Has America become an oligarchy? [Archive]

Skybird

10-29-11, 05:24 AM

story (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-793896,00.html)

Why still putting it as a question? Telling this for years myself.

(...)

At least since the beginning of the millennium, it has no longer been a simple matter of two societal extremes drifting further apart. Instead, the development is also accelerating. In the years of economic growth between 2002 and 2007, 65 percent of the income gains went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers. Likewise, although the productivity of the US economy has increased considerably since the beginning of the millennium, most Americans haven't benefited from it, with average annual incomes falling by more than 10 percent, to $49,909 (Euros 35,184).

Even for a country that loves extremes, this is a new and unprecedented development. Indeed, as Hacker and Pierson see it, the United States has developed into a "winner-take-all economy."

The political scientists analyzed statistics and studies concerning income development and other economic data from the last decades. They conclude that: "A generation ago, the United States was a recognizable, if somewhat more unequal, member of the cluster of affluent democracies known as mixed economies, where fast growth was widely shared. No more. Since around 1980, we have drifted away from that mixed-economy cluster, and traveled a considerable distance toward another: the capitalist oligarchies, like Brazil, Mexico, and Russia, with their much greater concentration of economic bounty."

This 1 percent of American society now controls more than half of the country's stocks and securities. And while the middle class is once again grappling with a lost decade that failed to bring increases in income, the high earners in the financial industry have raked in sometimes breathtaking sums. For example, the average income for securities traders has steadily climbed to $360,000 a year.

Still, that's nothing compared to the trend in executives' salaries. In 1980, American CEOs earned 42 times more than the average employee. Today, that figure has skyrocketed to more than 300 times. Last year, 25 of the country's highest-paid CEOs earned more than their companies paid in taxes.

(...)

Cornell Univesity economist Robert Frank analyzes this development in his recently published book "The Darwin Economy." In it, he concludes that financial realities are best described not by Adam Smith's economic models but, rather, by Charles Darwin's thoughts on competition.

Frank writes that, with its often extreme deregulation, today's financial and economic system makes it impossible for individuals' self-serving behavior to ultimately contribute to the prosperity of society as a whole, as Smith had envisioned it. Instead, it leads to an economy in which only the fittest survive -- and the general public is left behind.

The question is: How long can the US withstand this internal tension?

Differences between rich and poor are tolerated as long as the rags-to-riches story of the dishwasher-turned-millionaire remains theoretically possible. But studies show that increasing inequality and political control concentrated in the hands of the wealthy elite have drastically reduced economic mobility and that the US has long since fallen far behind Europe on this issue. Indeed, only 4 percent of less-well-off Americans ever successfully make the leap into the upper-middle class.

(...)

tater

10-29-11, 08:06 PM

Well, you've been telling yourself wrong for years then.

It's wrong on a few levels.

One, wealth is not zero-sum. The rich do not get richer on the backs of the poor or less fortunate. Wealth increases globally. The poor get slightly richer, the rich get much richer.I wonder if net worth for the richest includes leveraged assets, too... (who skews them higher for "theoretical" wealth—regardless, it's all on paper and is on the backs of no one, it's wealth conjured out of thin air).

Two, and this is critical, IMHO, "wealth" is very hard to measure in a way that is meaningful for comparing people's lives, particularly compared across time. The poor are farther now from the rich than they would be from the rich in 1920? Guess what, the poor are richer in many ways than the richest people in 1920 looked at in other ways.

Let's take the lower middle class, not dirt poor, homeless types. In the US they live in large homes compared to the earlier history of the US. They have cars (how do you monetize the ability to drive instead of walk comparing wealth over time?). They have television. They likely have instant communications everywhere they are (cell phones). They more and more carry more computing power in their pockets than the entire darpanet combined 30-40 years ago (even a freebie smart phone). They have better healthcare (US rates of death per incidence for potentially deadly diseases is as good as it gets, and that includes all the un/under-insured in the stats). Heck, even violence is at the lowest rate in history (worldwide). We can fight a war for a decade and lose less in 10 years than a week in ww2.

Given the choice, would you be super rich at the turn of the 19th/20th century, or lower middle class in the US today? It's not an easy choice to make, you'd be taking a hit in terms of lifespan right off the bat (US average lifespan being low compared to the EU is entirely a function of death reporting, the US counts all infant deaths, even preemies, the EU doesn't count infants til they reach a certain age as people. A bunch of age = 0 deaths really throw off an average). You'd have no internet, etc, ad nauseum.

Bottom line is that The stats are just that for the OP. Stats. You can look at them different ways, and you need to make sure you are comparing the same things, and useful things, too. Comparing "wealth" is dubious.

mookiemookie

10-29-11, 08:17 PM

Has America become an oligarchy?

Yes.

Rockstar

10-29-11, 09:08 PM

I thought I was rich until someone from the government said I was living in poverty.

August

10-29-11, 10:18 PM

Well said Tater.

JU_88

10-30-11, 05:52 AM

The rich do not get richer on the backs of the poor or less fortunate.

Would you care to enlighten me as how you think capitalsim works then? Specifically how maximum profit is achieved?

Two, and this is critical, IMHO, "wealth" is very hard to measure in a way that is meaningful for comparing people's lives, particularly compared across time.

Its impossible to messure it precisley down to each individual set of circumstances, buts easy enough to build an overall picture: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/income-inequality-america
if you dont like the source of that chart, let me know ill see if I can post one from the source of your choosing.

Guess what, the poor are richer in many ways than the richest people in 1920 looked at in other ways.

So, if you asked me to sell you a 'fast car' and I sold you the slowest car made in 2011 with the argument that: "well, look at is this way, its still faster than the fastest car in 1920"
you would say, "thats a fair comparrison" and continue to buy it from me - would you?

Let's take the lower middle class, not dirt poor, homeless types. In the US they live in large homes compared to the earlier history of the US. They have cars (how do you monetize the ability to drive instead of walk comparing wealth over time?). They have television. They likely have instant communications everywhere they are (cell phones). They more and more carry more computing power in their pockets than the entire darpanet combined 30-40 years ago (even a freebie smart phone). They have better healthcare (US rates of death per incidence for potentially deadly diseases is as good as it gets, and that includes all the un/under-insured in the stats).

And they often afford these things how?
Their homes they pay for via a morgage that takes a life time to pay off. (if they can afford to get one foot on to the property ladder at all)
Cars & fancy flat screen televisions etc are often paid for in installments , or on credit cards and personal loans. Money they\we dont yet have, borrowing does not make you wealthier, nor do 'buy now pay later' scemes.
Freebie smart phone? wheres mine then? they are not 'free' :haha: we pay for them over a period of 12 months or more!

if everyone in America - and indeed the developed world spent within their means and did not rack up debts, you would see alot less people owning these luxury goods..... abit more like 1920 :hmmm:
Why do banks let people borrow beyond their means so much? two reasons; 1) they make a killing out of the intreast 2) In the short term it helps pump more money back in to our econemy though consumer spending - but with potentially catatstrophic consquences, such as the ones we are seeing er....since 2008.
Just to remind you, the world is now in a debt crisis for a reason.

We can fight a war for a decade and lose less in 10 years than a week in ww2.

Yeah - because we fight vastly inferior forces who are no match for us.
In WW2 we fought an equal and in some respects 'superior' enermy. You'd be wise to remember that.

Sailor Steve

10-30-11, 01:30 PM

And they often afford these things how?
He's right. I live in a cheap apartment; it's all I can afford. It's not Mount Vernon, but compared to my counterpart from that era it's pretty fantastic. I have a sliding glass door with a view of the park next door, my own stove, refrigerator, running water, heat and air conditioning, and a real-live indoor toilet, all things even George Washington (or King George) couldn't even imagine. I also have a supermarket within an easy walk and a bus/train system that gets me where I need to go, though I do have to actually walk a couple of miles sometimes. I do get help paying for it because I'm over 60 and a veteran, but yes, my standard of living is far above that of even the wealthiest people who lived two hundred years ago.

And they often afford these things how?
Their homes they pay for via a morgage that takes a life time to pay off. (if they can afford to get one foot on to the property ladder at all)
Cars & fancy flat screen televisions etc are often paid for in installments , or on credit cards and personal loans. Money they\we dont yet have, borrowing does not make you wealthier, nor do 'buy now pay later' scemes.
Freebie smart phone? wheres mine then? they are not 'free' :haha: we pay for them over a period of 12 months or more!
It's true, I've never owned a home. So? Yes, when I get another car it will be used, but it won't take me a year to pay if off. Do you have a problem with that? No, borrowing does not make me wealthier, but it does get me things I want. Do you have a problem with that? Do you want to alter society so everyone can buy things without debt? How? If you force employers to pay employees that kind of money they'll either have to hire fewer people or raise prices to cover it, and then the employees still can't afford them.

My phone isn't technically a "smart phone", but I paid $30 for it, not payments for a year. Also, with some plans they do indeed give you the phone for free, or for a greatly reduced price, so your :haha: is sorely misplaced.

JU_88

10-30-11, 03:19 PM

Steve, with all due respect, I think you are missing the point.
Please re-read.

This 1 percent of American society now controls more than half of the country's stocks and securities. And while the middle class is once again grappling with a lost decade that failed to bring increases in income, the high earners in the financial industry have raked in sometimes breathtaking sums. For example, the average income for securities traders has steadily climbed to $360,000 a year.

Still, that's nothing compared to the trend in executives' salaries. In 1980, American CEOs earned 42 times more than the average employee. Today, that figure has skyrocketed to more than 300 times. Last year, 25 of the country's highest-paid CEOs earned more than their companies paid in taxes.

What this is highlighting is that although the quality of life has improved for the poorer people in developed countries over the course of the 20th century.
That progression is now in a decline. The tables are turning backwards and the gap between the wealth bands is once again widening. Not a problem?
Well if the trend continues yes it is, as prices and Interests rise, borrowing becomes harder, the lower and lower middle classes can begin to lose the quality of lives they have established as easily as they got them in the first place.

If you force employers to pay employees that kind of money they'll either have to hire fewer people or raise prices to cover it, and then the employees still can't afford them.

Not if the money comes out of Net profits, Salaries and Bonuses of unneccesarily grotesque proportions, of which there are evidently many when you look at the current statistics.
You just explained to me that you dont need up market dwellings, a flashy new car and smart phone to to be happy, so by the same logic why does anyone need a $2 million bonus for example?
The amount of money in the system has increased over the decades, but the vast majority of us have not seen very much of it at all, as it gets filtered in to the pockets of the elite.

The difference between a society able to earn enough money to live well and one which has to borrow is simple.
Economic Stability (or there lack of). And this this is not just about the money either, it is also largely about control.

Am I suggesting an income rebalance in line with socialism? No, I am suggesting balancing it back as it was around the 1970s & 80s (where it was more favorable towards the average joe. So yes it is do-able because we have done it before.

Also, with some plans they do indeed give you the phone for free, or for a greatly reduced price, so your :haha: is sorely misplaced.

Ok so when you sign up to this plan, you pay the network provider a monthly fee right, for a contracted 18-36 months? Isn't that what a plan is? so heres the question, what are you paying for each month?
Do you think Network providers are merrily making a loss on these 'free' handsets they are supposedly handing out? Although it maybe appears to be 'free' the way it is presented to the customer, I can assure you that you are indeed paying them for it though your plan.

Sailor Steve

10-30-11, 04:08 PM

Steve, with all due respect, I think you are missing the point.
You made a direct statement. I addressed it. That you had other points is irrelevant to me. You were wrong on that one, at least where I'm concerned.

I do understand that things are getting worse, or at least not getting better. That said, the specifics you used to illustrate the point were incorrect, and that's what I addressed.

You just explained to me that you dont need up market dwellings, a flashy new car and smart phone to to be happy, so by the same logic why does anyone need a $2 million bonus for example?
Maybe they don't. Maybe athletes don't need multi-million-dollar salaries either. That said, it's not up to you or me to decide that. I like to illustrate this with the story of Michael Schumaker. Back in 1995, after two World Championships Ferrari asked Schumaker to drive for them. Schumi said he would do it for $1 million per race. Ferrari didn't even hesitate. Then they didn't have to pay a dime, because Shell Oil thought it was worth that much to have their logo on Ferrari's cars, and said if Ferrari would dump Agip and go with Shell they would pay Schumi's salary. So does Schumaker really need $16 million a year? I'd say no. But he was worth it to both Ferrari and Shell, and they were the ones spending the money, not you or me.

And maybe that CEO doesn't "need" a $2 million bonus. But that is the decision of the board and the shareholders, and maybe he's worth it to the company.

The amount of money in the system has increased over the decades, but the vast majority of us have not seen very much of it at all, as it gets filtered in to the pockets of the elite.
So they get more than you, or me, and people like me are homeless from time to time. Is it wrong? Morally, yes, almost certainly. Socially? Maybe. Legally? No, but to change that would take absolute authority, a dictatorship. Maybe you know someone who could be trusted to run that. I don't. Barring some other solution, I'd rather starve than give any government that kind of power.

Am I suggesting an income rebalance in line with socialism? No, I am suggesting balancing it back as it was around the 1970s & 80s (where it was more favorable towards the average joe. So yes it is do-able because we have done it before.
Sounds good, and I posted my above before reading this one from you. But again, how to make that happen?

Ok so when you sign up to this plan, you pay the network provider a monthly fee right? Isn't that what a plan is? so heres the question, what are you paying for each month? Line rental? You know that doesn't actually cost them anything right?
Of course, but you flat-out said the only way to get a smartphone was to buy it on credit, and you were wrong.

Do you think Network providers are merrily making a loss on these 'free' handsets they are supposedly handing out? Although it maybe appears to be 'free' the way it is presented to the customer, I can assure you that you are indeed paying them for it.
I have a blackberry-capable (which I never use) and very functional phone I paid $30 for. No plan. I pay by the minute - $15 per month, and I can drop it any time I want. Unlike some, I don't talk 1000 minutes per month. I don't even talk 100 minutes per month. If you're stupidly addicted to your phone then sure, you have to pay a lot. That's not anybody's fault but your own. No phone company is taking advantage of me, and your criticism of that is, in my case at least, once again wrong.

JU_88

10-30-11, 05:45 PM

You made a direct statement. I addressed it. That you had other points is irrelevant to me. You were wrong on that one, at least where I'm concerned.

You decided to trash my argument on the basis that my generalisation does not apply to you personally, from there you seem to have concluded that it cannot apply to anyone else either.

Of course, but you flat-out said the only way to get a smartphone was to buy it on credit, and you were wrong.

Nope i said:

Freebie smart phone? wheres mine then? they are not 'free' :haha: we pay for them over a period of 12 months or more!

Maybe not YOU, but that is how most people aquire the latest handsets, though contracts or payment plans (12 months+) of course you can buy any handset outright from a retailer or network provider on pay-as-you-go, but this means parting with a lump sum of cash up front - also not free! (we are talking hundreds of $$ for the most desirable hand sets)

I have a blackberry-capable (which I never use) and very functional phone I paid $30 for. No plan. I pay by the minute - $15 per month, and I can drop it any time I want.

So you payed $30 for a phone worth about $30 like a reasonably modest person, now do all the Non-Steves out their do that too? As you are about to point out - they do not.

Unlike some, I don't talk 1000 minutes per month. I don't even talk 100 minutes per month. If you're stupidly addicted to your phone then sure, you have to pay a lot. That's not anybody's fault but your own.

Yep again, those 'someones' happen to be an awful lot of people.

Steve the problem I'm having with your argument is that; you keep refering to youself as the only given example to prove wrong an argument that concerns millions of other people.

I must be wrong because what I said wasn't true of you personally, where as what Tater said, was. :06:

Sailor Steve

10-30-11, 07:25 PM

You decided to trash my argument on the basis that my generalisation does not apply to you personally, from there you seem to have concluded that it cannot apply to anyone else either.
That's the problem with generalizations - they don't apply to everybody, meaning not that they don't apply to anyone else, but that they don't apply to everyone, and hence are less than valid.

Nope i said:
Ah, so the "12 months" meant a plan, not credit. Sorry for misunderstanding what wasn't specified. I'm a little thick that way, taking things literally and all.

Maybe not YOU, but that is how most people aquire the latest handsets, though contracts or payment plans (12 months+) of course you can buy any handset outright from a retailer or network provider on pay-as-you-go, but this means parting with a lump sum of cash up front - also not free! (we are talking hundreds of $$ for the most desirable hand sets)
True, but people buy what they want, not what they need. You seem to be saying that's a bad thing. Are they really suffering? Is this the great evil of our society?

So you payed $30 for a phone worth about $30 like a reasonably modest person, now do all the Non-Steves out their do that too? As you are about to point out - they do not.
Okay, a lot of people pay a lot of money for a plan or for a phone. I'm saving up for a car and a new computer, which I can't just buy because I screwed up and my credit stinks. Should someone just give the computer I need to properly run SH5? Will that be the great improvement society needs? Am I succumbing to the Lords and Masters by wanting something I can't afford right now?

Yep again, those 'someones' happen to be an awful lot of people.
Yes, especially young people. They want the convenience and are willing to pay the price. Should they be made not to? Should the evil phone providers be forced to give them phones and service for free? For less? What exactly are you driving at?

Steve the problem I'm having with your argument is that; you keep refering to youself as the only given example to prove wrong an argument that concerns millions of other people.
And the problem I'm having with yours is that you tried to make an example of all those people, and I'm part of the proof that your argument isn't everything you want it to be. Worse, you're trying to illustrate a problem but not providing any answers. Exactly what do you want to do to fix these "problems"?

JU_88

10-30-11, 08:25 PM

Worse, you're trying to illustrate a problem but not providing any answers. Exactly what do you want to do to fix these "problems"?

So now Its a crime to illustrate a problem unless you can provide a solution?
Sorry I didnt realise that was the rule Steve.

I wasn't having a go at people who borrow money (but rather those who lend it), nor was I taking a pop at mobile network providers.
that was purley your own interpretation steve.
Actually I was trying to illustrate that Skybirds artical is maybe worth its salt, when everyone else is being so bloody dismissive of it.
But I guess so long as you all have running water and continue to live better than folks in 1920, everythings just peachy for you guys?

Sorry for giving a rats-ass,
lets just see what the next 10 years bring shall we?

mookiemookie

10-30-11, 09:14 PM

Two, and this is critical, IMHO, "wealth" is very hard to measure in a way that is meaningful for comparing people's lives, particularly compared across time.

It's absolutely irrelevant. The poor of today live better than the poor of the 1890s, and the poor of the 1890s lived better than the poor of the 1690s, and they lived better than the poor of 2000 BC. But what's that tell us? Absolutely nothing of the gap between the richest and the poorest today, which is the entire point. If a rising tide lifts all boats, then why are some boats rising faster than others? How the poor lived 100 years ago is irrelevant to the discussion.

gimpy117

10-30-11, 10:18 PM

It's been game over for the little Guy in the US for a long time. I'm still waiting for the super rich in this nation to build castles and start calling themselves lords.

1480

10-30-11, 11:05 PM

In the end, wealth is just another grading system.

Sailor Steve

10-30-11, 11:26 PM

So now Its a crime to illustrate a problem unless you can provide a solution?
Sorry I didnt realise that was the rule Steve.
Did I accuse you of a crime? Did I accuse you of anything? I asked you if you had a solution. I disagree with you, just as I disagree with a lot of people. Do you think because I disagree that I'm putting you down? For all I know you're right. I don't have any answers. I only argued against certain things you said, specific things, which I think are wrong.

On the other hand:
Would you care to enlighten me as how you think capitalsim works then? Specifically how maximum profit is achieved?
Was that not you doing to Tater exactly what you accuse me of doing to you?

I wasn't having a go at people who borrow money (but rather those who lend it), nor was I taking a pop at mobile network providers.
that was purley your own interpretation steve.
I never said you were. You came up with the examples, and I said that in my opinion they weren't valid. You then said I missed the point. What was the point, then?

Actually I was trying to illustrate that Skybirds artical is maybe worth its salt, when everyone else is being so bloody dismissive of it.
Okay, so that was your point. That leads you to:

But I guess so long as you all have running water and continue to live better than folks in 1920, everythings just peachy for you guys?
So, while saying I accused you of a crime, your actual arguing style is to dismiss our arguments with what, hiding our heads in the sand?

Sorry for giving a rats-ass
And finally disagreeing with you leads to a mocking false apology? What did anyone say to you to make you want to reply like that? Tater disagrees with you. Is that a crime? Neither he nor I accused you of anything, yet you accuse us of doing so. I will apologize for coming on strong, but dumping on people who disagree with you is a strange way of conducting an argument.

Skybird

10-31-11, 05:57 AM

Steve, JU-88, give it some rest. You are running circles over things that have little or nothing to do with the content of the article.

For the record, and to reiterate it:
The content the article is about is not ordinary people buying stuff they can afford with their wages.

It would be good when embarking on such discussions to actually read and refer to the piece that actually opens a thread or discussion.

Like every nation, the US also has several offices, some state-run, some privately maintained foundations, that collect statistical data of economy, finances, taxes. By chance I stumbled over several such articles in the past two weeks or so, all of them marking the same same general direction in their data's conclusions, agreeing with what the article here is saying. Also, thw widening gap between the top 1 and 5% of society, and the lowest25% - or whatever division model you prefer - is not new a reveleation in statistical analysis. It is an observation made since many years, and in many Western countries. But nowhere it seems to derail that extremely like in the US.

Statistics are not representative for the individual case. They even should not be, since that is not what statistics are designed for. What they should do is to make reality-grounded statements about whole groups and populations - not individuals. Therefore, it makes little sense to try countering a statistical statement by refering to one's own personal single example. The question then only is if your own example is representative for enough other individuals as well to make you all, as a group, able to form a footprint in statistical descriptions of the whole basic population. And voila - again you are dealing with groups - not individuals. So statistics can display majoirty and possibly minority groups as well, but again: not individuals. Your individual fate, from a statistical conclusion's point of view, is almost non-existent.

Be thankful that it is like this. Else those of you needing to take drugs and medications would not be able to generally trust them to do something good and not to add damage to your overall health. The whole process of drug evalutation is a statistical one. I dare say most of science also is tightly linked to statistical analysis, and empiry.

JU_88

10-31-11, 06:17 AM

Did I accuse you of a crime? Did I accuse you of anything? I asked you if you had a solution

No you didnt ask me, you implied that my inability to present a solution supports the fact my argument is worthless, (combined with the fact that you alone dont fit into my generalisation.)
its right here.

Worse, you're trying to illustrate a problem but not providing any answers.

I disagree with you, just as I disagree with a lot of people. Do you think because I disagree that I'm putting you down? For all I know you're right. I don't have any answers. I only argued against certain things you said, specific things, which I think are wrong.

As I said before, I became annoyed Steve, because you used yourself as the sole example to undermine an argument that applies to many people,
it would have been would be fine if you presented as "well i dont fit in to your generalisation." but you did not do this, you presented it as - I am proof that your entire generalisation must be wrong.

And that I found rather irritating - sorry.

On the other hand:

Was that not you doing to Tater exactly what you accuse me of doing to you?

No, I was asking him to explain to me his understanding of a system we live by, that works in very specific ways.
I was asking him to define something that already exists.
Where as you were asking me to suggest or create a currently non-existant solution to a problem that I am obviously not (in real world terms) qualified to solve.
You dont need to be a plumber to identify a leaking faucet.

I never said you were. You came up with the examples, and I said that in my opinion they weren't valid. You then said I missed the point. What was the point, then?

The point was, maybe in this case we'd be better off to look around us rather than just looking at ourselves.

So, while saying I accused you of a crime, your actual arguing style is to dismiss our arguments with what, hiding our heads in the sand?

To a large extent that is how I perceived it. to my mind, the 1920s comparisson, while it holds true. it is entirely ridiculous and irrelivant to the problems highlighted in the original post, i could only perceive it as a 'glossing over' and side-stepping the real issue that has been presented.
So yes, to me it seemed an awful lot like sticking ones head in the sand, hence my sarcasm.
And I dont know where you getting all this 'crime' business from, I accused people of being 'bloody dimissive' of the OP, but im pretty sure I didnt accuse anyone of being a criminal.

And finally disagreeing with you leads to a mocking false apology? What did anyone say to you to make you want to reply like that? Tater disagrees with you. Is that a crime? Neither he nor I accused you of anything, yet you accuse us of doing so. I will apologize for coming on strong, but dumping on people who disagree with you is a strange way of conducting an argument.

The mocking false apology was made out of genuine frustration for all of the above,
I lost my patience and for that i apologise to you.
Edit: Sorry Skybird, i will stop.

Ducimus

10-31-11, 06:54 AM

One, wealth is not zero-sum. The rich do not get richer on the backs of the poor or less fortunate. Wealth increases globally. The poor get slightly richer, the rich get much richer.I wonder if net worth for the richest includes leveraged assets, too... (who skews them higher for "theoretical" wealth—regardless, it's all on paper and is on the backs of no one, it's wealth conjured out of thin air).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZUOxn17Ms

Skybird

10-31-11, 07:31 AM

Wowh, that guy has made some very informative videos. Thanks for linking it up, Ducimus!

Relevant for this thread also is this film on the distribution of income (while Ducimus' link was about the distribution of wealth): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdA9t3Ck8Dg&feature=relmfu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdA9t3Ck8Dg&feature=relmfu)

Also liked this one, though it covers some more distant terrain:
Buy & Hold Investing Is Dead (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUWeRNMd0As&feature=relmfu)

Skybird

10-31-11, 07:34 AM

Edit: Sorry Skybird, i will stop.
Na, no need to apologize, I just think it would be nice if you two just settle your little argument more in private. Having been in your places myself repeatedly, I know how pretty much in vain it is to battle it out in a thread.

JU_88

10-31-11, 08:43 AM

This is a good one, nice an simple in its explaination
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjv-MtGpj2U&feature=related

Skybird

10-31-11, 09:16 AM

"All we can do is prepare for what may be VERY extraordinary circumstances."

^ This.

And maybe this will not save nevertheless the individual person that everybody of us is. In fact we already can see that it doesn'T. More and more people are finding themselves in free fall, without it being their individual fault. And it is worstening, spreading, and speeding up.

It'S like I am always saying: economics are not complicated. Complicated are only the efforts to hide disadvantages of the current system, or not to allow people becoming aware oif the unwanted truth about reality, to make moire lemmings willingly and peacefully climbing up to the top of the cliff.

Once up there they will either jump voluntarily, or pushed from the lemmings in their rear.

I'm worried by our forseeable future perspectives. And my personal perspective as well. As I see it, we quickly run out of options. A decline in the number of available options is not good.

Sailor Steve

10-31-11, 09:22 AM

The mocking false apology was made out of genuine frustration for all of the above,
I lost my patience and for that i apologise to you.
No need really, as I feel, as I always do, pretty much the same way. I didn't mean to push any buttons, just to disagree.

I know how pretty much in vain it is to battle it out in a thread.
But it's so much more fun. :oops:

JU_88

10-31-11, 09:29 AM

No need really, as I feel, as I always do, pretty much the same way. I didn't mean to push any buttons, just to disagree.

But it's so much more fun. :oops:

I am as much to blame, dont worry about it - you know I love you really :O:

Skybird

10-31-11, 09:33 AM

But it's so much more fun. :oops:

At first, maybe, but remember our own example, you and me. We started relaxed and "light", and ended somewhat bitter, and not agreeing one bit more on things. I was frustrated , and you were so angry that you said you would ignore me in the future. What have we acchieved? Not much, I would say.

That'S why I now sometimes chose to not even answer anymore to somebody. Not because it is that somebody, but because I see it outlined already in his reply where it would lead.

In German we say "von Stöcksken zu Hölzken", by meaning it translates into "from small pieces to even smaller pieces". It means to get lost and frittered first over sentences two postings ago, then over words five postings ago, and in the end over single syllables and punctuation in a different thread. The original argument then already plays no more role anymore - since long.

Sailor Steve

10-31-11, 09:41 AM

I am as much to blame, dont worry about it - you know I love you really :O:
Just keep it platonic. :stare:

I was frustrated , and you were so angry that you said you would ignore me in the future.
Only because of the names you called me, and that when I was agreeing with you in principle if not in specifics. I was never angry about the argument itself. I just don't do that. I do, however, say things in a manner that provokes the other guy, for which I will always apologize, since I can't seem to help doing it.

Skybird

10-31-11, 09:53 AM

Naturally, back then I saw that very differently than you say now.

:03:

Maybe we should analyse it again, this time thoroughly and in depth. :88)

Sailor Steve

10-31-11, 09:59 AM

Naturally, back then I saw that very differently than you say now.

:03:

Maybe we should analyse it again, this time thoroughly and in depth. :88)
If we can stay away from the fireworks, I would be honored.

Skybird

10-31-11, 10:41 AM

1-2 hours of researching the forum software and collecting records on when who said what and where, in reference to what posting earlier, which was a reply to something before that, claiming contexts the other denied or forgot or rejected, and this over several different discussion threads on the same principle issue, with many diverting sub-discussions on micromanaged sub-level details in...

[intervention mode on]
*** FULL STOP ... WARNING ... SELF-DESTRUCTION IS IMMINENT ***
[intervention mode off]

As long as one cannot get an academic grade for that, I think I pass on it. Using SPSS for the statistics part of my diploma study was easier. :DL

Blood_splat

10-31-11, 10:46 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZUOxn17Ms
Will let the bull loose.

soopaman2

10-31-11, 10:47 AM

:)

Is America is Oligarchy?

The real question is how long has it been one?

Trickle down economics era (St. Ronald), or even longer? I say longer.

I believe we have been one since WW2, when the airplane and munitions factories saw how profitable war was.

America just seems to get into less and less noble wars since then.
Korea was a proxy war between us and the USSR.

Vietnam was as well ultimatly, we tried to help the French, and they ran away and left us with a bucket of feces that killed 60,000 men, and had many more brave survivors spit on by people like Jane Fonda.

First desert storm was the only real noble one (or was it?), and if that was some garbage pit in Malacca we would not have cared... But the OIL!

Last 2? Iraq, Afghanistan?
Sorry, utter bullcrap, people got rich but the American people lost.
(I lost alot in these 2)

Military Industrial Complex... Ask Ike.

How about the prison industry? Filthy potheads in prison with killers and arsonists, and getting heavier sentences in some cases..

Thats another thread..

Sailor Steve

10-31-11, 12:42 PM

Vietnam was as well ultimatly, we tried to help the French, and they ran away and left us with a bucket of feces that killed 60,000 men, and had many more brave survivors spit on by people like Jane Fonda.
I can't agree or disagree with some of the others, but Vietnam was nothing like that at all.

Skybird

10-31-11, 05:50 PM

:)
Vietnam was as well ultimatly, we tried to help the French, and they ran away and left us with a bucket of feces that killed 60,000 men, and had many more brave survivors spit on by people like Jane Fonda.

You came to the help of the French in Indochine? That is the most absurd and most distorted explanation for the American Vietnam war I have ever heared.

As a matter of fact the French unerestimated the capability of the Vietnamese, got shreddered, and when trying to let America know of their experiences and how to not make their mistakes, Washington did not want to listen to their hard-learned lessons.

You came after the French, yes. But not to help them. Leave it to saying that you just went there, for some idiotic reason and after staging an incident.

There are only wars of needs and wars of choice and desire. Vietnam was one of the latter, like most of America's wars since WWII.

Desert Storm also could be debated, considering how Wshington allowed it to end and how the American ambassador send mixed signals to Saddam before he went into Kuwait, and that Saddam was Washington's pet they still continued to allow a long line after Desert Storm, when he cracked down on the Shia that trusted in Washington'S promise to assist them. As we know by now, that trust was a very bad mistake.

soopaman2

10-31-11, 07:18 PM

You came to the help of the French in Indochine? That is the most absurd and most distorted explanation for the American Vietnam war I have ever heared.

As a matter of fact the French unerestimated the capability of the Vietnamese, got shreddered, and when trying to let America know of their experiences and how to not make their mistakes, Washington did not want to listen to their hard-learned lessons.

You came after the French, yes. But not to help them. Leave it to saying that you just went there, for some idiotic reason and after staging an incident.

There are only wars of needs and wars of choice and desire. Vietnam was one of the latter, like most of America's wars since WWII.

Desert Storm also could be debated, considering how Wshington allowed it to end and how the American ambassador send mixed signals to Saddam before he went into Kuwait, and that Saddam was Washington's pet they still continued to allow a long line after Desert Storm, when he cracked down on the Shia that trusted in Washington'S promise to assist them. As we know by now, that trust was a very bad mistake.

Yes all bullcrap. We agree on one thing. Proxy war on communism is what I believe. Others see different, but unless you or me are one of the initiators we will never know, all we know is that someone got wealthy from it, which was my point of the whole thing...

I tend to look at the big picture, poor men died, while rich men prospered.

Madox58

10-31-11, 07:26 PM

The Foreigion Legionaires were done in it at Dien Bien Phu in 1954.
The U.S. involvement came later for the greatest extent.

It was two different Wars for the outsiders.
It was just another day at War for the population.

SubV

10-31-11, 08:14 PM

:)

Is America is Oligarchy?

The real question is how long has it been one?

Certainly it is. Democracy is just the facade.

How long? I think, almost from the beginning.

the_tyrant

10-31-11, 09:36 PM

let me change Steve's quote a bit:
"'Society' has no rights. 'The Majority' has no rights. 'The Minority' has no rights. 'Humans' have no rights. No group has rights. Only money has rights."

I remember clearly the first chapter in my Chinese political science text book:

Capitalist society is built on oppression. It can either be people in the country who are oppressed (traditional capitalism), people overseas who are oppressed (outsourcing), or simple a nation and its riches are pillaged and raped (imperialism and colonialism)

Frankly, in my opinion, communism is the same thing, just that they spew propaganda at you insisting that "the oppressors are no more!"

I have an online buddy, from Albania. He is a supporter of capitalism and class division. This is what he tells me:
"Under communism, we were pretty much classless, in which we were all poor. With capitalism, at least I am rich, most others are still poor though."

Platapus

10-31-11, 09:54 PM

l
I have an online buddy, from Albania. He is a supporter of capitalism and class division. This is what he tells me:
"Under communism, we were pretty much classless, in which we were all poor. With capitalism, at least I am rich, most others are still poor though."

Yeah, capitalism works pretty good when you are the rich one. :yeah::D

Sailor Steve

10-31-11, 10:34 PM

Frankly, in my opinion, communism is the same thing, just that they spew propaganda at you insisting that "the oppressors are no more!"

I have an online buddy, from Albania. He is a supporter of capitalism and class division. This is what he tells me:
"Under communism, we were pretty much classless, in which we were all poor. With capitalism, at least I am rich, most others are still poor though."
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1686526&postcount=20

August

10-31-11, 11:13 PM

Say what you want about my country but I still would rather live here than anywhere else.

JU_88

11-01-11, 04:21 AM

Say what you want about my country but I still would rather live here than anywhere else.

Thats cool, but can I ask, have you been anywhere else much?
I know home is home, im just asking.

Vietnam was as well ultimatly, we tried to help the French, and they ran away and left us with a bucket of feces that killed 60,000 men, and had many more brave survivors spit on by people like Jane Fonda.

Nope you got involved in Vietnam in a bid to contain the spread of Communism in south east asia, why would the US help the French re-establish their pre-WW2 empire, when at the time the U.S was strongly against British and European colonialism?
Ho Chi Mihn was a communist who was about to establish a Soviet backed Regime in Vietnam (after the French Defeat),
Vietnams neighbours - Laos, Cambodia and Thailand had weak goverments that could easily follow suit (The Domino Theory) America saw Communism as a threat, so a new Soviet block in south east asia was the last thing it wanted.
Simples ;)

August

11-01-11, 07:10 AM

Thats cool, but can I ask, have you been anywhere else much?
I know home is home, im just asking.

Lived in Germany for three years does that count?

Skybird

11-01-11, 07:45 AM

Lived in Germany for three years does that count?

If you spent that time in an isolation cell of the MP, then not.

:O:

Tribesman

11-01-11, 08:22 AM

Lived in Germany for three years does that count?
Were you getting paid in dollars, shopping in the PX, buying gas by the gallon and reading the news in Stars and Stripes?

August

11-01-11, 09:03 AM

If you spent that time in an isolation cell of the MP, then not.

:O:

That was only part of the time I swear!

The rest of my off duty time was spent at my Grandparents house in Altenbuch or my Aunt and uncles place in Hanau just soaking up that German culture and trying to convince the locals that room temperature beer was a sin against nature.

Betonov

11-01-11, 10:01 AM

....trying to convince the locals that room temperature beer was a sin against nature.

I sincerely hope you were succesefull :DL

Speaking as a liberal european, here's my comment: I don't believe that the US has become an oligarchy. Anyone can become succesefull. It's just that the playing fields are too unbalanced in favor of those who are allready rich

mookiemookie

11-01-11, 11:02 AM

Anyone can become succesefull. It's just that the playing fields are too unbalanced in favor of those who are allready rich

The deck is stacked against you if you're starting out poor. Make a math mistake when balancing your checking account? Overdraw fees are around $35 each on every charge on your account while it's in the red. They could very well eat up your entire paycheck without you even knowing it. This is on top of the debit card fees, ATM fees, sevice charges and other assorted fees that the bank is trying to pile on to you.

Try to avoid bank fees by cashing your paycheck? Check cashing places charge a percentage of your check to do so.

Payday loans? Your bank ate up all of your paycheck in fees and you need $100 to keep the electricity on? Payday loan places have usurious interest rates, especially if you fall for their trap of extending the term in order to lower your payments. We're talking APRs in the hundreds of percents.

So let's say you've run the gamut of fees just to use your money. You're responsible and you don't get mixed up with credit cards and the like. But what's this? Oh, you don't have credit? Sorry, you're not renting an apartment without a credit check. You have no credit, so you don't get an apartment. By some miracle, you find a place to live - oh wait, the electric company runs a credit check on you and you need to put down a $300 deposit before they'll turn on service for you. Same for most any utility provider - phone, cable, etc.

Car breaks down on the way to your hourly wage job? You don't show up, you don't get paid. You live out in the country, so no bus or subway service for you. So now you're out the cost of the car repair, plus the hours of work you missed.

Oh but you gotta pull yourself up by your bootstraps and work hard and you'll be a millionaire. Just take a second job, right? Assuming you can find one that works around your other job's hours, that is. You get the interview, but oh wait, don't mention that you have another job. That alone's usually enough to get the thumbs down from the interviewer. Why do they want to hire someone like you when they have a ton of other people with no job who can work whenever?

Educate yourself, get a better job than the hourly wage crap, right? Ok, sign up for night classes at community college. Take out student loans for books and tuition. Hope you can give up the hours at your second job and still make the bills, right? Not to mention the student loan process, which is designed to absolutely screw people. But that's another post altogether.

So just move to a place where there's better jobs, right? Moving costs money. You have to deal with the loss of income while you're unemployed and looking for one of these mythical "better" jobs. And then there's the whole deal about the credit checks from landlords and deposits to get your utilities turned on.

I'm not saying that all of this is the system's fault, or the rich people's fault, or anyone's fault. I'm just saying that this whole story they sell you about "anyone can be a success if they just work hard enough" is a load of crap. It sucks to be poor, and a lot of times, despite your best efforts, you stay poor. If hard work was all it took to be rich, I'd know a ton of Mexican and central American immigrants who were bajillionaires. Some of those guys work 2 and 3 jobs, 7 days a week.