Post: #1

Quote:The charity recently reported that five billionaire families controlled the same wealth as 20% of the population. "It is further evidence of increasing inequality at a time when five rich families have the same wealth as 12 million people,"

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/...population

Whenever these 1% discussions pop up, I get annoyed, because as others have mentioned before here, it is really not the 1% that is exorbitantly rich, but the 0,01%. The fact that oligarchs own and control western countries is one of the best kept secrets in the media today. A lot of hate for the CEOs and no hate at all for the real masters.

Post: #2

I miss Margaret Thatcher.

I am not sure how much I agree with her. But she was great at setting out clearly the political philosophy underpinning her vision for the country.

As opposed to today when all the parties battle for the centre ground and are interchangeable. At least here in the UK.

As for the post above - here is how Margaret Thatcher answers the charge.

Post: #3

Its the king effect... 80/20 rule in full effect.

Post: #4

(05-17-2014 09:32 AM)w00t Wrote:  Its the king effect... 80/20 rule in full effect.

No, realities are much worse than 80/20. The realities are that we are no different today than in times of Kings and nobles. We must see like ants to people with enough wealth to buy entire small countries.

Post: #5

(05-17-2014 09:09 AM)berserk Wrote:  

Quote:The charity recently reported that five billionaire families controlled the same wealth as 20% of the population. "It is further evidence of increasing inequality at a time when five rich families have the same wealth as 12 million people,"

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/...population

Whenever these 1% discussions pop up, I get annoyed, because as others have mentioned before here, it is really not the 1% that is exorbitantly rich, but the 0,01%. The fact that oligarchs own and control western countries is one of the best kept secrets in the media today. A lot of hate for the CEOs and no hate at all for the real masters.

And yet no matter how many times these income inequality discussions pop up, zero politicians (including the socialists) offer to put a small 3-5% net worth tax on the top .01% or whatever.

Why's that? Because every single politician who rails against the rich are full of shit, and are just using populism to attempt to get more votes. None of them propose feasible solutions and most of them want to increase income taxes, despite the fact that the top 5 richest families have never worked a day in their lives.

Post: #6

Two words: Bilderberg Conference.

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

Post: #7

We are slowly slipping back into Neo-feudalism. Each generation is getting more poor with less actually wealth then the last.

The small plot of land you didn't actually own but slaves for in feudal times is just being replaced with the small condo in the city you don't actually own but still slave for today.

Post: #8

Let's insert some reading comprehension here. They don't have 20% of the wealth. They have as much wealth as 20% of the population. 20% of the population are a bunch of broke, indebted losers. If you are worth 100,000 pounds, I bet you have more worth than hundreds of people combined. They try to make these stats about how rich these people are, but it's more a reflection of how broke so many people are. Saving money is no longer a thing so the libs can make these useless comparisons.

Post: #9

A newborn infant has a greater net worth than 50% of the population of America. That is 1/2 of the USA population has negative or zero net worth. (hi student loans!)

^^Astoundingly ridiculous. But the trend is towards a Huxley style "utopia" lavished and polluted w/nonsense that keeps the masses in check. In Rome, the rich did it w/gladiators, circuses, and free bread. Today, in America we do it w/NBA, NFL, smartphone, FB, and food-stamps (snap/EBT).

Clearly not much has changed.

Post: #10

(05-17-2014 05:02 PM)DVY Wrote:  ^^Astoundingly ridiculous. But the trend is towards a Huxley style "utopia" lavished and polluted w/nonsense that keeps the masses in check. In Rome, the rich did it w/gladiators, circuses, and free bread. Today, in America we do it w/NBA, NFL, smartphone, FB, and food-stamps (snap/EBT).

Clearly not much has changed.

No, nothing has changed -- except the fact that today's Joe Sixpack has access to more knowledge, health, interest, art and entertainment at his fingertips than all the Emperors of Rome put together.

Other than that, it is clear that nothing ever changes. LOL.

Post: #11

This is pretty much the expected end result of socialism. This is why letting non-tax payers (mostly women) vote will destroy any Democracy, no matter how far of a head start they get.

The more the govt. controls the economy (the more socialistic) the more the rich people can buy politicians and put their small and medium sized business competition out of commission.

Just like how it has gone from very bad in the USA, to a serious threat to our country under Obama. He complains about the income divide, but he is a root cause of it. Stealing from the middle class and giving to the rich IS the problem. The rich don't pay taxes, they pass the expenses on to the middle class.

The easiest way for the average low to middle class person to get ahead is to start their own small business. The wealthy are terrified of small business, because one day they are the kings, the next day they are begging Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg for just a small piece of the pie. So they get the govt. to pass more laws, more regulations, more taxes, things like Obamacare, that target and destroy small businesses.

It is why Warren Buffet is so strongly opposed to the oil pipeline. He makes hundreds of millions a year in shipping oil using his railroad companies. If the oil pipeline were to be built, thousands of out of work Americans would be hired, gas would be cheaper, thus making food and other goods cheaper, but billionaire Buffet would lose a little. So he bends Obama's ear and the rest of us get screwed.

Post: #12

As long as people have food in them and some sort of physical/mental stimulus they will not revolt.

As long as the rich can keep their money and nobody comes after them they wont revolt.


If these two were to be put out of sync then you bet some major change will follow.

Post: #13

hell I am happy that there are good little slaves in America. I need somebody to chauffer me around in taxis, clean my house, wash my dishes, answer the phone of my business, help me with my taxes.

If not for them, I wouldn't live the life I live.

Anybody who complains about today isn't working smart enough. The class difference is now between intellectual and menial jobs. Intellectual jobs will always have a place, labor will now be outsourced at the fastest possible time.

Post: #14

(05-18-2014 05:56 PM)DVY Wrote:  hell I am happy that there are good little slaves in America. I need somebody to chauffer me around in taxis, clean my house, wash my dishes, answer the phone of my business, help me with my taxes.

If not for them, I wouldn't live the life I live.

Anybody who complains about today isn't working smart enough. The class difference is now between intellectual and menial jobs. Intellectual jobs will always have a place, labor will now be outsourced at the fastest possible time.

You're kidding yourself if you think intellectualism makes you rich.

Post: #15

(05-18-2014 06:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 05:56 PM)DVY Wrote:  hell I am happy that there are good little slaves in America. I need somebody to chauffer me around in taxis, clean my house, wash my dishes, answer the phone of my business, help me with my taxes.

If not for them, I wouldn't live the life I live.

Anybody who complains about today isn't working smart enough. The class difference is now between intellectual and menial jobs. Intellectual jobs will always have a place, labor will now be outsourced at the fastest possible time.

You're kidding yourself if you think intellectualism makes you rich.

Exactly. I know lots of very smart and hard working men, who have decades in their fields, and they are just getting by. Opportunities are disappearing for various reasons. Bad economy, regulations crushing small businesses and start ups, quotas and bad HR policies, on and on.

It is nice to have lots of worker bees, but when those worker bees drag you down to be with them, it isn't so great.

Post: #16

I am looking forward to the next wave of globalisation.

It will be funny seeing the middle classes have their jobs shipped over seas, eradicated or replaced by the internet.

I have no sympathy whatsover.

Everybody thinks globalisation is a good thing - until it is their turn to face the meat grinder.

Post: #17

A couple of points:

On Democracy
The problem is not poor people voting as such. That's just a symptom or a secondary effect, a logical endpoint. The problem is democracy itself. People who can't vote are an untapped market. As such, someone will try to expand into that market to his own advantage. Let's say that only white, land owning males can vote initially. Let's say that's 10% of the population. A canny politician is going to say, "90% of potential votes are being wasted. All these other idiots want to waste those votes. I'm going to get myself some of that 90%!" He will then try to expand the franchise because if he can stand as a "man of the people" (or at least, all other white men initially), then he will pick up say, another 30%. Even if he gets none of the initial 10%, he doesn't need to care because he has three times as many people.

Of course, it's not quite that simple, because obviously other politicians will be forced to respond. The entire focus of political discourse now moves from say, the median or mode within the top 10% to the median or mode within the top 30%, and that's a downward shift.

Fast forward 100-200 years and everyone is arguing over the median or mode for the entire population. That's why Mitt Romney could make remarks about the 47% and get absolutely hammered for it. Just a generation or two ago, let alone 100 years ago, people wouldn't have had such an issue with his comments.

Why though, especially since there has been universal suffrage for longer than one generation? Because water flows downhill. So does culture. So does political discourse. We might think that we could lift people up, rather than be dragged down. Yet it's always easier to make simple promises to stupid people, especially when there are lots of them and the franchise is expanded rapidly, and so the political discourse moves downwards, not upwards. If everyone has a vote, then everyone's ideas, and by extension, culture, are equally valid, no matter how stupid. Once a critical mass of stupidity is reached, it crowds the smart and responsible out of the discourse.

Democracy is, at its heart, dysgenic in every way, from genetics to culture because it shifts the mode and the median to the left of the distribution graph, and then a feedback loop is created.

On Globalisation and the Labour Market
All things come and go. All things are born and die. Nobody wants to see a beautiful thing, a familiar thing, die. Yet new beautiful things are born and become familiar. I don't want to see Western civilisation collapse into mediocrity, yet such is the way of the world. I think we're probably past the tipping point with a few countries (the U.S.A., the U.K.), and not far off with others, though they may have time to course correct. Yet all things come and go. You can adapt or die. There is a massive sense of entitlement from the middle class in the West. It's also laden with hypocrisy since they have been happy to buy cheap consumer goods from abroad anyway. At some point, everyone, whether as individuals or as groups, needs to ask what value he provides to others. What value does the average person in a developed country provide to anyone else? Obviously, not very much because, given by their actions, they all think that the guy next to themselves is of little value. If Joe won't support Sam because he thinks Sam's product or service is too expensive and buys something from abroad instead, then why should Joe expect Fred, standing on his other side, to support him simply for existing?

Taken from another angle, why would a guy in a foreign country want to support Joe in the lap of luxury? Why wouldn't that foreigner want to nibble away at Joe? What a sense of entitlement on the part of Joe!

The solution then is to offer value to someone, to lift your game. What value does the average person in the West really offer to anyone? Look at the P.I.S.A. scores for the U.S.A. Look at the average person -- male or female -- as frequently complained about by people on this board. The average Westerner is useless, or worse than useless, yet entitled. Americans keep complaining about either or both of their two major parties, yet they keep voting for them expecting that this time, expecting a different result. What did Einstein have to say about that? People just want to complain. Anything else would be too much effort on their part.

If you're one of the people who is not useless, that provides opportunities for you. You may have to do unusual things to take advantage of such opportunities, including expatriation, but there will always be opportunities. It's not like the choice is between one U.S.A. and 199 Somalias. In fact, this has never been the case in history. If anything, it is easier than ever to pack up and leave for greener pastures.

We live in a period in history when everything is on the table. Everything is up for grabs. We're on the cusp of a new epoch, a paradigm shift. We can either pine for the old order, go down with the ship, or we can accept change and seek ways of prospering from it.

Post: #18

Milton Friedman says not a single job is lost due to gloabalisation.

We buy products from abroad.

We give them money.

And that money - eventually - has to be spent on products and services that we provide.

As such the National Debt is a non issue.

Post: #19

(05-18-2014 08:41 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Milton Friedman says not a single job is lost due to gloabalisation.

Technically, yes. If I give you a rock, the rock has not been destroyed, but you now possess it. I do not possess it. Possession is everything.

Quote:We buy products from abroad.

We give them money.

And that money - eventually - has to be spent on products and services that we provide.

As such the National Debt is a non issue.

Not necessarily true. You're assuming that the money still has the same value later on. Money does not actually exist, unlike the rocks in the afore-mentioned scenario. Money is whatever we say it is worth. After a while, some people may not consider it to be worth very much. This may actually become as much, or more, of a problem for those holding the debt as those issuing it. As the old adage goes: If you owe the bank $1,000, you have a problem. If you owe the bank $1,000,000, the bank has a problem. Someone is going to get left holding the bag with US debt. Someone always gets left holding the bag when it comes to debt. Some would say that debt, and trade, are always win-win. I would say that debt, and trade, are often about getting one over on the other guy. The real question here is who is getting conned, the U.S. or China? Maybe both. Exchanging crappy bits of plastic that will break or poison someone for crappy bits of paper (or electronic numbers) may represent both parties thinking they've got one over the other, and both being correct! Lose-lose.

Even in the cases where the money retains its value and jobs are recreated, it's the quality of the jobs, as well as the quantity of them, that matters. If everyone in America ended up working in a call centre (especially if they didn't own that call centre), that would not indicate a return to the previous status quo. It would probably be a worse state of affairs.

Post: #20

adapt/overcome or complain/die.

Just take a look at any financial/commercial center. Somebody is making money off it. Why not you?

Post: #21

(05-18-2014 06:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  [quote='DVY' pid='730205' dateline='1400453775']

You're kidding yourself if you think intellectualism makes you rich.

So you mean if I invent something wonderful here in the USA, have somebody overseas make it, and sell it here I won't get rich?

You can work with your brain or your muscles.

Post: #22

(05-18-2014 09:42 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  ....Money is whatever we say it is worth. After a while, some people may not consider it to be worth very much. This may actually become as much, or more, of a problem for those holding the debt as those issuing it. As the old adage goes: If you owe the bank $1,000, you have a problem. If you owe the bank $1,000,000, the bank has a problem. Someone is going to get left holding the bag with US debt. Someone always gets left holding the bag when it comes to debt. Some would say that debt, and trade, are always win-win. I would say that debt, and trade, are often about getting one over on the other guy. The real question here is who is getting conned, the U.S. or China? Maybe both. Exchanging crappy bits of plastic that will break or poison someone for crappy bits of paper (or electronic numbers) may represent both parties thinking they've got one over the other, and both being correct! Lose-lose.

Even in the cases where the money retains its value and jobs are recreated, it's the quality of the jobs, as well as the quantity of them, that matters. If everyone in America ended up working in a call centre (especially if they didn't own that call centre), that would not indicate a return to the previous status quo. It would probably be a worse state of affairs.

Maybe I'm just a secret anarchist but I would love to see a US debt default. Now that would be a REAL global financial reset.

To be honest I think that the US, and the world, would be the better for it. But obviously only over the long term.

Post: #23

(05-19-2014 12:49 PM)DVY Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 06:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  [quote='DVY' pid='730205' dateline='1400453775']

You're kidding yourself if you think intellectualism makes you rich.

So you mean if I invent something wonderful here in the USA, have somebody overseas make it, and sell it here I won't get rich?

You can work with your brain or your muscles.

In practice, if your product was successful in the market, you'd make a fortune. The source of your success would be your own mind and the intellectual property laws in the US, and elsewhere, that you could enlist to protect your property. With "violence" if necessary.

I think the other commentators are thinking that in a true free market (that globalism supposedly represents) all profits approach $0 since the market bids them down to this level. This is Economics 101 boilerplate. IRL it doesn't work out like that. People and companies still make money even in markets which are substantially free. Sometimes due due to intellectual property laws, sometimes due to branding power, and various other reasons.

In practice profits are not bid down to zero. IMO probably because of risk. Even if another company is making 10 cents profit per widget and your numbers show you could build a factory and business structure and make 5 cents profit per widget, underselling the first company, you wouldn't necessarily invest because your calculations may be wrong or circumstances may change i.e. There is a risk of variance.

Post: #24

^^^Exactly. In my experience, money is often one of the last variables in product selection.

If anything, we gravitate towards more expensive products than toward less expensive ones i.e Vebleen goods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

What about durability, ease of use, ease of purchase, ease of return. Rarely are two products ever identical except in price. There exists trade-offs.

Post: #25

Check out Giffen goods.

They are goods for which the demand rises - as the price rises!

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