Has America become an oligarchy?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by JU_88

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by tater

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).

[Skybird]

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):

Also liked this one, though it covers some more distant terrain:

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JU_88

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]

This is a good one, nice an simple in its explaination

[Skybird]

"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]

Originally Posted by JU_88

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

I know how pretty much in vain it is to battle it out in a thread.

But it's so much more fun.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

But it's so much more fun.

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]

Originally Posted by JU_88

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

Just keep it platonic.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

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



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

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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



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

If we can stay away from the fireworks, I would be honored.

[Skybird]

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.