With The U.S. Government Shutdown...

[Rickster71]

I could be making this up, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Rick is running a pretty strong campaign to become the new Queen of Canada.

I wish you woulda mentioned this sooner.... I didn't even realize it was a thing.
So there's that, and the unlimited shoes.

 

[psbfan9]

Seems that 'Shutstorm 2013' is over. My representative, Jackie Walorski, voted against reopening the government. They claim that ACA is a job killer and would put thousands out of work and cost tax payers millions. Yet estimates suggest that during Shutstorm 2013 400,000 were put out of work and Mitch McConnell walked away with 3 Billion dollars for a dam in Kentucky paid for by....tax payers.

 

[Rickster71]

There was more than just that too: There's a little pork in that bill: 5 most surprising provisions - CNN.com

 

[psbfan9]

There was more than just that too: There's a little pork in that bill: 5 most surprising provisions - CNN.com

It's so ridiculous. These people have no clue. They think of taxes as free money for them to do with what they want.

I tend to be politically active. I write my representative's and let them know what I think. The only way anything will change is if ordinary citizens stand up and communicate with their elected officials.

 

[Chu Gai]

But ordinary citizens as a rule haven't with anything resembling concerted consistency. Politicians need citizens for their votes and they find ways using sophisticated data gathering and analysis techniques(read the book, The Numerati by Baker) to give people the illusion their opinions matter while vacuuming up their dollar contributions for campaigning. After that it's the lobbyists and their money that matters. Look at all these yokels in Washington. A bunch of people who've had the same title for years upon years. What happens in your company when a bunch of people have the same title doing the same job more or less for umpteen years and the company issnt doing any better? Fire each and everyone of these c*********s and bring some new blood in.

 

[Adam]

I just saw something on Facebook that grabbed my attention and that I wanted to share. Granted, this doesn't really fit here...but it seemed the best current thread outside of the Boring one.

I never really got the whole "1%" thing, you know with the "Occupy [Pick Place]" protests. This didn't upset me. I just found it interesting.

Want to know where you fit in (or, at least, around ~2010 when the data was compiled)? Below are just the top couple of hits from Google.
* Here is a calculator for both your income and net worth from The Wealth Report website.
* Here is another one that isn't so graphical, but gives more data (and here is the government data source for this calculator).

 

[Rickster71]

That was interesting.

A few things that struck me in that video.
At the beginning he spoke of, "How wealth was distributed"
As a poor kid growing up, that saved every penny in an old coffee can; I took issue with that.
Wealth is earned, not distributed.

The very last line, "The reality in this country, isn't what we think it is."
What most people think in their own minds is rarely, if ever in sync with reality.
When we take into account the vast number of psychological conditions, from shyness, social phobias, anxiety, depression, low self esteem, to narcissism, and so on.
Reality is rarely or never ever what we think.

 

[Adam]

Wealth is earned, not distributed.

I believe that "distribution" in this context refers to statistics and not the act of sharing.

That said, I think that the 1% protests were based on the belief that some wealth is not actually earned.

 

[Rickster71]

I believe that "distribution" in this context refers to statistics and not the act of sharing.

I love talking about stuff like this. It sure beats the, "I need a 5.1 and flay screen system for $400 type threads"

I agree, they didn't literally mean share.
However, it's underlying political tone did.
They are quite simply, manufacturing consent.
I could tell it was political when they didn't include entertainers or ball players, in their 10% that didn't work as hard, or hard enough for their money.

There is so much to type on this, I don't know where to begin.

It's so very relative; poor in this country is nothing like the "Real" poor in, say, India or China that have dirt floors.
Here the poor have cell phones, tattoos and can afford cigarettes.

I remember in high school, wondering why we were told that Spanish was the language to study, that it would one day become a predominant language in the USA.
It was know by some then that we were slowly being moved to have a world government.
Homogenize as many countries as possible, and slowly equalize their economies.
This included taking the USA down a few pegs.

 

[Rickster71]

If interested, here's a book I read years ago that goes into greater detail than I can.
The Book

 

[Adam]

I love talking about stuff like this. It sure beats the, "I need a 5.1 and flay screen system for $400 type threads"

Agreed! Plus, I also (clearly) like to show off my ignorance. So, here's a random smattering of thoughts.

We're told that life isn't fair, and it's true that rewards aren't universally commiserate with effort. I apply that statement to all life, not just humans. So, I don't get very worked up that someone else makes more money than me. Maybe they did "less," maybe not.

There's also a difference between how much someone is "worth" and how much stuff the person has. There are people who have a s**t ton of things and would be way down on the list of net worth because they're in debt, but they still have that stuff. Then there's the discussion of if material possessions lead to happiness...well, duh, of course they do. J/K. Having more money, or more stuff, doesn't lead to more happiness - unless you have so little that you're struggling to survive.

One thing that many people are aware of, but also many people aren't, is that money only works because we agree to let it. After all, digital/paper "wealth" has no inherent value in regards to survival. Well, I suppose that you can burn paper money (and people have in the past when it has become worthless), but some number on a computer screen with your bank balance isn't going to fill your belly. If stuff ever truly hit the fan, like a planet-wide disaster, and societal infrastructures collapsed (like distribution of power, food, etc.) - people would soon learn that a blanket is better than a TV, and food is a lot better than gold. In that scenario, if I had a stash of food and some ex-CEO offered me a check for $1M to buy some, I'd keep the food unless I thought that some other moron would actually believe that the check represented some value.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Adam, that is a very interesting chart. Wealth distribution in Canada has also become more skewed towards the wealthy over the last several years - although not quite to the same degree as in the USA. I'm not really sure what to make of it all. There will always be poor people, as far as I'm concerned. Some just can't help themselves, or be helped. Does that absolve us from trying to help the least fortunate in our societies? I don't think so. I just don't know what the best method is to ensure a better life for the poorest.

Socialists would just say "take it from the rich". If only it was that simple. Do the wealthy "deserve" what they have. Some do, some don't.

The large raises in executive compensation have probably had a large influence on the distribution of wealth over the last several years. Why has executive compensation been increasing at a rate far above company earnings? The cynic in me would point a finger at the "old boys club", i.e. boards of directors. You get directors serving on numerous boards and they will scratch each other's backs, so to speak. They set very high compensation packages, with the understanding that the favour will be returned. Shareholder protests get ignored, because the majority of shares are held by who? The old boy's club, of course. If I'm right, it's fair to argue that they do not deserve their pay. That's a generalization, of course. I know there are hard-working executives who earn every dime they get. However, I do not believe that to be universal.

 

[Nestor]

I love talking about stuff like this. It sure beats the, "I need a 5.1 and flay screen system for $400 type threads"

I agree, they didn't literally mean share.
However, it's underlying political tone did.
They are quite simply, manufacturing consent.
I could tell it was political when they didn't include entertainers or ball players, in their 10% that didn't work as hard, or hard enough for their money.

There is so much to type on this, I don't know where to begin.

It's so very relative; poor in this country is nothing like the "Real" poor in, say, India or China that have dirt floors.
Here the poor have cell phones, tattoos and can afford cigarettes.

I remember in high school, wondering why we were told that Spanish was the language to study, that it would one day become a predominant language in the USA.
It was know by some then that we were slowly being moved to have a world government.
Homogenize as many countries as possible, and slowly equalize their economies.
This included taking the USA down a few pegs.

You need to be careful with that comparison of the poor.

One of the Koch brothers posted an ad over the summer claiming that if you earned approx. 34K/yr, you were part of the 1%.

Of the World.

Like him.

 

[Nestor]

Adam, that is a very interesting chart. Wealth distribution in Canada has also become more skewed towards the wealthy over the last several years - although not quite to the same degree as in the USA. I'm not really sure what to make of it all. There will always be poor people, as far as I'm concerned. Some just can't help themselves, or be helped. Does that absolve us from trying to help the least fortunate in our societies? I don't think so. I just don't know what the best method is to ensure a better life for the poorest.

Socialists would just say "take it from the rich". If only it was that simple. Do the wealthy "deserve" what they have. Some do, some don't.

The large raises in executive compensation have probably had a large influence on the distribution of wealth over the last several years. Why has executive compensation been increasing at a rate far above company earnings? The cynic in me would point a finger at the "old boys club", i.e. boards of directors. You get directors serving on numerous boards and they will scratch each other's backs, so to speak. They set very high compensation packages, with the understanding that the favour will be returned. Shareholder protests get ignored, because the majority of shares are held by who? The old boy's club, of course. If I'm right, it's fair to argue that they do not deserve their pay. That's a generalization, of course. I know there are hard-working executives who earn every dime they get. However, I do not believe that to be universal.

One of the reasons things don't change is many adhere to a Horatio Alger view towards upward mobility. They don't want to change things at the top because of the belief they too will be part of that exclusive club.

 

[Rickster71]

You need to be careful with that comparison of the poor.

One of the Koch brothers posted an ad over the summer claiming that if you earned approx. 34K/yr, you were part of the 1%.

Of the World.

Like him.

Mathematically he was right, because he said 1% in the entire world.
People fall for the hyperbole of the story, because many don't understand economies of scale.

What do you guys think is behind the Class Warfare movement?

I have trouble understanding those that cry 'foul' when it comes to Capitalism when a corporation makes money, (let's say with the invention of the Transistor.)
While with the same use of capitalism, Oprah's net worth www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/oprah-net-worth/http://www.celebritynetworth.com/ is $2.9 Billion / #300 Million per year. (no cries of foul)

 

[psbfan9]

I love talking about stuff like this. It sure beats the, "I need a 5.1 and flay screen system for $400 type threads"

Agreed! Plus, I also (clearly) like to show off my ignorance. So, here's a random smattering of thoughts.

Thirded! Who's ignorant now?! .... But, this topic can quickly get heated. Let's all agree that it be kept civil and respectful of others comments no matter how wrong they are.

 

[Nestor]

Mathematically he was right, because he said 1% in the entire world.
People fall for the hyperbole of the story, because many don't understand economies of scale.

What do you guys think is behind the Class Warfare movement?

I have trouble understanding those that cry 'foul' when it comes to Capitalism when a corporation makes money, (let's say with the invention of the Transistor.)
While with the same use of capitalism, Oprah's net worth www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/oprah-net-worth/http://www.celebritynetworth.com/ is $2.9 Billion / #300 Million per year. (no cries of foul)

The Koch ad was disingenuous, of course.

Oprah is a pauper compared to those who hold the real wealth, like the Koch brothers or Waltons. When the second richest man in the world says he doesn't pay enough in taxes, people have to say there is a problem.

I have no problems with corps making money, but with today's low taxes in the upper brackets, there is no incentive to put that money back into the business. It's easier to throw it into risky investments. History shows time and again that when income disparity increases, so does volatility in the stock market. The Robber Barons during the Guilded Age are a perfect example.

And it's the select wealthy, like the Koch's and Sheldon Adelson, who are behind the contrived "class warfare".

 

[Adam]

But, this topic can quickly get heated.

Sure, among math nerds.

I know, I know...you're talking about the discussion on if it's fair or not. There's a lot more to life's fairness/unfairness than monetary wealth, though. A lot more.

I like Rick's comparison between CEO's and athletes/celebrities. Does someone catching a ball warrant a higher salary than someone running a multi-billion dollar industry that employs tens of thousands of people (all of whom would need to find new jobs if that company went under)? I don't think so...but I'm not a sports fan.

I really didn't think about until this morning that 1% of the U.S.A. is more than three million people. Three million, who apparently make enormous piles of cash every year. That's a lot of people, not just a few old dudes in a board room.

 

[Rickster71]

The Koch ad was disingenuous, of course.

Oprah is a pauper compared to those who hold the real wealth, like the Koch brothers or Waltons.

I wasn't talking about Oprah going dollar for dollar against other billionaires.
It's more that I'm comparing the "cherry picking" of the types of capitalism that gets demonized or not.
Also questioning if Oprah is really worth that much.

I have no problems with corps making money, but with today's low taxes in the upper brackets, there is no incentive to put that money back into the business.

Any tax breaks corporations or the rich get, are there because the politicians we all elect give the breaks to them.

The same politicians that are still immune to insider trading laws. Despite last year's political theatrics with a bill signed to the contrary.

Hmmm, I wonder how all those corporations got so big if there's no incentive to put monies back into the business...

And it's the select wealthy, like the Koch's and Sheldon Adelson, who are behind the contrived "class warfare".

Well there's also the selectivity of not mentioning George Soros.
See, it becomes a game of, "The Republicans billionaire vs the Democrat's billionaire.

All to distract the voters that we're all really in this together.
We, the voter/tax payer has been divided & conquered.

 

[Adam]

We...[have] been divided & conquered.

"What did one butt cheek say to the other at a Twister tournament?"

"That's correct."

"Audioholics Trivia for $800, Alex."