MATH

[Supercreep]

Breakdown;
The USA only equals 1.8% of the surface area of planet Earth.
Currently, every single man, woman, and child on this planet could easily occupy their own 2000 sq ft house in the USA... and still have a 2839 sq ft yard.

However...
The 5% of the global population that claims ownership and control of entire Earth (Industry and Government)... claim that the supply of global resources can't keep up with the demand of over population.

Furthermore...
They also claim that overpopulation is polluting the Earth and atmosphere... when industry is obviously mass producing the pollution for the sake of profit.

Then...
Government, at the behest of global industry, taxes the 95% with the responsibility of cleaning up the mess.

Dust off your calculator and try to remember your 6th grade math...

This is a joke, right?

I apologize in advance if you are in fact a small child who is still developing basic reasoning skills. If so, please don't be discouraged and continue to develop your interest in economics and global politics.

If not, this is a joke, right? Like these flat Earth folks?

Literally none of this works the way you think it works. I'm certain you're a very nice guy and it would be great to share a beer with you (unless, as noted above, you are a small child, because that would be weird and illegal). But boy your analysis is a hot mess, brother. : )

Here are some data points I am certain you didn't consider and will almost certainly ignore:

The total land surface area of earth is @57,308,738 square miles, of which 57 percent is uninhabitable. Not that it matters at all, because the total habitable land mass of earth isn't very relevant to economic developement or whatever conspiracy you're working out.

Humans aren't assigned grid coordinates where they may live and work and reproduce, etc.

Five percent of the "global population" - a metric no one uses because it is useless - does not claim ownership of the entire Earth. This is the kind of thing that crazy people mutter to themselves on public transportation.

Industry and government are different from each other, and are different categorically depending on what country you're talking about. So "global industry" doesn't exist, just like "global government" doesn't exist.

The global cabal of Industry and government, despite not existing, do not agree that overpopulation is polluting the Earth and it's atmosphere.

"Mass producing pollution" seems like an uninspiring and unprofitable business venture. Maybe the crazy public transportation set sees it differently.

95 percent of the "global population," which I will remind you is an utterly vapid and pointless metric, may pay taxes to some government, but they aren't paying to the "global government" that purports to act at the behest of "global industry."

 

[ecc83]

Do they keep it "locked away"? Like it's shoved in a mattress doing nothing?

How do you propose to make Iran and the rest of the Middle East, Israel/Gaza, Russia, China, Africa, Central and South America, etc. a nice place? Throwing money at urban craphole crime centers in the US has never done anything but make them worse. I keep hearing how great California's economy supposedly is, yet poster boy for Brylcreem and leftist ideals Gavin Newsom can't keep the feces and needles off the streets of San Francisco.

I keep hearing people talking about greedy corporations that pay their executives too much, don't treat their workers fairly, don't do the right thing with their wealth. What I never see are those same people creating hugely profitable corporations that distribute the profits in what they perceive to be the right way.

By "locked away" I mean for instance in tax havens. A quick Google gave me a global figure of between 20 and 30 trillion USD. So that is wealth IN ADDITION to that held more obviously by some people.

No, I do not have answers to many of your questions and points except to say that I feel sure that "ordinary" people of those countries you mention would have their lives made considerably easier with just a tiny fraction of those trillions.

Dave.

 

[Supercreep]

tax havens

There are several remedies to this, the most obvious having more competetive corporate tax rates.

A "tax haven" can be any number of legal ways to structure your investments and keep more of your own money. I imagine the reason they aren't illegal is because the legislature didn't want them to be illegal. This is likely because they'd be voted in a single cycle if they tried to magically appropriate taxpayers' money for redistribution to foriegn shores.

 

[Supercreep]

Along the way you notice virtually every "emergency" or "crisis" the government "must address" means only more spending. The spending will NEVER decrease.

After a while you notice that the problem never gets solved, despite how much spending is increased

The red pill is when you realize that THE SPENDING IS THE POINT and it's all going to mortgages and eating out and college for the kids.

Your money isn't fixing the problem; it's being given to someone else who is going to do their job and maybe issue a report but under no circumstances is their job going away. In fact, we're gonna hire more people to spend more money and create more reports.

None of these people actually give a fuck. The people that really give a fuck are paid to give a fuck with someone else's money.

I'll be dead soon enough and will let another generation figure it out. For now the grift goes all the way down.

 

[PorterhouseMusic]

Do they keep it "locked away"? Like it's shoved in a mattress doing nothing?

How do you propose to make Iran and the rest of the Middle East, Israel/Gaza, Russia, China, Africa, Central and South America, etc. a nice place? Throwing money at urban craphole crime centers in the US has never done anything but make them worse. I keep hearing how great California's economy supposedly is, yet poster boy for Brylcreem and leftist ideals Gavin Newsom can't keep the feces and needles off the streets of San Francisco.

I keep hearing people talking about greedy corporations that pay their executives too much, don't treat their workers fairly, don't do the right thing with their wealth. What I never see are those same people creating hugely profitable corporations that distribute the profits in what they perceive to be the right way.

It's fascinating to me - listening to people defend income inequality and the gross hording of profits and capital. Someone needs to read some Thomas Picketty.

 

[PorterhouseMusic]

There are several remedies to this, the most obvious having more competetive corporate tax rates.

A "tax haven" can be any number of legal ways to structure your investments and keep more of your own money. I imagine the reason they aren't illegal is because the legislature didn't want them to be illegal. This is likely because they'd be voted in a single cycle if they tried to magically appropriate taxpayers' money for redistribution to foriegn shores.

It's, of course, no surprise that private concentrated capital will influence policy to serve those interests. No sir - no rocket science there.

 

[Slouching Raymond]

Money is just a number in a bank account, or bank notes stuffed in a matress.
Any savings I have are in the bank, which means they are lent out to others for a fee.
So, this 'wealth' is not really locked away.
The best person to decide what happens to money is the person that earned it.
I do not aggree with the Labour Party's 'wealth re-distribution' agenda.

 

[brassplyer]

It's fascinating to me - listening to people defend income inequality and the gross hording of profits and capital. Someone needs to read some Thomas Picketty.

Doing a brief look I see he's a French apologist for socialism.

How much of your income have you given away to those who don't make as much as you to make things more equitable? How many times have you paid more in taxes than required out of a sense of equity duty? Ditto the same questions re: Piketty?

How much of their fortune do the billionaires of the world owe you - you know, to make things more equitable?

Going back to my proposition what's stopping you from building a multi-billion dollar corporation, paying yourself only subsistence wages and distributing the rest in what you think is the right way?

 

[PorterhouseMusic]

Doing a brief look I see he's a French apologist for socialism.

How much of your income have you given away to those who don't make as much as you to make things more equitable? How many times have you paid more in taxes than required out of a sense of equity duty? Ditto the same questions re: Piketty?

How much of their fortune do the billionaires of the world owe you - you know, to make things more equitable?

Going back to my proposition what's stopping you from building a multi-billion dollar corporation, paying yourself only subsistence wages and distributing the rest in what you think is the right way?

Color Piketty however you please. His credentials and respect among those in his field speak for itself. He seems to have concluded that:

1) Income inequality exists, and is worsening
2) That it's not healthy, not a good thing for the masses, and that it's unsustainable for the few who benefit
3) That it's worth it to study (deeply, in his case) and look at possible solutions to the problem - and write about that

Like most subjects - it's not a black and white thing. I have spent a considerable time thinking about this. What I will tell you is this: Simply from a philosophical point of view - "just because you can doesn't mean you should" applies to capital and markets the same way as it applies to other subjects. I have operated a thriving and growing small business in my community for nearly twenty years. I could be much bigger and could be making *a lot* more money than I have or am currently. I choose not to take advantage in terms of maximizing growth. It's not about maximum profit and growth for me. It's the very reason that I got into this. I wanted to prove that you could/can make a decent living, save (for retirement), give back, and leave something for my kids all while providing an excellent service and building trust with my customers. I'm not perfect and it has not always been smooth sailing. But this philosophy has worked for me. I happen to believe - or wish might be a better word - that this could apply to a larger economy if it were simply adopted. It's just a different way of looking at it. A shift in perspective. I don't expect everyone to agree. It's just the way that I see it, the path I've chosen. Balance.

 

[leddy]

Color Piketty however you please. His credentials and respect among those in his field speak for itself. He seems to have concluded that:

1) Income inequality exists, and is worsening
2) That's it's not a healthy, not a good thing for the masses, and that it's unsustainable for the few who benefit
3) That's it's worth it to study (deeply, in his case) and look at possible solutions to the problem - and write about that

Like most subjects - it's not a black and white thing. I have spent a considerable time thinking about this. What I will tell you is this: Simply from a philosophical point of view - "just because you can doesn't mean you should" applies to capital and markets the same way as it applies to other subjects. I have operated a thriving and growing small business in my community for nearly twenty years. I could be much bigger and could be making *a lot* more money than I have or am currently. I choose not to take advantage in terms of maximizing growth. It's not about maximum profit and growth for me. It's the very reason that I got into this. I wanted to prove that you could/can make a decent living, save (for retirement), give back, and leave something for my kids all while providing an excellent service and building trust with my customers. I'm not perfect and it has not always been smooth sailing. But this philosophy has worked for me. I happen to believe - or wish might be a better word - that this could apply to a larger economy if it were simply adopted. It's just a different way of looking at it. A shift in perspective. I don't expect everyone to agree. It's just the way that I see it, the path I've chosen. Balance.

Right on. I think about this a lot too. I don’t claim to be an expert, but what strikes me is this: The transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1% will just continue to accelerate until there isn’t an advantage to offshoring labor (meaning when other countries have similar living standards). Being able to undercut American workers by making them compete with foreign labor means the ownership class can reap the benefits of capitalism, but with an artificial advantage that comes at the expense of the American working class. There will be no effort to help the working class as long as the law makers can be bought. Even when attempts to help are made, they are often kneecapped by greed and corruption - like labor unions for example. Maybe I’m wrong, but it feels like the root cause is the damage created by the Citizens United ruling. They were a conservative group, and it has usually been republicans that aim to keep that status quo and defeat attempts at campaign finance reform. “The swamp” cannot be drained without campaign finance reform.

Loading…

www.politico.com

Edit to add, for the record I think while Picketty makes some correct observations, he goes a bit too far and gets in to Marxism. I’m still a capitalist, though with guard rails.

 

[PorterhouseMusic]

"Piketty’s principal claim in Capital in the Twenty-first Century was that there is a “central contradiction of capitalism.” He maintained that the average return on capital exceeds the rate of economic growth, so without countervailing factors—such as World Wars I and II, the Great Depression of the 1930s, or specific government action—inherited wealth will grow faster than earned wealth, leading to unsustainable levels of economic inequality that could threaten democracy. Unchecked, this contradiction will ultimately bring a return to what he called the “patrimonial capitalism” of the 19th century (as shown in the novels of such authors as Jane Austen and Honoré de Balzac, wherein the preferred path to wealth is inheritance or marriage rather than labour). He based his conclusions on 200 years of tax records from the United States and Europe, especially France. Much of this data was collected by Piketty himself as well as Atkinson and Saez."

 

[TAE]

I'm for workfare not welfare. You're down on your luck come here to the xyz factory and put in 40 hours a week and we will give you a check to live on.
Government work programs that teach people skills so they can make it on their own, contribute to, rather than sucking on societies tit. Hold me, feed me take care of me...ugh!

Guaranteed if all the people here in Cali on welfare, food stamps and disability had to suit up and show up to "DO SOMETHING" to contribute to society every work day for 8 hours a day.. there'd easily be half as many and probably more than that that would let go of the tit and find a job.

When giving away free money there has to be some checks and balances and some accountability....there is none right now here in Cali.

 

[JAPOV]

I can't tell the difference between capitalism and profiteering anymore...
How do you govern without a set reference?
Without a standard... "Whatever the market will bear" becomes the goal.

Inflation is how the stock market makes money.
Then, there's the Global Federal Reserve...

Governments print their own currency, then tell the world what their money is worth based upon their economy (corporate government) and calculations/projections made by the Global Federal Reserve (the world bank).

In this equation... the actual worth of goods and services is never considered.
THERE IS NO SET UNIVERSAL STANDARD.
Profit accrued through interest rates and inflation is the only goal.

If a loaf of bread was always worth $1, a pair of jeans was always $5, an 8'2x4 was always $1, an apple was always worth $0.25, iron/steel were always $0.1 per/lb, a beef cow was always worth $500... these things would set a stabilizing standard and reference for the rest of free market commerce. Small "home-grown" businesses wouldn't have to complete with global corporations. Necessity would truly be the mother of invention and the heart of entrepreneurism.

Currently, capitalism is profiteering... inflation will never end... and wealth inequality will only get worse.

 

[brassplyer]

Color Piketty however you please. His credentials and respect among those in his field speak for itself. He seems to have concluded that:

1) Income inequality exists, and is worsening
2) That it's not healthy, not a good thing for the masses, and that it's unsustainable for the few who benefit
3) That it's worth it to study (deeply, in his case) and look at possible solutions to the problem - and write about that

Like most subjects - it's not a black and white thing. I have spent a considerable time thinking about this. What I will tell you is this: Simply from a philosophical point of view - "just because you can doesn't mean you should" applies to capital and markets the same way as it applies to other subjects. I have operated a thriving and growing small business in my community for nearly twenty years. I could be much bigger and could be making *a lot* more money than I have or am currently. I choose not to take advantage in terms of maximizing growth. It's not about maximum profit and growth for me. It's the very reason that I got into this. I wanted to prove that you could/can make a decent living, save (for retirement), give back, and leave something for my kids all while providing an excellent service and building trust with my customers. I'm not perfect and it has not always been smooth sailing. But this philosophy has worked for me. I happen to believe - or wish might be a better word - that this could apply to a larger economy if it were simply adopted. It's just a different way of looking at it. A shift in perspective. I don't expect everyone to agree. It's just the way that I see it, the path I've chosen. Balance.

I'm not coloring anything, I'm stating what he is. Go ahead and outline the basis to say it's not correct when he himself says it. I had a suspicion that when I looked him up the term "socialism" would quickly come up and I was right - it goes hand-in-hand with the "income inequality" talk. Sounds like you're showing some aversion to the term "socialism" comrade, are you on board with the program or not?

I wanted to prove that you could/can make a decent living, save (for retirement), give back, and leave something for my kids all while providing an excellent service and building trust with my customers.

Oh, so you're saving for retirement? What about all those who aren't able to save for retirement? Doesn't sound like "equity" to me.

You didn't answer any of my questions -

How much of your income have you given away to those who don't make as much as you to make things more equitable? How many times have you paid more in taxes than required out of a sense of equity duty? Ditto the same questions re: Piketty?

How much of their fortune do the billionaires of the world owe you - you know, to make things more equitable?

Going back to my proposition - what's stopping you and all the rest of those who talk like you - including Piketty - from building a multi-billion dollar corporation, paying yourself only subsistence wages and distributing the rest in what you think is the right way?

I could be much bigger and could be making *a lot* more money than I have or am currently. I choose not to take advantage in terms of maximizing growth.

Wait...what?! So you unambiguously admit you could be making a lot more profit to redistribute but choose not to. What about all those people you could be subsidizing with all the extra profit? Why do *your* kids get medical and dental care and a sound diet when other people's kids don't? Sure doesn't sound like you're really all that committed to this "income equality" you talk about.

The hardware you're communicating with and various things your life is filled with wouldn't exist with your business model. I suspect your business wouldn't exist if everyone subscribed to your limited notions.

 

[TAE]

THERE IS NO SET UNIVERSAL STANDARD.

Weights and measures are universal standards. Supply and demand set the stage for price variances. You're the only guy with apples in the world. You set the opening price that the consumers will pay and you sell to the highest bidder...This is capitalism. Being told what I need to pay my burger flipper is absolute stupidity. If I have to pay him more I'm already at the tightest margins I can bear. I can't eat the increase, I need to pass it on to my customers. Now it cost them more to buy a burger...they have to raise their prices so they can afford the higher priced burger and not go broke. The burger flipper now has to pay more for everything he is buying so basically his raise was a beautiful exercise in futility. People ( politicians) who have never ran a business in their lives continue to come up with these ignorant foolish solutions that are a total waste of time and bad for everyone. That is a very general statement but true in most cases. They pass these stupid laws and rules and half cocked programs never thinking past the end of their noses as to laws of physics...for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction...that law carries over into economics. I could go on and on. Having ran business's and am in business now I can tell you we are in very precarious times. I feel like 2007/ 8 was the worse economic down I had seen in my life. I am worried this next one will be worse.

 

[leddy]

Being told what I need to pay my burger flipper is absolute stupidity. If I have to pay him more I'm already at the tightest margins I can bear. I can't eat the increase, I need to pass it on to my customers. Now it cost them more to buy a burger...they have to raise their prices so they can afford the higher priced burger and not go broke. The burger flipper now has to pay more for everything he is buying so basically his raise was a beautiful exercise in futility.

I used to say the same thing. Lately I think more about companies like Walmart who have many thousands of employees who qualify for aid like food stamps or Medicaid, which effectively makes taxpayers like me subsidizing their payroll. That’s some bullshit.

According to the article below, 70% of federal aid recipients work full time, so that’s not the issue.

Walmart and McDonald's are among top employers of Medicaid and food stamp beneficiaries, report says

Walmart and McDonald's are among the top employers of beneficiaries of Medicaid and food stamps, according to a GAO study commissioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders.

www.cnbc.com

 

[brassplyer]

I used to say the same thing. Lately I think more about companies like Walmart who have many thousands of employees who qualify for aid like food stamps or Medicaid, which effectively makes taxpayers like me subsidizing their payroll. That’s some bullshit.

According to the article below, 70% of federal aid recipients work full time, so that’s not the issue.

Walmart and McDonald's are among top employers of Medicaid and food stamp beneficiaries, report says

Walmart and McDonald's are among the top employers of beneficiaries of Medicaid and food stamps, according to a GAO study commissioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders.

www.cnbc.com

I wonder what percentage of these people have kids that they had fully aware they were in marginal circumstances.

 

[leddy]

I wonder what percentage of these people have kids that they had fully aware they were in marginal circumstances.

I’m sure that’s part of it, but certainly not the primary problem. Wages have not kept up with productivity. An average house used to cost 2-3 years of an average wage. Now it’s twice that. It’s harder than ever to just exist (in modern times anyway).

Companies the size of Walmart and McDonalds could have lobbyists and funnel dark money to their candidates and keep the status quo if they choose to. But the real issue is welfare queens?

Again, 70% of federal aid recipients work full time according to the link. As per an SSA.gov link I checked, about 1/3 of aid recipients are disabled, which is probably most of that remaining 30%. Some are gaming the system I’m sure, but that’s not the primary issue.

 

[brassplyer]

I’m sure that’s part of it, but certainly not the primary problem. Wages have not kept up with productivity. An average house used to cost 2-3 years of an average wage. Now it’s twice that. It’s harder than ever to just exist (in modern times anyway).

Companies the size of Walmart and McDonalds could have lobbyists and funnel dark money to their candidates and keep the status quo if they choose to. But the real issue is welfare queens?

Again, 70% of federal aid recipients work full time according to the link. As per an SSA.gov link I checked, about 1/3 of aid recipients are disabled, which is probably most of that remaining 30%. Some are gaming the system I’m sure, but that’s not the primary issue.

I propose we find out what the answer to my question is before declaring how much of the problem it is or isn't. When has someone flipping burgers - not a manager - ever been able to buy a house?

 

[leddy]

edited to add link, accidentally posted twice