I will transfer wealth, not debt, to my family, regardless of how long I live. That said, this system is broken for the masses and without massive structural changes, it is only a matter of time before it collapses under the weight of the mountain of debt building on top of it.
It’s no conspiracy, except maybe of dunces.
The Ponzi of Social Security wasn’t foisted on society by the Boomers. Math just dictated they were the last generation to come out well ahead on the Ponzi and leave successor generations holding the bag.
The ‘get out more than you put in’ part of the Ponzi has passed. If it was a privately run scheme the investors would walk at this point. But because it’s enforced by law later generations are stuck feeding their income to this wealth transfer scheme which, as Galloway points out, is now mostly taking from the poor and middle class and giving to the richest cohort.
Yep. Whole thing is cooked unless we can replace them with young immigrant labor. And for that I draw your attention to the southern US border for an update on that labor supply.
Trying to fix a Ponzi by ever increasing the membership doesn’t fix the problem, just increases the size of the blow up.
One key word you used was "response". I didn't start the name calling, so I was just returning the BS statements said to me. I'm not the person who said there was going to be a revolution. Maybe you should focus what was posted to me rather than just my reply.
I too will be transferring my wealth to my family. I'm not saying things don't need to be changed, but some of these people believe there's a conspiracy that all boomers are in on and it's all about keeping the money from them. Even you fell for it with your first sentence.
As you said SS didn't start with the boomers, I know my parents received theirs. The difference is that there were more boomers than retired people so boomers could somewhat cover the cost. Now the numbers are flipped it's more difficult, as you said a Ponzi.
If there’s one thing I would not want to be, it’s on the tail end of the boomer generation because that group will be getting bent over when it is too small through attrition to have any political clout
Welcome to my world, I was born in 1963. And when the next generations believe there was some kind of conspiracy going on, they're going to do their best to get revenge.
