by Nullset ➕follow (0) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 43 - 82 of 301 Next » Last » Search these comments
If we want a planet with abundance, we have to learn to control our population size, our pollution, and exchange our bad technologies for good ones like hydrogen, so that there is more for everyone.
Agreed.
Two ways to do this, the fast, somewhat draconian way:
One kid per person. After that, you must get tubes tied to collect Social Security, Medicare, collect Unemployment, etc.
Less draconian way:
Tax break for the first kid. None for the second. Tax penalities with increasing minimum taxation (AMT) for the third and beyond. To get any social benefits, including welfare, you have to get your tubes tied to get food stamps and HUD aid if you have more than two children.
The Slow Way (aka Argentine/Italy Plan):
Make everybody middle class, so that they only have about 2 kids per couple. Since many people don't have kids, or people die before reproducing, we'll actually lower the world's population pretty quickly.
In all three cases, government would pay for the various operations. Laws would apply equally to men or women.
Do you really think that, wow
I only repeat what has been in the news lately:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/85-of-the-world-s-richest-people-now-own-the-same-amount-of-wealth-as-3-5-billion-of-the-world-s-poorest-142701296.html
I only repeat what has been in the news lately:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/85-of-the-world-s-richest-people-now-own-the-same-amount-of-wealth-as-3-5-billion-of-the-world-s-poorest-142701296.html
That's the wealth of the top 1%, not the top 85 people, according to the article.
I don't understand why you guys are arguing over a nitpick like that, though. Whether you're talking about the top 1%, the top 5%, or the top 0.0001%, the point remains that the wealth is concentrated in too few hands.
If you took the wealth of the top 85 people and gave it to the bottom half, they'd each get $500. Sure, they might have the time of their life for a few weeks, but after that, not much to show.
Huh? Then where would that $500 per person go? To the people, the businesses, the entities that EARN their business.
Why are we afraid to make the wealthy business tycoons work to keep, and compete for their lucre?
The point of the economy is for the money to flow. There is no growth without it, right?
That's the wealth of the top 1%, not the top 85 people, according to the article.
Jesus, fuck me I'm bad at math. And reading comprehension.
Okay, I've just totally confused myself.
$110T divided by 7.5M people (1% of the worlds ~7.5B people) = over $14k
That's impossible. I can't believe that only 1 in 100 people averages only ~$14k in wealth. This includes children and old people, I guess, so maybe households?
In other words does anybody think there aren't 7.5M people in the USA alone, that don't have at least $14.5K? Cars, Homes, Jetskis, IRAs, Timeshares?
What's missing from this equation is corporate assets, which aren't counted under individual wealth, even though the individual has total control of it.
$110T divided by 7.5M people (1% of the worlds ~7.5B people) = over $14k
Jesus, fuck me I'm bad at math. And reading comprehension.
You are correct, you suck at math. You left off three zero's. $14,666,666
You are correct you suck at math. You left off three zero's. $14,666,666
thunderlips11 says
$110T divided by 7.5M people (1% of the worlds ~7.5B people) = over $14k
I think you used too many zeroes.
110,000,000,000 / 7,500,000 = $14,666
I did that three times to be absolutely sure I wasn't having MEGO syndrome.
What did I just say?
You said you suck at math and are confused. I was trying to help you by fixing your math which should also fix your confusion.
You are correct you suck at math. You left off three zero's. $14,666,666
thunderlips11 says
$110T divided by 7.5M people (1% of the worlds ~7.5B people) = over $14k
I think you used too many zeroes.
110,000,000,000 / 7,500,000 = $14,666
110,000,000,000,000. Dumbass.
Trillion, Billion, Million, Thousand, Hundred. You know 3rd grade math.
Okay, I just copied:
110,000,000,000
from Calc
I am dividing (copying again) by
7,500,000
and I get
14,666.666666667
Okay, I just copied:
110,000,000,000
from Calc
I am dividing (copying again) by
7,500,000
and I get
14,666.666666667
STOP USING 110 BILLION!
I got it now, thanks YUP!
And yes, I did have a very hard time with math in school, and avoid it like the plague.
I only repeat what has been in the news lately:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/85-of-the-world-s-richest-people-now-own-the-same-amount-of-wealth-as-3-5-billion-of-the-world-s-poorest-142701296.htmlThat's the wealth of the top 1%, not the top 85 people, according to the article.
I don't understand why you guys are arguing over a nitpick like that, though. Whether you're talking about the top 1%, the top 5%, or the top 0.0001%, the point remains that the wealth is concentrated in too few hands.
It is not nitpicking to say that 85 people have 1.3 trillion dollars in personal assets. Bill Gates does not have 1/20 of that, give me a break.
You guys fail to realize is that:
#1 disparity does not matter i.e. the poor in the US are way better off than the middle class in most of the world.
#2 the disparity increases from government intervention. This has happened the most right now and in the early 30's both times was because of the FED intervention.
#3 In the profound words of Jody Chudder, paraphrasing, the scum that keep point out the straw man, keep you monkeys flinging your feces at each other over this stuff, Rs vs Ds 1% vs the rest of us, so you don't take the time to actually look.
I freely admit to making a complete ass of myself in this thread, having a bad case of MEGO syndrome today.
Jesus, you were dividing by trillions and billions in 3rd grade math? I think I was just memorizing multiplication tables back then, like 2x2=16.
I got it now, thanks YUP!
Let me learn you something. There are a thousand thousand in a million, there are thousand million in a billion, there are a thousand billion in a trillion.
Now are fine POTUSs have created debt of 17 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000
I freely admit to making a complete ass of myself in this thread, having a bad case of MEGO syndrome today.
Jesus, you were dividing by trillions and billions in 3rd grade math? I think I was just memorizing multiplication tables back then, like 2x2=16.
Don't feel bad you went to public school
Jesus, you were dividing by trillions and billions in 3rd grade math?
It might have been 4th grade. I am just anal about numbers. Numbers tell a story. You can't fake simple math.
#1 disparity does not matter i.e. the poor in the US are way better off than the middle class in most of the world.
You can keep saying this, but it's still wrong. Inequality is the #1 problem in the US today.
#2 the disparity increases from government intervention. This has happened the most right now and in the early 30's both times was because of the FED intervention.
Again--completely wrong. You are a poor student of history. Government inaction leads to disparity. Laissez Faire leads to inequality. Unrestrained capitalism naturally leads to inequality.
Let me learn you something. There are a thousand thousand in a million, there are thousand million in a billion, there are a thousand billion in a trillion.
Now are fine POTUSs have created debt of 17 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000
Let me learn you the difference between our and are. One is a pronoun, and the other is a verb.
the point remains that the wealth is concentrated in too few hands.
Do this as a mental experiment.
(1) Take everything the rich own -- however you define it -- and subtract it from the Earth.
(2) Now subtract the rich themselves as defined above.
(3) Now divide what's left equally among the remaining people. Call this World#1.
(4) Now put back everything that you subtracted, except for the rich people. Now take everything and again divide it equally and call this World#2.
How different would the life a person in World#1 be from World#2?
Again, the point being, with so many people, even great wealth would soon be exhausted. Therefore, it is creating a sustainable, clean, intelligent society that is of the utmost important.
The "super rich" are a giant clown show to act as a distraction. Anyone with brains can see the pickle in which we are in. It's up the the smart people do what has to be done.
How different would the life a person in World#1 be from World#2?
VERY different. I don't think you comprehend the amount of wealth that the 1% actually has right now. If you did, you wouldn't ask that question.
#1 disparity does not matter i.e. the poor in the US are way better off than the middle class in most of the world.
You can keep saying this, but it's still wrong. Inequality is the #1 problem in the US today.
I explain why your's is tautology.
#2 the disparity increases from government intervention. This has happened the most right now and in the early 30's both times was because of the FED intervention.
Again--completely wrong. You are a poor student of history. Government inaction leads to disparity. Laissez Faire leads to inequality. Unrestrained capitalism naturally leads to inequality.
Why because you say so? once again tautology
Let me learn you something. There are a thousand thousand in a million, there are thousand million in a billion, there are a thousand billion in a trillion.
Now are fine POTUSs have created debt of 17 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000
Let me learn you the difference between our and are. One is a pronoun, and the other is a verb.
Yea sometimes I mix up your and you are as well getting old i guess. So fucking what?
I explain why your's is tautology
I'm waiting for the explanation.
Why because you say so? once again tautology
Nope--because history says so. Look at 1929. Look at the history of real wage gains and understand why gains were high in the 1945-1980ish time period, but have basically stopped since.
It is not nitpicking to say that 85 people have 1.3 trillion dollars in personal assets. Bill Gates does not have 1/20 of that, give me a break.
Yeah, it really is a nitpicky thing to have an extended argument about, because the top 1% DOES have $110 trillion, and that's too much money for only the top 1% to have. So what's your point here? You think it's reasonable for the top 1% to have $110 trillion?
#1 disparity does not matter i.e. the poor in the US are way better off than the middle class in most of the world.
The question should be whether the poor in the US are better off than other DEVELOPED countries, and they are not.
the disparity increases from government intervention. This has happened the most right now and in the early 30's both times was because of the FED intervention.
No shit, Sherlock. Why would you assume I "don't realize" that?
#3 In the profound words of Jody Chudder, paraphrasing, the scum that keep point out the straw man, keep you monkeys flinging your feces at each other over this stuff, Rs vs Ds 1% vs the rest of us, so you don't take the time to actually look.
Sorry, what are you trying to say? Sounds like gibberish.
I explain why your's is tautology
I'm waiting for the explanation.
Should read:
I explain why, your's is tautology
Why because you say so? once again tautology
Nope--because history says so. Look at 1929. Look at the history of real wage gains and understand why gains were high in the 1945-1980ish time period, but have basically stopped since.
I'm waiting for an explanation
I'm waiting for an explanation
I've explained it a million times. What question exactly do you have? So I make sure I give you the correct explanation.
The question should be whether the poor in the US are better off than other DEVELOPED countries, and they are not.
Lets see the numbers
#3 In the profound words of Jody Chudder, paraphrasing, the scum that keep point out the straw man, keep you monkeys flinging your feces at each other over this stuff, Rs vs Ds 1% vs the rest of us, so you don't take the time to actually look.
Sorry, what are you trying to say? Sounds like gibberish.
It means that there is so much noise that it distracts people from what is important
Nope--because history says so. Look at 1929. Look at the history of real wage gains and understand why gains were high in the 1945-1980ish time period, but have basically stopped since.
I've explained it a million times. What question exactly do you have? So I make sure I give you the correct explanation.
splain that
Do this as a mental experiment.
(1) Take everything the rich own -- however you define it -- and subtract it from the Earth.
(2) Now subtract the rich themselves as defined above.
(3) Now divide what's left equally among the remaining people. Call this World#1.
(4) Now put back everything that you subtracted, except for the rich people. Now take everything and again divide it equally and call this World#2.
How different would the life a person in World#1 be from World#2?
The way you worded that seems needlessly confusing, but let's see if we can figure this out: World population is 7 billion. Total worldwide wealth is about $220 trillion. So that would be $31,000 for each man, woman, and child on the planet , if divided equally. The top 10% own 86% of the wealth, which is $189 trillion. So 700 million people control $189 trillion, which would average $270,000 each. Therefore, the bottom 90% owns 14% of the wealth, which is $30.8 trillion. This averages to $49 each.
If all the wealth in the world were divided equally, the bottom 90% would go from an average of $49 to an average of $31,000. That would be PROFOUNDLY life changing.
Sources: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-02/its-1-world-who-owns-what-223-trillion-global-wealth
The question should be whether the poor in the US are better off than other DEVELOPED countries, and they are not.
Lets see the numbers
Sure:
Earnings at the 10th percentile as a share of median worker earnings in selected OECD countries, late 2000s
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib339-us-poverty-higher-safety-net-weaker/
Looks like we're actually dead last.
Sure:
Earnings at the 10th percentile as a share of median worker earnings in selected OECD countries, late 2000s
A couple of things leap out at me one is that the statistics are based on household income which is known for misleading numbers. This is because as the divorce rate skyrocketed a couple of decades ago which distorts household income. My theory is that foreign countries were not hit as hard by the Gloria Steinem meme as the US
The second trick that these guys use is that government transfers are not counted as income in the lowest quin tile this includes things like section 8 housing, WIC, food stamps, welfare, healthcare etc. This skews the numbers. I think this gives Mexican immigrants a big advantage in the work place as they are subsidized by the government.
A third thing is that categories are not real flesh and blood people so changes in a category do not reflect real people. This is because people move out of categories very quickly they are Absolutely not static.
Graphs have many inputting factors which do not isolate the things they are purported to show. This is the reason that Austrians don't use them as much as Keynesian who want to solve everything with math. While ignoring logic.
A couple of things leap out at me one is that the statistics are based on household income which is known for misleading numbers. This is because as the divorce rate skyrocketed a couple of decades ago which distorts household income. My theory is that foreign countries were not hit as hard by the Gloria Steinem meme as the US
The second trick that these guys use is that government transfers are not counted as income in the lowest quin tile this includes things like section 8 housing, WIC, food stamps, welfare, healthcare etc. This skews the numbers. I think this gives Mexican immigrants a big advantage in the work place as they are subsidized by the government.
LOL - you are so full of shit. Sure, any data that proves you wrong is a "trick". Riiight... You lobbed a ball at me and I smashed it right back down your throat. Now you're hemming and hawing like a fiend. Just admit you lost the argument - everyone knows it.
Again--completely wrong. You are a poor student of history. Government inaction leads to disparity. Laissez Faire leads to inequality. Unrestrained capitalism naturally leads to inequality.
Hmm, I am pretty sure we have more government intervention today than we did 30, 40 or even 100 years ago. Yet today is the largest wealth disparity this country has ever seen, even larger than the 1920s.
Nope--because history says so. Look at 1929. Look at the history of real wage gains and understand why gains were high in the 1945-1980ish time period, but have basically stopped since
There are a lot of reasons why wages were high from 45-80s. One reason from the 40-70's, U.S. companies didn't have a lot of competition for U.S. consumers (most of that being thanks to the war). For example, The Japanese cars didn't come until the 70s or late 60s to compete, global workers were not competing with U.S. workers, until somewhere around the mid 70s and became worst during the 90s and turn of the century.
Plus I am not even getting into the U.S. dollar and our monetary policy that's a page of their own.
Nope--because history says so. Look at 1929. Look at the history of real wage gains and understand why gains were high in the 1945-1980ish time period, but have basically stopped since
That is a Tat quote somehow that got jacked up
Hmm, I am pretty sure we have more government intervention today than we did
30, 40 or even 100 years ago. Yet today is the largest wealth disparity this
country has ever seen, even larger than the 1920s.
I'm pretty sure we don't. Reagan started the era of deregulation and it has continued for 30+ years.
I'm pretty sure we don't. Reagan started the era of deregulation and it has continued for 30+ years.
That is a fallacy.
That is a fallacy.
No it's not. I didn't say Reagan was the only President responsible--only that the deregulation started under his watch. The last 30+ years has seen significant easing of regulation. Do you disagree?
No it's not. I didn't say Reagan was the only President responsible--only that the deregulation started under his watch. The last 30+ years has seen significant easing of regulation. Do you disagree?
If you bother to read that attachment it explains how Reagan did not start any deregulation. Or you can continue to be willfully ignorant.
« First « Previous Comments 43 - 82 of 301 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,209,978 comments by 14,377 users - goofus online now