patrick.net

Reality says

What fault? That I can manage my life more efficiently than you do? A
healthier diet and healthier life style at a lower cost than you can manage?
Somehow that's my fault?

I love dick swinging contests. I have done 8 lifetime full IMs including 2 in the past 8 months and was a conference champion swimmer in college. My weight is within 5 pounds of when I was 22.

Reality says

It's actually easier for me to convince people with IQ over 105 than doing
the same with people having sub-90 IQ.

Not on this site.

control point says

What fault? That I can manage my life more efficiently than you do? A

healthier diet and healthier life style at a lower cost than you can manage?

Somehow that's my fault?

I love dick swinging contests. I have done 8 lifetime full IMs including 2 in the past 8 months and was a conference champion swimmer in college. My weight is within 5 pounds of when I was 22.

Talk about dick swinging contests here, or should I just accuse you of lying without any basis like you are prone to do? I'm actually at the same weight as when I was 22.

control point says

Reality says

It's actually easier for me to convince people with IQ over 105 than doing

the same with people having sub-90 IQ.

Not on this site.

How would you even know? I'd peg you at sub-90 just for suggesting the way to save money on food is eating hot dogs and raman. Perhaps all the years of holding your breath in swimming did some damage to your brain.

Reality says

How would you even know?

Aptitude observation of both your followers and your antagonists.

control point says

Reality says

How would you even know?

Aptitude observation of both your followers and your antagonists.

In case you didn't notice, my followers actually have the intellect to read and absorb real books on economics. . . whereas my antagonists are pompous fools who don't even know the most basic concepts in economics while pretending to be market gurus, those on psychotropic drugs, and those whose brain is damaged by under water sports :-)

Reality says

I'd peg you at sub-90 just for suggesting the way to save money on food is
eating hot dogs and raman. Perhaps all the years of holding your breath in
swimming did some damage to your brain.

Good one. If true, it actually reflects poorly on you that you decide to engage those beneath you.

I learned long ago that debate with morons is unavailing.

control point says

Reality says

I'd peg you at sub-90 just for suggesting the way to save money on food is

eating hot dogs and raman. Perhaps all the years of holding your breath in

swimming did some damage to your brain.

Good one. If true, it actually reflects poorly on you that you decide to engage those beneath you.

I learned long ago that debate with morons is unavailing.

I have an IQ over 140. If I stop engage all those beneath me in IQ, I wouldn't have many people to talk to. I have learned long time ago how to put up with and put down people with lower IQ . . . a necessary skill in life for people with exceptionally high IQ.

Reality says

I have an IQ over 140. If I stop engage all those beneath me in IQ, I wouldn't
have many people to talk to.

I suggest you move to Pasadena or Cambridge, you'll find a whole world of people to talk to.

Stop wasting your gift trolling internet forums.

control point says

Reality says

I have an IQ over 140. If I stop engage all those beneath me in IQ, I wouldn't

have many people to talk to.

I suggest you move to Pasadena or Cambridge, you'll find a whole world of people to talk to.

Stop wasting your gift trolling internet forums.

I did live in Cambridge, for over a decade. I keep running into "emigres" from Cambridge as my new neighbors even as I move from place to place in the past decade.

Reality says

I did live in Cambridge, for over a decade. I keep running into "emigres"
from Cambridge as my new neighbors even as I move from place to place in the
past decade.

Well then, it would seem your previous comment about having few to talk to would be hyperbole.

And by the way - the internet is vast. The expected value with no selection bias of the number of daily visitors to patrick.net with IQ above 140 would be 22. (Based on ~15k daily visitors) Including yourself, that leaves 21 others.

Maybe your opportunity for debate aren't as few and far between as you thought. Maybe I am one of the 21.

control point says

Reality says

I did live in Cambridge, for over a decade. I keep running into "emigres"

from Cambridge as my new neighbors even as I move from place to place in the

past decade.

Well then, it would seem your previous comment about having few to talk to would be hyperbole.

Not a hyperbole. Even in my current neighborhood, the overwhelming majority of the population do not have IQ over 140. I do miss some of the Cambridge years.

And by the way - the internet is vast. The expected value with no selection bias of the number of daily visitors to patrick.net with IQ above 140 would be 22. (Based on ~15k daily visitors)

I do not have time to read 15,000 posts daily on pnet; nor do I think there are 15,000 posts or even 15,000 unique visitors to pnet every day.

Including yourself, that leaves 21 others.

Maybe your opportunity for debate aren't as few and far between as you thought. Maybe I am one of the 21.

Keep dreaming ;-) IQ above 140 is a fairly lonely place, as you can see from the statistical distribution. I have not yet met a single person with IQ above 140 who would disagree with me on the basic nature of the issues discussed here. The only point of occasional disagreement is whether it is profitable to use the government to exploit "the fools" and for how long. There isn't much a debate when two parties agree . . . and the topic of how to exploit "the fools" is somewhat distasteful for me.

Reality says

Keep dreaming ;-) IQ above 140 is a fairly lonely place, as you can see from the
statistical distribution. I have not yet met a single person with IQ above 140
who would disagree with me on the basic nature of the issues discussed here.

LOL. I am fairly sure Krugman or Keynes had IQ's over 140.

As for me, don't know what my IQ is, though I would guess it is below 140. Have never taken a formal IQ test - though I have taken tests that are accepted as substitutes for IQ tests by various high IQ societies. Have never been in the top .15% of those, though they have a high amount of selection bias in their score distributions.

The chart in the link below has me pretty close - unsure of its validity.

http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-SATchart.htm

And by the way, I think p.net advertises 15k unique daily visitors.

Reality says

Homeboy says

Nope, I'm talking about you.

Saying that other forum members take "feel good meds" is ad hominem, and it's childish baiting.

You volunteered such information yourself earlier.

I did not, you lying troll.

Reality says

Not for the meds that you are taking.

No proof, just more trolling.

Reality says

Everyone has an asshole. If 3 "likes" by yourself means you don't have an asshole, you need more help from the doctors.

You can only "like" your own post once, dumbshit. If I did them myself, then it would be only one "like", such as YOUR posts have. LOL.

Reality says

Because the numbers are not clear whether they are reference market income vs. income after tax and transfers vs. disposable income after income and transfers. However, regardless which income it is, income does not equate to wealth. The top 1% in income are not the same people as the top 1% in wealth.

So what?

Reality says

Wealth and Income are drastically different concepts. Someone, specifically 1% of the population, will always in the top 1% by wealth. Income is a major part of what enables one to move into that 1% and displace someone else who had been in 1% previously. If you are against the top 1% in income, then you are against social mobility.

WTF? What kind of stupid angry rant is that? Again, you don't seem to have the slightest clue what we're discussing here. I would respond to what you wrote, but I have no idea what point, if any, you're trying to make. It's just nonsensical babbling.

Reality says

Your numbers do not show that at all. Your numbers do not refer to the bottom 20% in wealth at all. Many of the people in the bottom 20% in income are retired homeowners, who can have far greater net worth than the typical 20-somthing 30-something making median wage at $50k, simply because the former owns his house whereas the latter not only doesn't own house but have a huge student debt.

On top of that, your numbers do not include the medical benefits that the bottom 20% by income in the US receive. The bottom 20% by income receive significant medical benefits, which are far more expensive in the US than in Germany. Many in the bottom 20% by income choose to be there precisely because they have medical needs.

Again, Indigenous attempted to prove his point by submitting charts of INCOME, so I refuted him with data on income. If you have a problem with that, bring it up with Indigenous. What part of that didn't you understand?

If you believe a chart of wealth distribution would show the U.S. as having the most equal distribution in the world, you are sorely mistaken. The U.S. is the fifth worst in the world in that regard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth

I'm no longer going to listen to you nitpick away at other people's data unless you have a point to make. As I said, if you believe the data that has been presented here is missing something crucial, and if taking that crucial element into account would show that the U.S. has the most equal wealth distribution in the world, then PROVE it, or else shut the fuck up.

Reality says

Actually picking apart your citation is a much more logically correct way of refuting you than if I had actually cited something else. You cited some numbers and charts to prove your point. My pointing out the breakdown in logic between your citation and your thesis is the correct refutation. If I had cited something else, then we'd be in a pointless my data vs. your data argument.

Translation: You can't prove anything you're saying because you're making it up as you go along.

Reality says

I have an IQ over 140.

And I'm the queen of England.

Reality says

Perhaps all the years of holding your breath in swimming did some damage to your brain.

Stay classy, Reality. I wish I had a 140 IQ like you so I could come up with great intellectual arguments like that one.

Homeboy says

Again, Indigenous attempted to prove his point by submitting charts of INCOME, so I refuted him with data on income. If you have a problem with that, bring it up with Indigenous.

No you didn't. CP demonstrated that the graph was based on household income and not individual income and I conceded that point. The graph was mislabeled.

The graph does show that the lowest quintile was as well off as most European countries on the graph. Neither you nor CP refuted this.

But as I indicated these graphs are notorious for being misleading and difficult to attribute to one input.

Here is an article about inequality by the Sowell man:

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/01/28/the-inequality-bogeyman-n1785593

In it he speaks of the importance of the division of labor and comparative advantage. This is why we have a higher standard of living.

Comparative advantage works because of the exchange of ideas. No one really is the sole owner of an idea, Steve Jobs did not think up his ideas in an ivory tower, he got them from others and then added to them, and most importantly brought them to fruition in the market place. Same as Rockfelllar, or the much hated Koch brothers or Bill gates.

The idea of IQ really is not that important, I'm pretty smart as far as I know, which is what I hear from the dumbest people I meet.

What is important is the willingness to communicate. This is the Mason Dixon line on the subject. If one wants to stay sequestered, a slave to his own ideas then that is what I call stupidity. Especially when knowledge is so easily obtained with the internet.

The idea of Austrian ecomomics and Libertarianism places a premium on freedom. The key to freedom is knowing the rules of the game. This is not arrived at through math as math is an analogy (for economic purposes) but not the logic required to follow Austrian economics.

indigenous says

No you didn't. CP demonstrated that the graph was based on household income and not individual income and I conceded that point. The graph was mislabeled.

The graph does show that the lowest quintile was as well off as most European countries on the graph. Neither you nor CP refuted this.

But as I indicated these graphs are notorious for being misleading and difficult to attribute to one input.

I have to admit it takes a lot of balls to be as wrong as you are and still stick to your argument - to base your entire argument on a particular premise, have that premise proven wrong, ADMIT that the premise is wrong, yet still insist you are right. The captain always goes down with the ship, I guess - LOL.

indigenous says

Here is an article about inequality by the Sowell man:

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/01/28/the-inequality-bogeyman-n1785593

Snore....

Homeboy says

to base your entire argument on a particular premise,

The premise that I'm arguing against, is that inequality/equality is important, it is not.

Homeboy says

Snore....

Willful ignorance...

indigenous says

The premise that I'm arguing against, is that inequality/equality is important, it is not.

Glad you told us that. Your premise seems to change from moment to moment, depending what's convenient for you, I guess.

indigenous says

Willful ignorance...

Denial...

Homeboy says

Glad you told us that. Your premise seems to change from moment to moment, depending what's convenient for you, I guess.

It was the premise of the OP.

It is Reich's, Warren's, Obama's very tiresome tautology.

indigenous says

Homeboy says

Glad you told us that. Your premise seems to change from moment to moment, depending what's convenient for you, I guess.

It was the premise of the OP.

Originally, you wrote:

"disparity does not matter i.e. the poor in the US are way better off than the middle class in most of the world."

So no, you didn't just say wealth equality is unimportant, you said it was unimportant BECAUSE the poor in the US are "way better off than the middle class in most of the world." Then when I showed that the poor in the U.S. are NOT better off than the poor in other developed countries, you claimed I was in error due to the difference between median income and median household income.

Now you seem to have entirely abandoned that line of reasoning.

You seem to change the point you're supposedly making at will. I'm not sure if you're being deceitful or if you suffer from ADD. I wouldn't think you would do very well on an IQ test, as your mind seems to wander a lot.

Homeboy says

disparity does not matter i.e. the poor in the US are way better off than the middle class in most of the world.

And they are. Your graph shows select European countries, not the whole world.

Homeboy says

You seem to change the point you're supposedly making at will. I'm not sure if you're being deceitful or if you suffer from ADD. I wouldn't think you would do very well on an IQ test, as your mind seems to wander a lot.

You are projecting

You ignore the Sowell article

Few people stay in the bottom quintile for long

Reality's point that most are retired with a good deal of wealth albeit a fixed low income

The fact that the socialist countries are borrowing from the future to pay for higher standard of living now

The graph I showed that indicated that the middle class in the US were not worse off than the European countries showed in your graph

Most graphs and probably yours do not show public transfers or after tax income of the rich

Reality pointed out that at the very least they do not show public transfers in the form of medicare (which I believe is 7 times more than the recipients pay in) or SS

Due to it's monetary policy Germany's wealth is at the expense of Spain and the other PIGS, so to indicate their success without pointing to all the countries in Europe is misleading.

The European countries are small and have a homogeneous culture which is easier to handle.

How much money do they save by not having to have a defense budget?

Bottom line is that the free market raises the standard of living better than any form of socialism. The free market gave us cell phones for the poor, air conditioning for the poor, television for the poor, microwave ovens, cheaper dependable cars vs the Travant of the Socialist countries, biological engineering, stem cell applications, indoor plumbing, a huge variety at a low cost in retail stores, the poor today have a better standard of living than a king of yesteryear.

A graph showing the poor of some European countries does not trump the reality of the standard of living for the poor.

And most of all the opportunity at any time for the poor to improve their situation. This freedom is being emaciated by socialist policies that have been put in place.

The nanny state seems warm and fuzzy but with even the most superficial inspection it is insidious beyond belief.

indigenous says

Few people stay in the bottom quintile for long

Reality's point that most are retired with a good deal of wealth albeit a
fixed low income

These points are counter to one another. If most of the low income are retired - they aren't going to suddenly increase income and move out of the low income quintile - their income is fixed for the most part. Either the poor are retired and will stay poor, or they are not retired and will move up. One or the other, pick a side.

indigenous says

Reality pointed out that at the very least they do not show public transfers
in the form of medicare (which I believe is 7 times more than the recipients pay
in) or SS

Most other first world developed nations have single payer. This is at best a wash when comparing the US to them. You cannot say "Our poor aren't that poor because of the transfer of health care payments" - unless those who you are comparing them to do not have a transfer of health care payments.

Same thing applies to SS. SS-similar plans in Europe are better than SS here.

control point says

These points are counter to one another. If most of the low income are retired - they aren't going to suddenly increase income and move out of the low income quintile - their income is fixed for the most part. Either the poor are retired and will stay poor, or they are not retired and will move up. One or the other, pick a side.

You are right but in either case the bottom quintile is not as it is made out to be.

control point says

This is at best a wash when comparing the US to them.

A wash works for me.

That overarching point that I look at is economic mobility. Which has taken a huge hit in the past decade. The core cause of this is socialism.

BTW this socialism will be the cause of a world wide depression as once the US falls or stagnates so goes the world.

sbh says

indigenous says

You are projecting

This only said when you're losing the argument.

Ad Hominem

sbh says

control poin says

What a sorry 20 years they have been. No dating, no drinking, no vacations, driving around in a filthy beater car and living in a studio or 1 bedroom apartment that is always too hot or too cold, with no TV (or other forms of entertainment, apparently - Netflix?) except maybe a library card - where you read up on the German version of "General Theory."

Or you could be full of shit, and I am tired of talking to you. You are a sociopath whose lies come so fast and furious that I am not sure how you keep them straight. I guess that is your true talent.

Since your are incapable of being honest; you are incapable of actually learning anything. Your internet persona of a freedom seeking, Austrian liberatarian does not allow you to show that you have any understanding of the real world with real experience - otherwise - your ideology shows fault.

As I said: an artificial person; homeless in the truest sense.

You managed to quote 3 paragraphs of complete falsehood then add your agreement to it. No wonder you have a sense of belonging to someone else, as in being a dutiful slave belonging to the slave masters and puppeteers!

In case you did not read my follow up to the quote above, there is not a shred of truth in those 3 paragraphs:

In those 20 years, I dated (even married and had a child), I drank (though very light on alcohol myself but served plenty alcohol to GF's); my car is not a filthy beater but full leather and real wood without any blemish to either after 12+ years ("the 14th year," as the car having been put in service in the Spring of 2001); I now live in a 2BR apt by myself in a building that I own and the interior temperature is very well controlled at low cost thanks to good insulation (for most of the previous 20+ years, I lived in single family homes while being married and the few years living together before marriage); I do have TV's, but I don't watch them; I had plenty entertainment in those 20+ years: half a dozen pretty girlfriends in their early to mid-20's in the half decade after my separation and divorce from a decade long marriage! With pretty and entertaining girlfriends, amicable ex-wife and worshipful kid, why would I need to watch TV at home? When I have my model-grade sex partner in front of me, why do I need to live vicariously through TV characters? BTW, when time together with a GF has to be filled in by a TV, I know it's time to get a new one. Library card is actually something I don't have.

I did not make a single lie in my budget list to control point, and he is apparently not tired of talking to me even after writing that post claiming to be tired from it. LOL.

sbh says

Reality says

a sense of belonging to someone else, as in being a dutiful slave belonging to the slave masters and puppeteers!

This is how you define everyone save yourself. You married a racist fascist and raised a racist fascist and now date racist fascists.

Nope. I only date open-minded people. Ironic what you wrote, I was actually in an inter-racial marriage, with both partners having come from diverse ancestry.

sbh says

The second one is my favorite. "Model-grade sex partner" Really? Hyphenated, no less! And, not to be outdone: love doesn't warrant an honorable mention, no, the "offspring" "worships" you

Those were meant to be intermediate-term relationships after my decade-long marriage. Fun and entertainment were the goals not marriage, and it was made clear to each of my GF's and accepted as such. I was not in a position to fall in love again so soon after the end of my decade-long marriage; besides, I fully intend to keep my original vows of "love, cherish and support" to my ex-wife despite the divorce, albeit no longer in the sexual context, so I have to be selective about signing up new long term partners that can become new liability. Yes, sometimes dramas did rise despite best of intentions to avoid them.

sbh says

You're a sociopath, an automaton. You're indescribably creepy. What did your childhood neighbors think when all the local pets started disappearing?

Once again rather ironic, considering that I'm actually taking care of the cats of an ex-girlfriend because she got herself knocked up by someone else in a one-night stand and she and her partner can't afford a place that allow pets after she had to give up her own apartment due to complications and extended hospital stay during the pregnancy. Yes, dating pretty girls does have a downside: they have too many "options" standing by, and most of those brokes can be quite catastrophic as she is finding out now. OTOH, for the relationships that I'm looking for, their ready ability to find a new partner also assuages my sense of guilt for taking up their time without pursuing marriage with them.

indigenous says

And they are. Your graph shows select European countries, not the whole world.

You're changing the subject again. You can't seem to remember what we're arguing about from moment to moment. Allow me to refresh your memory:

Homeboy says:

"The question should be whether the poor in the US are better off than other DEVELOPED countries, and they are not. "

Indigenous says: "Lets see the numbers"

http://patrick.net/?p=1237143&c=1045368#comment-1045368

Yes, we are SELECTING the countries which have the resources that the U.S. has. We're not talking about Mexico, where even the top 20% only make $32,756 in disposable income vs. the U.S.'s $82,666.

You are asking the wrong question. The question should not be, "Are the poor in the USA better off than the poor in some backwater third-world country where the whole country doesn't have two dimes to rub together?" No, the question should be, "Are the poor in the USA better off than in other DEVELOPED countries that actually have some wealth?"

You said, "Show me the numbers", and I did. Then you tried to nitpick the numbers with irrelevant pablum.

First, you said government transfers skewed the numbers. So I showed you that government transfers would skew the numbers in the OPPOSITE direction from that which you thought.

So then you posted a chart that you claimed showed individual income as opposed to household income, and said that showed equality between developed countries. But then you admitted that you were wrong about the source.

So what's your next backpedaling move? Forget all about the fact that we're discussing DEVELOPED countries, not third-world countries. Forget the conversation ever took place, huh?

Pathetic.

Homeboy says

"The question should be whether the poor in the US are better off than other DEVELOPED countries, and they are not.

You still have not explained why this graph is not true?

In addition I stated that you cannot look at just the more advanced countries in Europe because their success has to do with the deficit in the PIGS. The Greeks are not reckless with their finances without the help of Germany lending them money, same goes for the other PIGS

indigenous says

You are projecting

A tired, meaningless cliche that you trot out when you lose an argument.

indigenous says

You ignore the Sowell article

The Sowell article is irrelevant. Your attention deficit disorder does not allow you to focus on a topic. I'm not interested in every stray thought that pops into your head, only those that have to do with what we're discussing: whether the poor in the USA are better off than the poor in other developed countries.

indigenous says

Few people stay in the bottom quintile for long

Irrelevant.

indigenous says

Reality's point that most are retired with a good deal of wealth albeit a fixed low income

I showed you that both income AND wealth are skewed towards the top in the USA, so that argument doesn't wash.

indigenous says

The fact that the socialist countries are borrowing from the future to pay for higher standard of living now

Is this an admission that the poor in other developed countries are better off than the poor in the USA? It would appear I won the argument, then.

indigenous says

The graph I showed that indicated that the middle class in the US were not worse off than the European countries showed in your graph

You posted two graphs. One was a reprint of OECD data that didn't explain which data was used or how. I showed, from the SAME OECD data, that the bottom 20% in the USA ARE worse off.

The other graph you posted was out of date, and the author couldn't even remember the date of the chart or apparently even where he got it from, and you admitted you were wrong about what the chart showed.

indigenous says

Most graphs and probably yours do not show public transfers or after tax income of the rich

Public transfers and tax policy do LESS to help the poor in the USA than in other countries, not more. I proved this, and repeated it to you at least 4 times, yet you bring it up again as though this never occurred.

indigenous says

Reality pointed out that at the very least they do not show public transfers in the form of medicare (which I believe is 7 times more than the recipients pay in) or SS

Let's see the proof.

indigenous says

Due to it's monetary policy Germany's wealth is at the expense of Spain and the other PIGS, so to indicate their success without pointing to all the countries in Europe is misleading.

Germany was only one example. I posted a list containing MANY European countries with more equal income distribution than the USA.

What's misleading is to compare the plight of the poor in the USA to third-world countries where virtually EVERYONE is poor. There is a difference between not being ABLE to help the poor, and deliberately CHOOSING to disenfranchise them.

indigenous says

How much money do they save by not having to have a defense budget?

Non sequitur.

indigenous says

Bottom line is that the free market raises the standard of living better than any form of socialism. The free market gave us cell phones for the poor, air conditioning for the poor, television for the poor, microwave ovens, cheaper dependable cars vs the Travant of the Socialist countries, biological engineering, stem cell applications, indoor plumbing, a huge variety at a low cost in retail stores, the poor today have a better standard of living than a king of yesteryear.

I agree, but that is not the bottom line here. The USA in large part ushered in the modern era. But we are no longer on top with regard to delivering a high quality of life for the middle and lower classes. The uber-rich investor class has influenced our government and taken such a disproportionate amount of the country's wealth that the lower class now fares WORSE than other developed countries - even ones that have less overall wealth than the USA.

indigenous says

A graph showing the poor of some European countries does not trump the reality of the standard of living for the poor.

When you start to claim that cold hard data is not reality, it shows that your "reality" is imagined. Your reality is based on how you WISH things were, rather than how they really are. You so desperately want trickle-down to be a viable concept that you ignore all facts and data, and change the subject whenever it's shown to be unsuccessful.

indigenous says

And most of all the opportunity at any time for the poor to improve their situation. This freedom is being emaciated by socialist policies that have been put in place.

A wholly unsubstantiated theory.

indigenous says

The nanny state seems warm and fuzzy but with even the most superficial inspection it is insidious beyond belief.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean or who it is supposed to apply to. Your position seems more like a religion than a considered opinion. You simply spout cliched generalities.

indigenous says

In addition I stated that you cannot look at just the more advanced countries in Europe because their success has to do with the deficit in the PIGS.

So by your insistence that we now stop examining advanced countries in comparison to the USA, I take it that you have conceded the argument, and admit that the poor are better off in other advanced countries than they are in the USA.?

Homeboy says

indigenous says

Few people stay in the bottom quintile for long

Irrelevant.

If anything that is the point, income mobility.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

Reality's point that most are retired with a good deal of wealth albeit a fixed low income

I showed you that both income AND wealth are skewed towards the top in the USA, so that argument doesn't wash.

Not according to Obama last night?

Homeboy says

indigenous says

Most graphs and probably yours do not show public transfers or after tax income of the rich

Public transfers and tax policy do LESS to help the poor in the USA than in other countries, not more. I proved this, and repeated it to you at least 4 times, yet you bring it up again as though this never occurred.

Really, how is that working out in China where when they went Capitalistic they did away with many of the free public services? Your idea of proof is to show a graph, which I have pointed out at least 4 times does not prove anything.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

Due to it's monetary policy Germany's wealth is at the expense of Spain and the other PIGS, so to indicate their success without pointing to all the countries in Europe is misleading.

Germany was only one example. I posted a list containing MANY European countries with more equal income distribution than the USA.

What's misleading is to compare the plight of the poor in the USA to third-world countries where virtually EVERYONE is poor.

The point is that the northern countries benefit at the expense of the PIGS. A comparison would be that you use Mississippi as an example of public benefits vs California that receives 1/3 of the welfare in the US yet only has 12% of the population. When you say the US you take the avg. Since Europe is bound by the Euro it is the same situation.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

How much money do they save by not having to have a defense budget?

Non sequitur.

It is muy sequitur because 1/3 of the US budget goes or went to defense. If the US did not have to spend this they would have 1/3 more money to spend on the poor.

indigenous says

I agree, but that is not the bottom line here. The USA in large part ushered in the modern era. But we are no longer on top with regard to delivering a high quality of life for the middle and lower classes. The uber-rich investor class has influenced our government and taken such a disproportionate amount of the country's wealth that the lower class now fares WORSE than other developed countries - even ones that have less overall wealth than the USA.

We are on the same page on this. Do you see that the two are connected? That there has been a correlation between the TBTF and the lowering of the standard of living of the middle class and the poor?

Homeboy says

When you start to claim that cold hard data is not reality, it shows that your "reality" is imagined. Your reality is based on how you WISH things were, rather than how they really are. You so desperately want trickle-down to be a viable concept that you ignore all facts and data, and change the subject whenever it's shown to be unsuccessful.

Not hardly, I wade quite deep into this subject. Trickle down was a misinterpretation of the Laffer curve. It was a part of the Reagan meme, it was bullshit. My thinking would be more towards a bottom up approach. Listening to Obama talk about a top down approach to help small business through central planning and the infinite wisdom of Joe Biden is laughable.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

And most of all the opportunity at any time for the poor to improve their situation. This freedom is being emaciated by socialist policies that have been put in place.

A wholly unsubstantiated theory.

Before there was an economy the economy had to be created? There would have been barter which led to the creation of money. At this time a person improved himself or he did not. Then the rule of law came about which started the manipulation of the law by using force to get what you wanted. Now the individual was subject to having to improve himself enough to also pay the government their share. When this gets too onerous the country fails. Not too much theory to that right?

Homeboy says

indigenous says

The nanny state seems warm and fuzzy but with even the most superficial inspection it is insidious beyond belief.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean or who it is supposed to apply to. Your position seems more like a religion than a considered opinion. You simply spout cliched generalities.

See the paragraph above and then add in "we are the government we are going to help you"

control point says

Reality says

Keep dreaming ;-) IQ above 140 is a fairly lonely place, as you can see from the

statistical distribution. I have not yet met a single person with IQ above 140

who would disagree with me on the basic nature of the issues discussed here.

LOL. I am fairly sure Krugman or Keynes had IQ's over 140.

I have no idea what their actual IQ's are, but both are certainly opportunists. Keynes was very flattering to the Nazi totalitarian system and its ability to implement his advocated policies when writing the preface to the German edition of his book. Besides, his quip "in the long run we are all dead" is just a rephrasing of Louise XV's "After me, the deluge." An utter sociopath!

Krugman talked about raising minimum wage causing unemployment among the young and less skilled workers in his published texbook, yet is now advocating raising minimum wage.

Lacking IQ is not their problem; what they lack is ethics and real compassion for fellow human beings, as opposed to the fake compassion that the political operatives are adept at.

Homeboy says

You can only "like" your own post once, dumbshit. If I did them myself, then it would be only one "like",

It's trivial to set up multiple accounts via different ISP's.

Homeboy says

Reality says

Because the numbers are not clear whether they are reference market income vs. income after tax and transfers vs. disposable income after income and transfers. However, regardless which income it is, income does not equate to wealth. The top 1% in income are not the same people as the top 1% in wealth.

So what?

So it means you made of fool of yourself

Homeboy says

Reality says

Wealth and Income are drastically different concepts. Someone, specifically 1% of the population, will always in the top 1% by wealth. Income is a major part of what enables one to move into that 1% and displace someone else who had been in 1% previously. If you are against the top 1% in income, then you are against social mobility.

WTF? What kind of stupid angry rant is that? Again, you don't seem to have the slightest clue what we're discussing here. I would respond to what you wrote, but I have no idea what point, if any, you're trying to make. It's just nonsensical babbling.

What I wrote and you quoted above is not a rant, not angry and not stupid. It's just a simple statement of fact. Top x% in income and top x% in wealth are two different groups of people. Heavily tax income, and you end up forestalling social mobility. The higher the wealth to after-tax income ratio, the more stale the strata of the society become. In a society with 100% income tax, there wouldn't be any social mobility into and out of the top x%.

Homeboy says

If you believe a chart of wealth distribution would show the U.S. as having the most equal distribution in the world, you are sorely mistaken. The U.S. is the fifth worst in the world in that regard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth

Goes to show the utter worthlessness of the data you cite. It's moronic to think India, China, Brazil and South Africa have more equal wealth distribution than the US. Have you been to those countries and witnessed the level of wealth disparity in those countries? There is a reason why the poor in those countries take highly dangerous jobs in order to make a living! The rich in those countries consider the typical rich in the US as mere "middle class"!

Someone putting up some random numbers, and you will cite it like the gospel. No wonder you are easily conned by politicians.

FYI, the real difference between the US vs. much of the rest of the world is data transparency: much of the power and privileges of the rich and powerful in the rest of the world is not transparently accounted or even monetized.

Reality says

Goes to show the utter worthlessness of the data you cite. It's moronic to think India, China, Brazil and South Africa have more equal wealth distribution than the US.

So that's the entirety of your argument? "It's moronic"? Nice job, dude.

Reality says

Have you been to those countries and witnessed the level of wealth disparity in those countries?

Not sure how one can "witness" the exact amount of wealth disparity in a country, simply by stepping foot in that country. Any such superficial analysis would be highly subjective and no match for actual data.

Reality says

There is a reason why the poor in those countries take highly dangerous jobs in order to make a living!

That's rather a meaningless sentence. Without any data to corroborate what you're claiming, it's just wild, useless conjecture.

Reality says

The rich in those countries consider the typical rich in the US as mere "middle class"!

I doubt that's true, and you haven't provided any evidence that it is. And even if it were true, that is not a substitute for actual data.

Reality says

Someone putting up some random numbers, and you will cite it like the gospel.

They are not random; they are the statistics for distribution of wealth in each country. If you have data that shows otherwise, by all means post it. Surely you don't think your sputtering angry diatribe, based on nothing, is valid, do you? What you are saying is, you don't have any facts or data, but somehow you just "know" that the data I post is all wrong. That's just silly.

Reality says

No wonder you are easily conned by politicians.

It's odd that you would say that. I am not easily conned by politicians, but YOU seem to be. You are arguing the Republican platform - that the US is the greatest country on Earth, that giveaways to the rich somehow magically help everyone, that there is no poverty in the US. Sorry, but the facts don't support that view. You've been conned by Reagan, Bush, and the rest of the Republicans who tell you trickle-down works. And now even the democrats are playing along. You put more faith in ideology and jingoism than you do in reason and knowledge.

Reality says

FYI, the real difference between the US vs. much of the rest of the world is data transparency: much of the power and privileges of the rich and powerful in the rest of the world is not transparently accounted or even monetized.

And your proof of this is....?

Reality says

Top x% in income and top x% in wealth are two different groups of people.

I never said income and wealth were the same thing.

Reality says

Heavily tax income, and you end up forestalling social mobility.

This is an irrelevant sidetrack, but the solution is to heavily tax non-payroll income, or at least tax it at the same rate as payroll income. Taxing it at a lower rate is what allows the investor class to control such a large percentage of the country's wealth.

Reality says

The higher the wealth to after-tax income ratio, the more stale the strata of the society become. In a society with 100% income tax, there wouldn't be any social mobility into and out of the top x%.

Actually, the top tax brackets used to be extremely high in the U.S., and the distribution of wealth was MORE equal than it is now. So your theory is bullshit.