I think what you're not prepared to cede is the "good heart" of protectionist policies; which ultimately is taking care of a community and protecting it from predators. That's orthogonal to nationalism, which is a way of deciding -usually based on sentiment- who the predators are. — fdrake

I'm actually not much of a protectionist. I more support free trade. What I am keeping an eye on is the fracturing of a common American identity and a progression towards a society where identity is more based along racial, ethnic, or ideological lines and conflict is not so much perceived as acceptable disagreement and instead more perceived as war.

Your framing makes it look like that is all nationalism tends to be. I think you know it's not! — fdrake

Yeah, I'm not here to defend every iteration of nationalism. I have mixed feelings towards it. The moment nationalism turns into xenophobia I'm out; in the US I think our nationalism is actually rightfully predicated on a certain tolerance and adaptability given that we are a nation of immigrants. I'm not prepared to just cede nationalism to the far right.

Yes, logically this makes no sense if nationalism is a (more or less) disguised in-group favouritism narrative - which it is -, but you can't tell that to people and expect them to believe it just because it's true. — fdrake

Nationalism is in-group favoritism, but that in-group favoritism isn't (and definitely shouldn't be) overriding. If I were to travel to the UK and spot someone with a Boston Red Sox hat in a bar that would make me more likely to try to establish rapport with them, but it doesn't make us best friends. It's really just a jumping off point, nothing else.

There's a distinction between being a proud black man wanting to advance his interests and accomplishments and one declaring racial superiority and wanting to crush those unlike himself. — Hanover

What do you think about the recent push to promote black-owned products and businesses? Does that blur the distinction at all? What do you make of a proud black man who strives to support his "people?"

It makes no sense to have allegiance or affinity to a race, which is devoid of such content. — NOS4A2

This is true, but it might make sense to have a sense of allegiance to a nationality/ethnic group like German or French or Lithuanian due someone's family heritage.

This, imo, is where it gets interesting and lines start getting blurred a bit: What exactly does this allegiance mean to them? How do they process negative historical events committed by these groups? "White pride" has never made any sense to me; "Russian pride" or "Italian pride" do.

A lot of "racist" statements that emphasize supporting or advancing the interests of a certain race aren't even deemed racist today, so lets just start with that. "Make black people great again" or "make hispanic great again" or "make french people great again" aren't really considered offensive or racist, it's really just when applied to certain groups like white people or Germans or maybe the English that it becomes offensive.

Why is it that nationality talk and Nationalism in particular is so easily acceptable, and race talk and Racism is so difficult and unacceptable? — unenlightened

Because nationalism can unite people across a number of different boundaries like race or class. Humans naturally form into groups often based on residency; before there was a unified America people just flew and identified with their state flags: Virginia, Massachusetts, Maryland, etc.

"Make white people great again" is a ridiculous statement, but if someone were to say. e.g. "Make France great again" I don't see what's offensive about that.

I'd reckon COVID plays a role, and I'd be interested to see how the statistics compare before/after. In any case, nothing wrong with being out of work and receiving bennies today due to the pandemic. If the economy is basically shut down and everyone's been afraid to leave their homes for the past year I don't see the harm in young people moving back with their parents for the time being as long as this trend reverses when COVID rates drop off.

Even so, part of what is considered moral is also cultural so different societies would reach different conclusions. — Benkei

I agree with that, and in doing so acknowledge that it can be tough to truly conceive ourselves as truly independent, disembodied minds pondering this type of thought experiment.

I gotta say, I wonder though in a game theory sense whether it might ever make sense to just completely gut one group (say, 5% of the population) for the benefit of the other 95%. There's only a small chance after all that you were the "negotiator" for that 5% and in favoring the 95% you probably advanced the interests of your group.

The idea of advocating on behalf of an unknown group is a little strange to me. I feel like we should reformulate this for better clarity.

EDIT: One more question, must we advocate for groups like "pedophiles" and "people who are capable and able to work, but refuse to do so and instead claim benefits."

Really? I thought he brought it down to earth quite well. You're one of the negotiators at a table, each of them represent a group of people (age groups or physical characteristics, whatever) but they don't know which group they are representing but they are still to get the best deal possible for whoever they're representing. — Benkei

Couldn't we just simplify this and say everyone's just looking for the best all around deal that's nicest to all the groups? Tying this back to taxation, what's the implication? Is it that government ought to tax and redistribute heavily to ensure all groups are fairly compensated and that no one group gets to keep too much?

That's also, in my view, the main ethical discussion. What's the role of government? I'm partial to John Rawls approach with the veil of ignorance and reflexivity. — Benkei

The thing I kind of struggle with with Rawls is that he basically asks us to be non-situated, i.e. pretend that we're a mind floating up in the ethereal and go from there in terms of designing society.

I just don't know the extent to which people can do this. Then again I haven't touched Rawls since undergrad so feel free to correct my ignorance on this one if there's something I'm missing.

EDIT: It's like if two non-disabled people were to ask how they'd want severely disabled people to be treated in this society how would they have any idea? Would they want to just be euthanized shortly after birth? Would they want state care or to be left with their families? Who knows.

For taxation to be theft, there must be a right to pre-tax income. Legally, this is clearly not the case.

A moral right to pre-tax can only be said to exist if earned income results in a fair and equitable payment for labour rendered. This too is false. Market circumstances are not concerned with the moral worth of labour or who needs the job the most or who is most deserving of fulfilling the assignment. So a moral right to pre-tax income is incoherent.

Since no rights are infringed, there's no theft. — Benkei

Maybe it goes back then to what we understand as the proper role of government. Is the overarching goal of government to provide everyone a level playing field or is it something else like to try to ensure the population life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

I do believe in taxes, by the way, but when people push the argument that citizens have zero rightful claim to their income it should set off a few alarm bells unless we believe the main goal of government is some type of large scale social engineering that is to be achieved through massive wealth confiscation and redistribution.

But what about you? Don't you live somewhere where the conditions I refer to apply? Are you one of those Libertarians that have no idea about where they are and why they receive whatever the universe offers to them? — Valentinus

No I believe there is plenty of unfairness surrounding wealth inequality, but that the fault lies elsewhere. There are absolutely rules in the system that favor the rich and penalize the poor, but the fault doesn't lie with capitalism inherently.

What I am saying is that the inequality is necessary for certain business models to work. — Valentinus

Which ones?

Ok so you're saying something like "When there are wealth disparities, that must involve exploiting that wealth difference as a means of accruing wealth."

I don't really agree with that. I don't think the wealthy preying on the poor is an inevitability. I certainly don't see exploitation of the poor as an inherent part of wealth.

EDIT: Bad timing. This was my response to your previous post, not the one above.

Could you just explain what exactly you mean when you say "When the means of exchange in a system are vastly different from each other, it involves using the inequality as a fulcrum of wealth."

Oh are you talking about differences in foreign currency value? I could agree with you there, but I was talking about domestic economics with tim and initially addressing the OP.

I don't understand what you're saying and I would like a more concrete example. I understand the first sentence.

I'm familiar with wealth inequality, but that shouldn't be our main concern here. If your main concern is equality, the best way to do what would be to crash the stock market. Everyone would suffer, but we'd all be more equal. If a nuclear war broke out we'd all be much more equal.

There's also more to say about these statistics like that there's more people in the top 20% than in the bottom 20% and also that as people get richer they move quintiles so it's not like these quintiles are static. You need to track individuals over time, not portray the country as 5 static quintiles when people move through those quintiles throughout their lives.

Sweet Jesus! You really don't know! Sure, your pipsqueak capitalist saves a hundred, maybe even a thousand dollars. But he or she is an infant playing on a financial highway. While he's saving chump-change, the rich are absorbing the country. — tim wood

So what about the "capitalists" who are saving 5k? 10k? 100k? 500k? At what point does it become a big deal to you? You seem to be treating it like everyone is either saving $100 or $10 million and there's no in between.

The only time most US folks encounter any issue with capital gains taxes is with the sale of a principle residence, usually held for a period of years. That gain, for most folks, can be rolled into a new home, or the gain itself is subject to an substantial deduction, the practical result being for most folks little or no tax. Rich and richer folks, on the other hand, stand to make a tremendous gain if they're not taxed. The rich would be glad to support you in eliminating that tax. — tim wood

Or if they're selling stock, or cryptocurrency, or collectables like comic books or baseball cards. In other words, people who invest, and in those cases in the US many will be taxed twice: both on the state and federal level. Simply trading cryptocurrencies is a taxable event, as is using cryptocurrency to buy something. Does that really make any sense? Capital gains laws extend far beyond simply taxing the capital gain when people decide to sell. Lets just start there: Just tax us once and do it only when we cash out.

You do understand that capital gains are a kind of income, yes? You do understand that infrastructure and services cost money, yes? And you do understand that taxes, however structured, are simply an attempt at an equitable distribution of cost? Except in the US, and resurgent with Reagan and since, that strategies to enact laws to enrich the rich and make them richer have been the business of the rich at which they've been successful to a degree that Louis XIV would envy. But (if I've got my Louis right) they are close to his fate. Though they may not ride the tumbril, their excesses may yet encompass their entire destruction. Those rich who are smart say, "We should pay more taxes." The likes of Buffet and Gates already self-tax in their forms of charity. But too many of the rest possess no such wisdom or civic good sense. For them, wealth tax, as much as necessary. And capital gains and inheritance as well. No reasonable person could object, and the unreasonable have held sway for too long, and at a cost too great. — tim wood

I'm not sure how to respond to this, Tim. You make like 10 different points and all I was talking about was at the very least reforming if not cancelling capital gains tax, a tax which affects everyone who has a capital gain regardless of income level or wealth. This isn't about keeping the rich in check and preventing social upheaval, this is about reforming our tax structure in a way that's remotely sensible where people aren't sending in hundreds of pages of taxes where everyone of their transactions is documented... it's just a very outdated system and we should find a better way to tax, like how the Swiss system does it.

This isn't about Reagan, this isn't about King Louis, this is about making things simpler and enacted smarter regulation.

This sounds like a good system. Capital gains tax is terrible and disincentivizes investing and also makes taxes extremely, extremely cumbersome here in the US. Here in the US I don't think a wealth tax is too popular, but if it meant no capital gains tax then I'd probably be for that arrangement. I'd be curious to know at what wealth level that tax starts though and how high it is.

I agree that traders make money either way, but this is why I think more money is made for them on the down swing. The first premise is that the money is actually received from the sale. The second is that the trader will most likely continue in the occupation of trading, so there will always be the need for a purchase after a sale. So if the market is in a generalized upswing, the purchase after the sale will likely be higher relative to the sale price, then if the market is in a generalized downswing, thus more money is actually pocketed in the downswing. — Metaphysician Undercover

I get what you're saying here. However, we need to keep in mind that markets over time trend upwards, so if you're going to be a bear you need to time it well and know when to close your shorts before the reversal (this is nearly impossible in practice.) Being a bear and repeatedly shorting is one of the few ways to lose money in a bull market. Even if you do happen to time it correctly, you can certainly do well as a trader but your long-term holdings whether in stocks or commodities will suffer which could easily offset your trading wins with capital losses elsewhere. I guess the way to avoid this is to just sell everything prior to the crash and go full on short which is either genius or insanity at the peak of a bull market.

I liked your response here. Here I'm addressing the parts that I disagree with, but I read through your entire post and agreed with like 90% of it so I just didn't respond to those parts that I agreed with. Some of my "disagreements" here are really just extra analysis.

This little bit of winning produces a euphoria in the player making the person more oblivious to the facts, which are that the probabilities ensure the more skilled will win in the long run, just like the probabilities are slanted for the house in the casinos. That's the emotional weakness, similar to dreaming about winning the lottery. — Metaphysician Undercover

I get what you're saying here. We should take note here that a live environment is different from an in-person environment, and while one player may have an overall better sense of the game at a fundamental level and excel at online play, live dynamics can muddle the waters a little bit and bring in an extra element that allows worse players to step up their game in other ways to even the playing field. A highly skilled player could also overestimate their edge and that could serve to their detriment.

Also a lot of players are just playing to have fun or pass time, not necessarily to win money. I personally was not playing with the goal of winning money when I played semi-professionally, my goal was always to play my best game. If the money comes then it comes but it was never a guarantee.

And as a trader you would know that the small money is made when the market rises, and the big money is made when the market drops. — Metaphysician Undercover

This I would question. Traders can make money either way. Insane amounts of money are made when markets are doing well.

It may be easy for someone like you to say, "those people should not be playing that game". However, those people are the suckers, and if they weren't playing the game, the rest of you wouldn't be making the easy money. This just requires that you adhere to some fundamental principles while letting the emotional ones make the mistakes. So it's clearly a matter of the reasonable people taking advantage of the unreasonable, where "unreasonable" is defined by an emotional weakness. — Metaphysician Undercover

This can certainly be the case, but it's not always the case. Two emotionally-balanced players could be playing and one could just be using better strategy than the other. The player that is using better strategy could (and often does) still lose though. Edges can be quite small and only expose themselves over thousands of hands.

But by and large, yeah, poker is often about exploitation and if you're 100% opposed to exploitation and want to maintain moral purity at all costs you probably shouldn't be at a poker table. You probably shouldn't be in business either. You might make a good philosopher though who can provide sweeping moral judgments over areas that they have zero personal experience with.

Don't trade on margin then, which is basically borrowing money. People who complain about margin calls or close outs shouldn't be trading at margin anyways. Comes with the territory. — Benkei

No! I stand with your average mom and pop investor who comes home from their 9-5 on payday, paycheck in hand, and decides to 10x leverage long AMC at $15. They don't use a stop loss because liquidation is their stop loss. But then evil traders come and manipulate the market and these poor Americans are forced to sell. The whole thing seems very immoral to me.

People who are successful are so because they have the motivation to be such.
— synthesis

This is just right wing propaganda, though. There's no actual truth to it; it's just something privileged people promote to justify the perpetuation of their privilege. Viz:

https://youtu.be/bJ8Kq1wucsk — Kenosha Kid

The truth is somewhere in the middle, no? Some successful people literally just inherit their money or succeed with an investment or use their parent's connections to land a sweet job, but others genuinely do grind and hustle and those are the ones you gotta admire. There are plenty of examples of both and plenty of successful people who are borderline admirable.

So an observer's opinion is not worth anything? One must actually participate in the activity to make a judgement about it? Do you think that one must participate in murder, or theft, before judging that there is no place for these activities in our society? — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure you're an observer - and I don't mean to be offensive or rude here - but you don't really seem to be an observer who really knows quite exactly what's going on in financial markets. I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert either and there are plenty of discussions where I'll be lost, but the difference between us is that I'm less inclined to make these kinds of overarching judgments. Before trading I was a semi-professional poker player so I'm just not that interested in hearing someone's take on why poker is wrong. According to who?

I'll ask you the question I asked earlier in this thread: What is the difference between buying a stock at $200 and selling it at $300 and buying a piece of artwork at $200 and selling it for $300? Why is one okay but not the other?

If Metaphysician Undercover is also against "hoarding", "stockpiling" and gambling then I can't imagine it's worth it to try to convince him to accept trading. Some of his responses to me also lead me to believe that he's never actually traded or used leverage so this discussion would appear to be entirely theoretical for him. For someone who's never really participated in this type of activity to then come down and basically say "the need for the trader has been eliminated" is just drivel to me. As an actual trader who follows other traders no one really cares whether the market "needs" us or whether others morally approve, but you've made some good macro points about how traders do provide value even if when we're doing it we're mostly just out for ourselves.

I wonder what this means for trans men, who I know worry a great deal about their masculinity. Is trans masculinity different from “masculinity”? — Uglydelicious

Yeah, probably, but I'd also figure masculinity looks different everywhere you look. Disabled people also need to square masculinity with their condition; very few men fit the traditional norm. Thankfully there various models of masculinity in the culture or the media that can be emulated, but we could always use more who have their own take on it.

What makes borrowing a stock and selling it any different? It’s not yours, how can you sell it? — Pfhorrest

You're talking about shorting, right? What makes it ok is that all parties in the transaction understand and consent to it. Your broker and who ever is on the other side of your trade understand and agree to what's happening here. If all parties consent, who are we to object?

So is selling a collectible object providing something. — Metaphysician Undercover

Alright so lets say I buy a piece of artwork at $100 and later sell it at $200 - how is that different from someone buying a stock or a commodity at $100 and later selling it at $200? Why is one ok but not the other?

So the trader believes that he is going to make some money. Now what is the service that the trader provides, for which he believes he will get paid? If he's not providing any service, then why should he would get paid? And if he believed that he shouldn't get paid, because he's not providing any service, then he wouldn't be there trying to do "something beneficial for himself". — Metaphysician Undercover

So should people only be paid if they provide services to others? Should winning poker players not be paid? Do you believe gambling should be banned? What about passive income from investment? What about someone who just wants to sell a collectable item?

What do you mean "the trader requires payment?" The trade doesn't happen unless there is a buyer and a seller, both of whom believe that he has done something beneficial for himself upon doing the trade. By the trade happening its fulfilling both sides wishes.

Ok so you don't believe that people should be able to borrow funds or have lines of credit extended to them, ok. I wonder how many economists would share this view.

What is it specifically that you want to see outlawed or better regulated?

Do you expect me, or anyone else to believe this? What constitutes "a normal market swing" in today's environment? Manipulation is the norm. There is no such distinction to be made, between normal market swing, and manipulation. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you want to be skeptical that's on you but it's happened with me a few times. Sometimes you just set your stop loss a little too tightly and you get stopped out. If you want to know what normal market volatility is they have volatility indexes and measures for that type of thing so I'd direct you there. If you want to say 'everything is manipulation' that's on you and it kinda of blurs the distinction between actual misdeeds and normal buying and selling.

Blame implies wrongdoing. To admit to myself, I made a bad investment, I lost money, is not a big deal. To think that some traders cheated me out of my investment is a big deal. Notice it's "to think that some traders cheated me...". When people start to point fingers at wrongdoing, then the truth or falsity of this or that particular instance doesn't even matter anymore, just like for the Trump supporters who thought that they got cheated out of the election. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think the truth or falsity of the accusation genuinely does matter here. If there was actual fraud or something criminal behind the scenes then investors/traders absolutely have a right to be upset. However, if a whale simply decides to buy or sell today and traders get stopped out when they were using high leverage then it's hard to feel bad for them because they willingly went out of their way to take on this additional risk. Traders or investors or whatever you want to call them need to go out of their way to use leverage. Most exchanges don't even offer it.

It's not always market manipulation either. Some traders or "investors" set their stop losses too close to the price and when it hits those "investors" get "forced to sell" just on normal market swings.

No of course not. Buying a house is a different issue. It would actually be really dumb to buy a house in cash. Regardless of whether we consider using margin/leverage "trading" or just "investing" by choosing it the user has consciously taken on more risk than just holding the asset normally. When you use leverage you must know there's always a chance of being forced to sell.

Ok just replace "speculating" with "trading" then. My point is you basically step into the realm of trader when you start using margin trading/leverage.