Wealth inequality stands at its highest since the turn of the 20th century - the so-called 'Gilded Age' - as the proportion of capital held by the world's 1,542 dollar billionaires swells yet higher. The report, undertaken by Swiss banking giant UBS and UK accounting company PwC, discusses the roles technology and globalization play in the status quo, and appears two weeks after the IMF recommended that the rich should pay more tax to address the enormous disparity.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
2
(1)
2
(Score: 5, Insightful) by davester666 on Sunday October 29 2017, @09:11AM (21 children)
Trump is fighting hard to pass tax cuts for the middle class.
Of course, Trump considers himself and his family "middle class", so he's fighting for tax cuts for people who have between $50 million and $5 billion dollars.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday October 29 2017, @10:00AM (20 children)
Those tax cuts will get the administration in a deeper budgetary black hole.
Yeah, I know, I know... he promised he'll plug the tax loopholes, I don't see that he did and I don't think he will do it soon. Anyone knows something to the contrary?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @11:27AM (19 children)
This is true but it amuses me that it's D voters who are suddenly concerned with the deficit. They're damned sure not bothered by it when it comes to social spending.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Sunday October 29 2017, @12:50PM (2 children)
At least you can see a silver lining the black cloud (but, warning [despair.com], "lightning kill hundreds of people each year who are trying to find it").
Does it feel good to you to live on the money of you kids/grandkids, with lesser benefits for you?
Given I'm in Australia and there's a big fuss here for a deficit peaking in 2017 at 18% of GDP [wikipedia.org], I find absolutely insane to run a country at a deficit of 106% [wikipedia.org] and with policies which are likely to increase it ("giving a combined total gross national debt of $19.8 trillion or about 106% of the previous 12 months of GDP"). You live on an outlandish alien planet, buddy.
And you know what? Most of the USians don't even get the level of basic services available in Australia. Your "games" are fundamentally rigged: I recently used health care as an example [soylentnews.org] - USians pay 3 times more on health care than other countries and benefit of a mediocre level of it in comparison with these countries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @01:13PM (1 child)
Oh, I didn't say I'm in favor of deficit spending. I'm not remotely. I just find it amusing that both sides are ready to mortgage the nation's future but only get butthurt when the other side is doing it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:08PM
The two sides advance two halves of the real agenda and disrupt each other's fake agenda. Trying to change the system through politics is like trying to break in a house from the main, reinforced, door. Look how Linux briefly disrupted the system. Being stealthily adopted because it was too convenient to pass up. Somehow we need something similar to help retain control of our own lives, which is all the game is about.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @03:18PM (8 children)
You're an idiot. It's always been the Democratic voters that were concerned about the deficit. Who precisely do you think voted for the idiots that blew up the national debt? Here's a hint, the idiots that blew up the debt all had Rs attached to their names.
The GOP has been using dynamic scoring for decades as an excuse for irresponsible tax and spending policies that were designed to reduce the amount of taxes paid by corporations and the wealthiest. The increased tax receipts never materialize and there's no effort made to bring the revenue in line with spending. We're currently around $20 tn in debt because the GOP hasn't figured out how to run a balanced budget.
At least the kinds of spending that the Democrats support would cause the economy to grow, unfortunately, it's largely on things like infrastructure and education which would make it harder for the GOP to keep lying to the voters.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:06PM (7 children)
You either haven't been paying attention or are refusing to believe the truth despite overwhelming evidence. Obamacare was the biggest corporate boondoggle in American history (and the biggest bit of deficit spending) and sucking the life blood from the middle class and giving it to the poor destroys the economy rather than helping it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:34PM (3 children)
No. The poor don't keep any significant amount of the the money that goes to medical care – or for anything else, either. Think.
That money goes directly into the pockets of the insurance companies, to the medical care establishment, and in the case of non-medically related social spending, it goes to grocers, landlords, etc. as well as some of it eventually getting collected at various levels, again, as taxes. Not to the poor. It merely goes through the poor's hands. Quickly. Very quickly. Sometimes, as with insurance, it never even sees their hands.
Almost all of the actual money that social spending consists of lands primarily in the hands of the middle and upper class. In so doing, it significantly drives large sectors of the economy.
There's no question that all of this sort of thing is straight-up redistribution, and you can certainly construct a fact-based gripe out of that, but the idea that social spending is "given to the poor" represents an extremely poor understanding of what is actually going on.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:06PM (2 children)
That's what I meant by corporate boondoggle, yes. Good to see you understood.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30 2017, @04:27PM
One guess as to which group required changes to the ACA which turned it into the current shitshow. Obviously it didn't go far enough into the shit spectrum and thus why we have the worst proposals trying to be forced through now. Sadly for the evil stains on humanity the regular people have a limit to how much wool can be pulled over their eyes.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday October 30 2017, @05:02PM
Boondoggle. Well. That's an interesting epithet to throw at funding medical facilities and services. I see military adventurism that way (not capacity, just the absurd uses to which it's often put), but not medical services, or most social services in general, unless they proactively interfere with an individual's personal liberties – offering assistance is almost always fine, using force is usually not.
When less money goes into the pockets of the medical establishment, its economy slows down, and such a consequence is a Very Bad Thing. And the subsidies provided by the ACA represent a significant portion of that income now, income that has been used to expand and bolster medical facilities and services. You understand both these issues, right?
Just a couple posts upthread, you were indicating a perception that this movement of money "destroys the economy rather than helping it." The fact is, you had it backwards: It helps the economy at large – the medical sector of the economy is a very significant one. This costs money. The money is redistributed from the taxpayer into the medical establishment, while benefiting those who need healthcare. This certainly produces pain in the pocketbook of taxpayers, but that's not even close to the same as "destroys" the economy."
Someday, when you need the medical establishment, you may come to appreciate how robust it is. Or perhaps instead you may regret how robust it isn't if the current crop of anti-social services naysayers have their way long-term. Or – heaven forfend – you find yourself in the lower ranks of income earners and you need health care, and your favorite politicians have decided you don't "deserve" it.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by redneckmother on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:38PM (1 child)
While I agree that "Obamacare" is / was a boondoggle, many of its failings are due to all the amendments that had to be negotiated in order to get the legislation to the President's desk. The involvement of commercial insurance corporations is, in my view, the biggest problem. The money was sucked from the 99% and given to the 1% (not the poor). Massive waste of funds - it could have been much less expensive with much better coverage and less red tape.
Trickle-down economics leaves the 99% yellow and wet.
Yeah, I'm over-simplifying, but really don't want to waste time discussing it any more.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30 2017, @01:07AM
I wish there was more of this in the (meta)thread.
The discussion at the other site was, surprisingly, better that what appears here.
I liked the way werepants started. [slashdot.org]
kilfarsnar [slashdot.org] was really good as well.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:27PM
Worse than that, since Obama made health insurance mandatory, the poor can't afford to pay the deductible to even use that insurance. So they essentially still have no insurance but they have to pay for it anyway.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:03PM (6 children)
What's funny is the Rs keep cutting taxes at the top but not cutting spending, then they wonder where this deficit came from. nda like the way they started out talking big about replacing Obamacare with something better the instant they had control. Now they're just trying to kill Obamacare and replace it with nothing. It's a plan so bad they can't even get all of the Rs on board.
Democrats = tax and spend. Republicans = don't tax but keep spending.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:12PM (5 children)
You're wrong on the Republican plans for Obamacare (do a bit of research) but that's not especially important since I doubt they'll get their shit together long enough to pass anything at all. The important thing is you at least see that Democrats are "Tax and Spend More" while the Republicans are "Tax Less and Spend the Same". Both fuck us just as hard as a nation.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:02PM (4 children)
If I'm wrong, where is this amazing Republican solution? The deadline for this year came and went and they haven't managed to do a damned thing but make some noise. The best evidence suggests that the grand plan is to do nothing until they lose their majority (because of doing nothing), then retroactively blame the Democrats.
For all of his many faults, the only time in the last 40 years or more we had an actual balanced budget was under the Clinton administration.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:11PM (3 children)
There isn't one everyone agrees upon but there are several that different factions are pushing. Note I did not say that they had their shit together. I'm pretty sure I said the opposite.
You're right on the budget but Bill can't really take credit for that. That was the insane growth of the 90s that would have happened with or without him filling the coffers faster than congress could empty them. I'll grant you that he did fuck things up economically less than most though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:53PM
It doesn't exist, the one they had was a $600bn set of tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of the debt and the people's medical care.
They've had years to develop a plan for what they'd replace Obamacare with and they haven't been able to come up with anything at all. They could have come up with something in those years that might have been able to satisfy enough people to get the votes, but the fact of the matter is that they didn't even start working on it until after Trump was elected. They did the drafting in secret and the ultimate result was that they didn't have the votes to pass it because they were so focused on fucking the poorest Americans over in order to give a massive tax break to the wealthiest.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Sunday October 29 2017, @07:09PM (1 child)
You have to admit though that the last big push on healthcare was just a rollback and all of them are just variations on Obamacare lite.
As far as government involvement goes, the biggest single anti-market rule is the ban on Medicare negotiating drug prices. That's not something the Ds cooked up. It's not just that the Rs don't have their shit together, they just don't have any ideas to solve the problem (I wish they did). That or they don't have the will to solve the problem.
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Sunday October 29 2017, @07:54PM
There is another option you may have missed.
They may not see it as a problem at all...after all, it doesn't affect them or their friends.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday October 29 2017, @09:58AM (8 children)
I don't remember who this was. IIRC he was speaking at Davos.
What he was really afraid of was that the stark inequality might lead the common people to commit acts of violence against the rich.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @12:44PM
Possibly Warren Buffet?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday October 29 2017, @02:20PM
As a billionaire, invest a % of your money with billionaires who invest in a media portfolio containing Netflix, Apple TV, American Ninja Warrior, Survivor, America's Fucking Funniest Home Videos, Ow! My Balls!, etc.
Then invest another % with a group producing false and bankrolling political outrage, cable political TV, etc.
Finally, invest a % in personal security. Physical barriers, well-paid guards packing automatic weapons, flamethrowers, dogs, whatever. Instill a cult-like devotion and disdain for the poor in your security forces. Live out of multiple homes in multiple countries with private airstrips or helipads.
As your income rises, your spending on guns and circuses will rise (bread will already be taken care of). This is how the rich can do their part and give back to the community (of billionaires).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jelizondo on Sunday October 29 2017, @03:15PM (2 children)
There is a TED talk [ted.com] from some rich guy saying the pitchforks are coming and urging fellow plutocrats to address inequality.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @03:22PM
You'd have to be a great fool not to see that coming. Before the bribery of politicians was so egregious there was at least some hope of politicians doing something about it, but now that the SCrOTUmS have decided that there's no such thing as bribery, I have no faith of any sort that there's going to be restraint applied without violence being involved.
Part of what keeps the lower classes from revolting is a sense that they can improve themselves and their position in society. Having things like vacations and luxuries removes a lot of the incentive to riot. But, if the fewer incentives people have to maintain the status quo, the less likely they are to maintain the status quo and if the only way that they're allowed to improve themselves is through murder and mayhem, it's asking a bit much to expect them to work themselves to death so some greedy bastards can just steal all the proceeds.
A huge chunk of Americans pay no federal income tax because they aren't being paid enough to. And an increasing number of taxes are being collected at the state and local level to make up for the tax breaks at the federal level that mostly go to the wealthiest.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30 2017, @12:26AM
He also appeared in some websites https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014 [politico.com]
But probably they are so full of themselves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonomy [wikipedia.org] they will not pay attention.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:19PM (1 child)
There is a thing called the riot index [ssrn.com].
While autocracies and democracies show a broadly similar responses to budget cuts, countries with more constraints on the executive are less likely to see unrest after austerity measures. [emph mine]
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:08PM
Do you have a point? If so, explain it.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @07:46PM
I don't know about an appearance at Davos, but this guy was on the radio on or about September 30.
The Ralph Nader Radio Hour [ralphnaderradiohour.com]
It takes Ralph several weeks before he has a PDF transcript of the program and that isn't ready yet for this show.
Ralph's page uses libsyn for audio, which makes you grab the file in 1 gulp or makes you start all over after an interrupted download.
It also appends a bunch of crap to the URL so that you can't just drag it and drop it onto your media player without making a copy and renaming to *.mp3.
Stupid fucking service.
Here that is from KPFT's audio archive. [kpft.org]
Pearl is on for the first ~half of the program.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Sunday October 29 2017, @10:10AM (20 children)
I don't have a problem with someone being a billionaire. I have a problem with dynasties, i.e., the wealth being passed - unearned - on to children, grandchildren, ad nauseum. So: let them keep their wealth, but all countries should have high inheritance taxes on amounts over >, which amount is a separate discussion.
Meanwhile, "charitable" foundations, like those run by the Gates and the Clintons, need to be decoupled from the people who found them. Want to give away your wealth? That's great. Want to use that "charitable" foundation as a way to dodge taxes and hand over your wealth to your progeny? Not fine.
Mind you, I'm not terribly happy about billionaire estates going to the government either. But at least, in the worst case, the government will squander the money back into the economy.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by RamiK on Sunday October 29 2017, @11:00AM
The current inheritance taxes are as high as they can before alternative tax avoidance measures become viable.
As with all things taxes in a failed government and economy, unless some miraculous technology comes about, it will take a full tax code reform (not to mention a well irrigated and fertilized tree of library) to get anything done.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @11:09AM
So how would you define "inheritance tax" ???
Seriously, you either tax income or nothing at all. Inheritance tax can be dodged left and right fairly easily, especially in today's world. And you don't want dynasties? Too bad. At least we are not in the time of kings and queens, mostly. Boosting taxes to levels they were during 1970s would fix a lot of the problems.
Except that is not what either is doing. So I'm not sure what you are talking about.
And Clintons are not exactly super rich anyway. Most of the money is from speaking engagements and book deals. Comparing that to Gates is a little laughable. And you should read Gates' plan for their foundation once they die - you know, they actually planned these things. The foundation is to spend all the money within few years of their passing. Gates specifically did not want a perpetual foundation like Nobel Foundation.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @11:09AM (17 children)
Why? Muffy Vandercunt never having to work a day in her life doesn't affect the economy or your financial position within it at all. And even yoinking all Bezos's fortune back directly into the economy on his death wouldn't amount to a drop in the bucket given the relative size of the bucket it's going into.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by crafoo on Sunday October 29 2017, @02:58PM (3 children)
It might incentivize them to do something useful with it. The hoarding tendency to protect your offspring might not trigger as strongly. If you know it's gone when you're gone, you might start a very risky but interesting or useful endeavor with it instead. I agree that the government getting it all is maybe the worst possible outcome, almost a punishment to everyone as it just feed useless bureaucrats. But it might provide an incentive to do glorious, risky things.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:15PM (1 child)
Using an inflationary currency was designed to take care of that by making truly stagnant money (of which there is very, very little) worth less every year, thus providing incentive to reinvest in the economy. And it would if we could manage enough growth to allow for it. Destroy the middle class and you destroy growth though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:57PM
The use of an inflationary currency was designed to avoid a deflationary death spiral. It's well established that the richest are more likely to have large portions of their money tied up in stocks that are relatively resistant to inflationary pressures.
What's destroying the middle class is the kind of policies that you're advocating for. Allowing the rich to hoard so much money that they can't even spend it all makes it all but impossible for the poor to make enough to keep up with inflation, let alone get ahead.
The problem here isn't economic growth, the problem is that it's being hoarded by the greedy rather than distributed to the engines of the economy, the working class.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:03PM
Yes, like bribe politicians to protect their wealth, build some Rube Goldberg tax avoidance/evasion scheme, or move to a country where heirs can inherit.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @03:28PM (4 children)
Because as long as money = political speech, inheriting multimillions makes our government a hereditary monarchy.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:17PM (3 children)
How'd that work out for Hillary? She outspent Trump by an enormous margin. Money's not as powerful as you think.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:39PM (2 children)
You're confusing "100% dependably powerful" with "powerful" again. :)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:05PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:10PM
Nah, they're just confused about what words mean. :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @03:33PM (4 children)
Yes, it would, Most of the inequality is driven by a handful of extremely wealthy people hoarding money that they could never spend in their lifetime. If there was a maximum limit on how much you could leave to your children it would greatly reduce the need to bribe government officials for more tax breaks. Allowing one to leave just $10m per kid would return a massive amount of money back to the economy in terms of taxes that could be used to fund things like education. For example, Bill Gates has about $88bn dollars to his name and 3 children, that would allow $30m to stay with the family when he and his wife die, That would be roughly 99.966% of his wealth being returned to the country and his kids would still not have to actually do anything productive with the rest of their lives.
It's a similar deal with the rest of the billionaire class, even allowing them to leave an obscene amount of money to their children, there's still a massive amount of it to go around and mitigate what they did in the process of accumulating it.
But, the biggest benefit to the rest of us is simply that accumulating money past a certain point wouldn't be worthwhile. You'd see a larger number of individuals and businesses splitting the pot rather than a small number that are able to exert undue influence on the country in terms of refusing to pay decent wages and buying votes.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:21PM
It'd take too long to school you on how wrong you are and that even if you weren't you're trying to use a chainsaw to fix a hangnail. I prefer brevity and I feel a sunday afternoon nap sneaking up on me, so someone else can explain it if they like.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:11PM (2 children)
This illustrates the enormous flaw in your thinking. They don't hoard money, they invest it.
No, it'd create incentive to bribe government officials so that you could leave more to your children.
Such as employing tens of thousands to millions of people for decades. Do we really need to mitigate that?
I don't get my jollies from this activity, be it accumulating wealth, being poor, sky diving, getting married, driving, bicycling, walking, having and speaking other opinions, eating weird food, living in another country, getting an education, having a family, just about anything really. Thus, I don't see any reason anyone else should be doing these activities either and hence, they should be banned.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @07:05PM (1 child)
This is why nobody takes you seriously. You're deliberately missing the point. The economy doesn't grow because people invest. The economy grows because there's more people buying things and engaged in trade. It would make business a lot easier if all we had to do is invest more money and suddenly we'd have more profits, but that's not how it works and that's why supply side economics has been such an abysmal failure.
They don't employ tens of millions of workers out of the goodness of their own hearts, they do it because that's how they're able to steal from the rich. It's mind-blowing to me that you assume those people would be out of work when more likely there'd be numerous smaller businesses that would serve that market. If not, that's a pretty good indication that the market never really existed in the first place.
This whole idea that the greedy at the top create jobs is a complete load of crap with no evidence to support it. Jobs are created because there's a need and people willing to pay money to have that need met. End of story, those jobs do not exist because somebody is willing to pay people to perform them, businesses like that go out of business rather quickly.
As for your last point, you're a fucking moron. People accumulate far more money than they can possibly spend for a reason. It makes their dicks bigger and it's pretty fucking clear that they aren't going to stop doing it just because it's destroying the country and the world. Those other things you list have little to no impact on other people.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday October 29 2017, @08:47PM
Investment is both buying things and engaging in trade, which is one of the reasons it makes no sense to call it "hoarding".
With significant economic growth from 1982 or so to 2000. If only all our abysmal failures turned out so well.
[...]
Except we see that you acknowledged such job creation in the previous paragraph. Owned goal.
Also, once again we see the ludicrous pathology where the greedy motive of the wealthy magically outweighs all those tens of millions of jobs they created. I guess it's better to have people poor and unemployed, huh?
I don't have any problem with the wealthy pursuing more wealth for the purpose of dick embiggening even though I don't bother with it myself. It's not something I'm going to start caring about. But if they want to accumulate wealth for that purpose, I'm fine with it.That's what freedom is about, after all. The right to do things, even if small-minded, bitter, jealous busy-bodies can't handle people doing things for impure motives or motives that they can't understand or do.
Though I quite agree that this activity does have impact on other people, mostly positive - keep in mind that they're employing people and making goods and services of value. We should just steer that activity with a modest amount of regulation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:52PM (2 children)
do you always look backwards at things? billionaires don't ever work BECAUSE there are thousands of people working FOR them it is a social issue because this work is done under certain social rules. bonus points if you can tell who makes the rules?
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:15PM (1 child)
And you know this, how? Hung out with many? Even met one? Oh, I see, you were just shit talking because you're jealous they have more than you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30 2017, @03:31PM
Throw yourself into a fire you giant turd.
(Score: 0, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @10:58AM (72 children)
Wealth inequality is only a problem if you're a greedy shit stain who bases their happiness on the wealth of others. The destruction of the middle class is the real problem; that's taking what people have already worked hard for away from them. Make sure and drop the last four former Presidents a friendly email thanking them for helping make that happen. Especially Obama, as he did more to crush everyone down towards poverty than any President since Herbert Hoover with Obamacare alone.
Think I'm wrong? Pre-Obamacare, my roommate had 90/10 coverage for his family with a deductible of about a month's wages for around the cost of a mortgage payment. Fast-forward to now and he has 60/40 coverage with a deductible of over a year's worth of mortgage payments for the same cost to him. Mind you, it's also costing his employer around four times that. Yes, it's quite literally costing more to provide absolute shit coverage for his family than he gets paid each year. He would most definitely be better off if all that money were simply allowed to go into his HSA instead of to the insurance company.
That is not how you encourage a healthy, growing middle class; it's how you destroy the anemic middle class you already have.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @11:16AM (4 children)
Sounds like you are detached from reality. Your crushing is about to start, but sure, blame Obama.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @11:21AM (3 children)
You're saying we shouldn't blame the person directly responsible for transferring the largest percentage of wealth from the middle class to corporate interests in a hundred years? Why, exactly?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Sunday October 29 2017, @11:55AM (2 children)
You sure are posting lots in this discussion. So far, 12 comments and 4 of them are yours.
Why are you focusing on just one or two people out of the thousands who made Gilded Age 2.0 happen? Your belief in the power of the US Presidency is blinding you. Like, there's the Supreme Court justices who ruled against the people in Citizens United, and, you know, Congress. And those are just the government officials and politicians. What about all those Wall Street financiers, lobbyists, the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, the mainstream media, and Big Oil?
Fnord!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @12:12PM (1 child)
It interests me and it's exceedingly likely to have a whole lot of outright idiotic things said that need correcting. Plus it's morning coffee time and there's nothing else going on.
Why focus on Presidents? Because they're the loudest voices preaching helping the people while fucking them in the ass. I have nothing against people looking out for their own interests but I despise hypocrites.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30 2017, @03:33PM
Toss your hypocritical ignorant self out an airlock then. Save us from your tiresome ass kissing rants.
(Score: 4, Informative) by turgid on Sunday October 29 2017, @12:03PM (53 children)
The problem is, the rich and super-rich refuse to pay tax, and they persuade the poor to vote in people who will cut taxes at every opportunity. The money to run civillisation has to come from somewhere, so the "middle class" gets it in the neck. They (the rich) are trolling you.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @12:20PM (52 children)
This presupposes that people can't be civilized without the government forcing them to. That is incorrect. A nanny state is not a requirement to have a civilized society.
When one party keeps the poor from having to pay their fair share and the other keeps the rich from having to, you're absolutely correct about who's getting fucked. You're just singling out one side to take the blame instead of attributing it everywhere it's deserved.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by turgid on Sunday October 29 2017, @02:32PM (37 children)
Some people are so poor, through no fault of their own, that they shouldn't have to pay a penny. They should not have to rely on random and infrequent acts of "charity" either. A civillised society takes care of its poor. They should have to pay their "fair share" right enough, and that share is 0%.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:32PM (36 children)
No, there is nothing civilized about taking what one person has earned and giving it to someone undeserving. Having money is not a vice and being poor is not a virtue. Our economy is in need of some fixing but saying "here, have some of his money" doesn't fix anything; it just buys you votes. What would actually put our economy in a position where everyone could pay their share is a damned long conversation though and I don't feel like giving a detailed economics lecture on a sunday afternoon.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by turgid on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:51PM (28 children)
The problem with that line of reasoning is that "earning" is merely being given crumbs from the table of the rich man, the bear minimum he can part with in order to get some value out of you.
The problem for a lot of people is that they can be of no value to the rich man because they are young, old, sick, disabled, or being replaced by machinery.
Agreed. Who has money has no bearing on any moral values. Mostly it's accidental. Trump is rich because he was born into a rich family, for example.
It fixes the acute problems of poor people starving to death, dying of exposure sleeping rough, and dying on the streets in agony due to unaffordable medical care. In the longer term, it can be used to invest in everyone's future via things like education.
Why should everyone "pay?"
And as I explained, you'd be starting from a false premise anyway (that everyone has a non-zero "fair" share to pay).
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:13PM (8 children)
So what? You weren't doing anything more useful to yourself, or you would be doing it.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:15PM (7 children)
Ah, the gadfly of Soylent News comes to challenge our simplistic beliefs!
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:22PM (6 children)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday October 29 2017, @11:44PM (5 children)
I just love how not agreeing with khallow is equivalent to "resisting learning". And he wonders why no one takes him seriously. Other than his rather warped view of economic reality.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 30 2017, @01:09AM (4 children)
But should you ever have anything interesting or relevant to say, please contribute.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday October 30 2017, @02:11AM (3 children)
Yeah, as some AC or the other remarked, the preponderance of TMB posts suggested it was a thread to be skipped. And your contributions have been, well, typical of you I suppose. So no point in contributing, since there will be nothing but resistance to learning.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 30 2017, @02:24AM (2 children)
Well, should you ever become sufficiently open to reason, we might be able to work on that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday October 30 2017, @03:19AM (1 child)
Oh, my dear and fluffy khallow!
We have been around long enough to not have to trade such platitudinous insults! And you are well aware that our disagreements, as well as those you are having with your present interlocutors, has nothing to do with reasoning, it has to do with the basic assumptions you are making, which seem to us to be wildly implausible. As with data processing, garbage in, garbage out. Wealth inequality is not bad because of the jealously of the lower classes, that is your assumption. And capitalism is not some sort of Spencerian process of natural selection, so the poors are not poor because they are stupid, drunk, and Irish, all though all this may be true. And the richies are not rich due to self-discipline, frugality, hard work and keeping it in their pants. Obviously.
You should think about why you believe such things, khallow. Do you have any actual grounds for such a 19th century approach to wealth inequality? Inquiring minds, once again, want to know.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 30 2017, @04:02AM
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:25PM (18 children)
This was not a problem while we had a middle class. You could create your own business and be the rich man if you had the attributes necessary to succeed.
Because not paying for something is what we like to call either theft or charity, depending on whether it was voluntarily given or not. Neither means you deserve what you get.
No, it does not. I thought we covered that in the "give a man a fish" story a couple thousand years ago. I don't expect a socialist utopian to understand reality though, so I'll stop here and go have a nap instead of wasting my words.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by turgid on Sunday October 29 2017, @08:19PM (3 children)
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday October 30 2017, @04:17AM (2 children)
No, what we have here is a willful refusal to communicate. His entire worldview on this question is predicated on certain fixed ideas he has about the definitions of words like "earn," "value," "wealth," and so forth. He's sunk too much into his present definitions to change, mostly because doing so would require a massive re-working of almost his entire personality, such as it is.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30 2017, @03:38PM (1 child)
TIL: poop as personality. I would never have seriously thought about the comparison, but now that I do I think that yes, I have taken shits that smell better than the garbage TMB likes to push out here.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday October 30 2017, @07:58PM
Carnivores have stinky shit, scavengers doubly so :) Maybe he should be a little more selective with what he gulps down and regurgitates.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Pav on Monday October 30 2017, @12:26AM (13 children)
I'd like to see how your ideas work from a programmers perspective. First I'll state what I understand (which seems to clash with your understanding). There's a whole branch of game theory devoted to negotiation between economic entities of unequal power - basically economic power allows a renegotiation of ever more favourable terms when economically cooperating. Simply stated, without regulation capitalism is unstable, and inevitably leads to extreme inequality (before it stops working altogether). After the last guilded age this became the understanding, hence high taxes, regulation, and Keynesianism after the last guilded age (which resulted in "Happy Days" America). Its funny how the game of Monopoly (from this time period) was originally a "pre game theory" way to show that capitalism needed to be regulated. Low taxes and low regulations push all but one player into bankrupcy, with the last being the slowest to realise the economy has stopped working. (BTW, there was another set of rules with higher taxes and regulations which was boring because, although players could become comparitively wealthy the economy remained stable - thus a set of rules that didn't make a "fun" game, hence they got lost to history).
How can you see your ideas working that could be implemented in a game, or in a computer?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 30 2017, @01:24AM (12 children)
The thing is inequality declined. The reason is that demand for labor increased. That in turn increased the pricing power of labor relative to employers.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Monday October 30 2017, @02:40AM (11 children)
Yes... due to high taxation and redistribution the majority of the economy was re-empowered (building infrastructure in FDRs new deal). The very few ultra-wealthy had poor incentive to invest once they'd already captured most of the wealth, but once they were taxed highly and the money was again out there to be won...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 30 2017, @03:00AM (10 children)
That's a cool story, bro, but... US did quite well before the mid 1930s when taxation was made a bit higher (after tax loopholes) than present. The increase in labor power predates FDR by decades. And FDR's policies didn't lead to improvement in the economy until the worst of them were reversed during the Second World War. We had already such things as rising wages, decline of the 19th century monopolies, and growing global trade. By the time of the First World War, the US had a number of world-class universities and medical centers. The Gilded Age was for the US a transition from former colony with primitive infrastructure to nascent superpower.
The US never had that level of concentration of wealth. And the rich had massive investment opportunities around 1900, such as new transportation modes (cars and airplanes), electrification, early computers (analogue), and beginning growth of the suburbs.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Monday October 30 2017, @09:33AM (8 children)
You do realise that the 1800's had seen many technological developments resulting in increasing inequality, and of course with less money in the larger economy this resulted in a labour OVERsupply (the opposite of what you stated) - the resulting poverty and poor working conditions triggered the labour movement. 1910's was rescued by war industries, but unfortunately weath concentration increased yet further. As for the 1920's it would have become a recession or depression except for a bubble built on household borrowing. Yes, the roaring 20's was built on household debt. Why? Because inequality starved the real economy of cash - look it up! The reason for the later tight banking regulation which neoliberals decry is so this couldn't happen again - I wonder why it happened again? The US is back in the same position ie. wealth concentration, with the rest of the economy stagnant - money poor and trying to maintain education, health and standard of living through borrowing.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 30 2017, @12:35PM (4 children)
Let's discuss those. The most famous example was the cotton gin which greatly reduced downstream labor costs of picking cotton by automating the process of picking out the seeds from the cotton. But it still required picking by hand. That made slavery on cotton plantations extremely profitable, increasing inequality. But in the long run, slavery couldn't compete with the freer states of the North which had higher populations and stronger economies. And eventually slavery did end, reducing inequality a bit.
What does "less money" mean here? Less inflation? There is a slight negative correlation between inflation and unemployment, but the US was inflating its money supply enough that this wouldn't have been a factor. Otherwise, supply of money has no relevance to labor supply. Money is needed for a more efficient economy, but once you have it, it's just not that important to have more. I have noticed similar sentiments on occasion over the past few years, but I haven't figured out where these ideas are coming from.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday October 31 2017, @01:02AM (3 children)
{Let's discuss those. The most famous example was the cotton gin which greatly reduced downstream labor costs of picking cotton by automating the process of picking out the seeds from the cotton. But it still required picking by hand. That made slavery on cotton plantations extremely profitable, increasing inequality. But in the long run, slavery couldn't compete with the freer states of the North which had higher populations and stronger economies. And eventually slavery did end, reducing inequality a bit.}
The reason the plantation economy collapsed was because of the civil war, blockades in conjunction with an export-reliant economy, banning of slavery, the mass distruction of capital involved in losing the war, and the economic colinisation by the north because of the destruction of capital in the south - some call the south Americas first colony. It's like certain third world countries today - if the ruling class stays wealthy and there are wealthy areas to export to, then the living conditions for the bulk of society matters little (provided they are disenfranchised).
{What does "less money" mean here? Less inflation? There is a slight negative correlation between inflation and unemployment, but the US was inflating its money supply enough that this wouldn't have been a factor. Otherwise, supply of money has no relevance to labor supply. Money is needed for a more efficient economy, but once you have it, it's just not that important to have more. I have noticed similar sentiments on occasion over the past few years, but I haven't figured out where these ideas are coming from.}
What does "less money" mean? As wealth inequality grows, the elites have more power to negotiate an increasingly large share of the proceeds, which depresses wages emptying the real economy of cash. People either become impoverished, or borrow in the hope that economic conditions will improve - this borrowing can keep things going for a while eg. roaring 20's. Unfortunately this borrowing brings on the end, because it accellerates inequality - financiers get rich while people in the real economy lose even more spending power.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 31 2017, @04:46AM (2 children)
It's interesting to actually look at history here. As time went on, the masters of the South grew increasingly desperate, among other things sparking guerilla wars in Missouri and Kansas (obtaining a voting majority in these states was necessary in order for them to become slave-holding states - it quickly devolved to the point where people were fighting each other in order to drive out voters of the other side) with their machinations. Their nominal opponents of the day, the Whig party in turn fell apart and was replaced by the Republicans due to their corrupt and incompetent attempts to placate the Southern states.
By 1861, the Southern position was untenable both politically and economically. That's why they succeeded from the US and formed the Confederacy. And then the subsequent attacks on US military positions, starting with the siege of Fort Sumter drew them into a conflict that they were poorly equipped for (particularly with no European allies to assist them, which would have been key to any eventual victory over the US).
The destruction you mention was just the end game of a long conflict which slave-holding states had been losing for a while.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday October 31 2017, @01:05PM (1 child)
I always read that the confederacy was certainly not disadvantaged economically, even though they lagged in manufacturing output.
Double checked... and this seems to be the case (at least according to a page from the national park service web site):
"The Southern lag in industrial development did not result from any inherent economic disadvantages. There was great wealth in the South, but it was primarily tied up in the slave economy. In 1860, the economic value of slaves in the United States exceeded the invested value of all of the nation's railroads, factories, and banks combined. On the eve of the Civil War, cotton prices were at an all-time high. The Confederate leaders were confident that the importance of cotton on the world market, particularly in England and France, would provide the South with the diplomatic and military assistance they needed for victory."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 31 2017, @01:41PM
And yet the economic value of slavery was zero by the end of 1865. Thus, I wager their economic position was not as strong as claimed in that blurb. This also goes back to my question, how rich are the rich? [soylentnews.org]. There apparently was a nice valuation of slavery in 1861, but that valuation had vanished by 1865.
Let us keep in mind that by 1860, slavery had globally already become a rare thing with abolition having already occurred throughout most of Europe and South America (Brazil being the last holdout to fully end slavery in 1888) by this time. So the greatest economic value of the elite in the Confederacy was based on an institution that they were worried might be ended any year by the US government. In addition, population and economic growth was far greater in the North than South. The writing was on the wall. If the South did nothing, eventually the institution of slavery would be ended and all that economic value would no longer be theirs to own.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 30 2017, @12:49PM (2 children)
Once again, we have this assertion without evidence of "wealth concentration increasing". My take is that the stock market crash of 1929 indicates that a huge portion of this wealth concentration was purely imaginary.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday October 31 2017, @12:32AM (1 child)
Do a search for "america 1870's wealth concentration".
There has been much research into this, initially finding that industrialisation caused wealth concentration, with subsequent research backing this up. From a later paper :
"By using the much larger sample available in the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) we are able to disaggregate the data much more finely than has previously been possible allowing us to explore differences in inequality across space and between different population groups. The data provide strong support for the hypothesis that American industrialization during the nineteenth century resulted in increasing inequality in the distribution of wealth."
(Score: 2) by Pav on Tuesday October 31 2017, @12:39AM
The reason I started in the 1870's was because that's when America started industrialising. Europe had already industrialised, inequality had grown, and the "economic renegotiation" had already happened driving vast quantities of people into crushing poverty (and famine in Ireland - even during the so-called "potato famine" Ireland produced an agricultural surplus... it was just that wealth inequality had developed so far that Irish peasant lives were expendable). Americas industrialisation happened later (starting in the 1870's, and continued til the great depression).
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday October 30 2017, @10:11PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:52PM (6 children)
To that, I would simply say that your idea of "undeserving" and the comparable conception of others of the term – including mine – has some rather significant differences.
For starters, I think everyone deserves to not freeze, starve, die of something preventable, or live in pain.
From there, I'm willing to discuss what might or might not be "deserved."
The fact is, though, that in order to prevent people from falling through those levels of suffering, money is required.
Prophylactically speaking: The fact also remains that charity has not even remotely stepped up to cover those things, so any suggestions about how charity "ought" to be the recourse for such folk is ludicrous. You know, if anyone was thinking of dipping into that well. :)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:29PM (5 children)
Why? What have they done to be deserving? I can see taking pity on them and helping regardless but no, they do not "deserve" anything simply for existing.
As for charity, you must live in a major city. Out in the sticks us sister-fuckers take care of each other, though it's often not in an organized fashion.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Touché) by fyngyrz on Sunday October 29 2017, @08:05PM (1 child)
Not seeing why they have to do anything to be deserving of such basic levels of survival. Society can afford to keep them at some level of not-bottom, and IMHO, it should do so. If it doesn't, it ends up creating extremely desperate people, and that's just stupid, not to mention counter-productive, inconvenient, and cruel.
The fact that some (not many, really, but some) people don't want to do anything particularly useful doesn't bother me a bit. There are always outliers; complaining about relative productivity means you ought to be complaining about yourself, as there are far more productive types out there than you and I (and I'm pretty darned productive, as you may well be too.) Furthermore, highly-productive types aren't always in receipt of proportional recompense for their efforts. Society is being perfectly reasonable when it smooths out the ends of the curves – both ends. IMHO.
I live in rural Montana. 300 miles from the nearest thing one might, if one were feeling generous, call a "city" ("shithole" is a lot closer to the mark.) I've been here for almost thirty years, ever since I managed to get out from under other people's corporate hammer. The attraction was, and remains, cost of living. It certainly isn't a surfeit of kind souls nearby.
Your sticks are not my sticks, clearly. The residents here are perfectly happy to let other people freeze, starve, and die of whatever. Including other residents. The local cops, when they find people walking in town who are not actual residents, kindly pick them up and deposit them on the highway outside of town with a firm admonition to "keep going." There's no shelter for people – transients, etc.; there's no humane society or equivalent; animals are mostly for shooting and/or butchering and selling the resulting fragments thereof. And riding. Until they're old. Then they tend to get shot anyway. Entertainment here is largely comprised of sinking a hook in a fish's face or a bullet in a four-leggers heart or head, as a prelude to hanging its head on the wall. Or just dragging them behind a pickup until they die horribly, though I do give the local cops credit for stopping that shit when they catch anyone at it. Which is all too regularly.
In my experience, rural people tend to be insular, selfish, vicious gossips, and generally small minded and poorly informed. Other than that, they're absolutely lovely. :/
I still don't think any of them need to suffer in a country as productive and rich as ours is.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday October 30 2017, @10:18PM
You: I live in rural Montana. 300 miles from the nearest thing one might, if one were feeling generous, call a "city"
Possibly the most deserving "touche" mod recipient I've seen in a long time!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30 2017, @12:46AM (2 children)
Let me turn that back on you. What has the typical wealthy billionaire done to be so deserving? What have they done that makes them more deserving of that wealth than the hundreds of thousands of people that could be kept sheltered and fed given the same wealth? I can tell you what: NOT. A. GOD. DAMNED. THING.
No, taxes on the wealthy aren't "taking what one person has earned and giving it to someone undeserving." It's quite the opposite. It's taking from those who haven't earned it, don't deserve it, and, most importantly, don't need it and can't even possibly spend it all, and giving to those who do need it. Taxes on the wealthy is a way to take back at least some of what they've stolen from society and return it to their victims. There's not a single multi-billionaire that got where they are without either inheriting it (read: DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL TO DESERVE OR EARN IT!), or cheating, stealing, and otherwise stepping on those who have less in order to "get theirs." Not. A. Single. One. You can find dirt on ALL of them if you choose to dig deep enough. There's enough on some of them right at the surface to get them locked up for life without parole, if only the same laws applied to them that apply to the rest of us. Google "billionaire pedophile" if you want to see the reason I absolutely despise the super-wealthy. They can, have, and do continue to get away with murder and things considered WORSE than murder, all for the simple fact that they have enough wealth to buy their way out without making a meaningful impact on their wealth.
"I got mine. Screw you." -- Official motto of the top .001% and their gaggle of moronic followers usually referred to as "The Republican Party."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30 2017, @09:29AM
Hadn't produced hundreds of thousands hungry offspring without means of support, for one.
ANY amount of wealth you throw to your "kept" people, you end up with NO wealth and MORE such people to "keep". You cannot win. You cannot get even. The only sane strategy is not to play. :(
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 30 2017, @04:04PM
Directly employ tens of thousands to millions of people. Hundreds of thousands of the poor aren't doing that either.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Sunday October 29 2017, @03:12PM (13 children)
Just give me ONE example of a society which is civilized and doesn't have a government.
I'll give you Somalia as an example of a society without government and it ain't civilized.
Some tribes in the Amazon might not have a government as such, but they can't be called civilized either.
Both communism (i.e. workers' governing themselves) and the 'noble savage' of Rousseau have been throughly discredited, but don't let facts stand in the way of your ideology.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:34PM (10 children)
Strawman. I said people can be civilized without the government forcing them, not that there should be no government. There is a vast gulf between small government and no government.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Sunday October 29 2017, @10:20PM (9 children)
Give me an example of the type of government you believe exists that is qualitatively different from the government of the U.S., U.K., France, Germany or any other ‘civilized’ nation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30 2017, @03:46PM
Buzzy doesn't give examples and doesn't explain his opinions beyond superficial ranting. He is a small minded fool whose only real argument is "why do you think it is OK to steal MY money to pay for someone else.". That is it, fill stop. Logic begins and ends right there for him.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 30 2017, @04:04PM (7 children)
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Tuesday October 31 2017, @12:58AM (6 children)
Either TMB forgot to switch accounts or you can read his mind!
Assuming TMB is a straight arrow and would not be trying to fool us with multiple accounts, I gather you know what he's thinking. So tell me, where does he keep his stash?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 31 2017, @04:33AM (5 children)
And if we are to believe the story, we're in the midst of a second gilded age despite the far larger governments of the present. Funny how they spend so much more without getting so much more.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Tuesday October 31 2017, @04:38AM (4 children)
Maybe I should have highlighted the part that reads 'you believe' as in referring to TMB?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 31 2017, @05:44AM (3 children)
(Score: 1) by jelizondo on Tuesday October 31 2017, @07:09PM (2 children)
I want TMB's opinion, that is all. Not any opinion, but his.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 31 2017, @11:43PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Wednesday November 01 2017, @01:50AM
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I went back to my post and realized that it can be read perfectly as anybody/everybody being asked and that was not my intent. I apologize.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @08:54PM (1 child)
communism (i.e. workers' governing themselves) [has] been throughly discredited
History alliterates are really irritating.
I guess that the blame can't be put -entirely- on those individuals.
USAians were "schooled" in a way that ignores anything that challenges the notion of Oligarchical Capitalism, so USAians grow up pretty ignorant.
So, for the non-autodidacts, there's The Paris Commune of 1871 and Barcelona 1936 -1937 for starters.
Both were broken up by Authoritarians with guns.
I can't think of an instance where that wasn't a cause for the "failure" of Socialism.
Down on the page, this gal has a longer (but still non-comprehensive) list. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [socialistworker.org]
Mondragon started in the Basque Country of Spain in 1956 with 6 worker-owners and now has over 100,000 worker-owners on 5 continents.
An exceptional example of democratic self-governance.
Suma is the largest worker-owned cooperative in UK and has the kind of democratic governance that you wish you had where you are
e.g. they voted to give *every* worker-owner the *same* (very nice) compensation package. [google.com]
Socialism works just fine, thank you very much.
...and every place that has called itself "communist" has been a top-down Totalitarian thing--the complete opposite of what Marx was describing.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday October 30 2017, @11:13PM
And you read a different translation of Marx from the one I did, there was plenty of overlap between the failed authoritarian not-what-people-who-see-some-benefit-in-some-communist-ideals-call-communism-in-retrospect regimes and the meaningless-to-self-contradictory word salad Marx wrote.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @03:38PM (4 children)
Or if you expect to be able to pay for frivolous things like food and shelter and be able to take a week or two off for vacation every year. That's something that an increasing number of Americans can't do, there's only 12 counties in the entire country that have affordable housing for those living on minimum wage.
As for Obamacare, your room mate most likely had a substandard plan that would have cut out if anything serious had happened. The increased cost of buying plans now is mostly a function of the fact that they have to actually provide service no matter who signs up. They're also not allowed to cut people off.
But, you make it sound like they're making more profits when that's not true. They're required by law to refund any additional premiums if they don't spend at least 80% of individual plans on health care or 85% of group plans.
What went wrong is a bunch of mental midgets like you have no idea what you're talking about and choose to deliberately ignore the fact that there's more service being provided and the GOP has been deliberately doing whatever they can to sabotage the legislation rather than working with the Democrats to find ways of improving it.
Plus, since when do you care about the middle class? You're one of the biggest asses on the site boosting the kind of governmental policies that destroyed the middle class in the first place.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:45PM (3 children)
Nope. One of the Cadillac plans you hear about unions getting for their members. And you thought Republicans were the ones ass-fucking the unions...
What went wrong is Democrats created a plan that took an enormous amount of money out of the middle class (only the middle class) and gave it to big corporations as a corporate entitlement in exchange for covering those who contribute very little to society but think they're owed first rate healthcare anyway.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @05:18PM (1 child)
The more I see TMB posting in a discussion, the more confident I can be that reading it is a waste of time.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday October 30 2017, @04:21AM
Indeeeed. And the best/worst part is that the stupid carrion-molesting dipshit is too much of a terminal Dunning-Kruger case to see this and *shut the fuck up.* It's got to be some kind of cluster B personality disorder or something.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30 2017, @06:10AM
What you are describing is class warfare. It is just funny how you only blame the"one evil" for all ills, but will conveniently use "they're both equally evil" when it comes to playing defense.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:29PM (2 children)
That's why the Rs have failed utterly 4 times over to do anything about it. Meanwhile, there's a lot of people who couldn't get insurance at all before who have it now. Of course, the real problem, carefully ignored by both parties is that we pay 4 times as much for healthcare as the U.K. $8 dollar aspirins, $150 canvas slings and the like. There is no meaningful market in healthcare. Hospitals don't even bother posting price lists. You are expected to just go and pay whatever they say.
And I'll say it again, in spite of all of the blather about fixing Obamacare, the R's have done nothing but waste a lot of time since getting control of both houses of the legislature and the Oval office. They're in the driver's seat now, if you still don't like where we're going, they are 100% to blame. It's put up or shut up time for the Rs.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:47PM
You think I'm lauding the Republicans? You aren't paying attention then. Or you just want a strawman.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Scrutinizer on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:26PM
You are almost entirely correct. The "almost" includes a little place called the Surgery Center of Oklahoma [surgerycenterok.com] which actually does post its "out the door" pricing for a wide range of surgical procedures out in public on its website. You'll note that the prices look like something out of a used car lot rather than a professional first-world surgical center.
"Pre-paid health care" provides for a whole lot of opportunities to hide the total cost from the primary customer and therefore inflate prices, whereas if the paying customer can see the transaction details up-front, prices tend to decline as competition and technological improvement work their "magic".
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:34PM (2 children)
If he has insurance through his employer, than the insurance was not bought through the exchange, so there are a number of possibilities:
1. His employer screwed him over on health insurance and blamed the ACA.
2. His health insurance had some serious holes that would have screwed him if he had had a serious hospital bill.
3. He or you are lying.
My daughter bought he insurance privately before and after the ACA. There was no drastic changes in coverage or pricing before or after the ACA.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:57PM (1 child)
A) Your daughter did not have a 90/10 plan with a low deductible and all the other bells and whistles. Those plans that used to be possible for middle class Americans are gone for anyone but the rich now.
B) There are two insurers in the state and until Trump EO'd it this month you couldn't buy out of state. It was Comcast or AT&T but with insurance.
C) Premiums are up an insane amount from pre-Obamacare, unless you're dirt poor. This is a fact. I'd link it but I could show you the check stubs and you still wouldn't believe it, so I won't bother.
Learn what you're talking about before you spout off.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday October 29 2017, @06:29PM
A) Yes, she did. Low co-pays, very low deductible.
B) That doesn't affect my point that your friend didn't have the insurance he thought he had.
C) My insurance (through my employer) was largely unaffected by the ACA, and I am not dirt poor. Far from it. My pay stubs show this.
So my insurance is not up by an astronomic amount vs. pre-ACA. Perhaps the real problem is the state in which you live?
Before the ACA, when I thought that I needed to buy insurance for my family, even minor pre-existing conditions would have made the real cost of insurance astronomic (with some family members pushed onto the state's high risk pool, which means that I might have to pay two family deductibles or two out of pocket maximums, on top of astronomic total for the premiums. This was all pre-ACA.
You really should.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Fluffeh on Sunday October 29 2017, @09:36PM (1 child)
I always find it baffling how much people from the US have argued about Republican v Democrat healthcare policies over the last decade. Obama this, Republican that - while missing the fact that healthcare in the US costs far more than in other countries - here's the supporting data with graphs and the like [wikipedia.org].
Each time this is mentioned, the counter-argument inevitably as "The US has the best healthcare in the world", but that's only partly true. Yes, the US does have some good healthcare compared to a lot of the world. But it's not really leaps and bounds ahead of the wealthier European countries, or Australia, or Japan or Canada - whose citizens all pay significantly less or have access to universal healthcare without charge.
I'm not hatin' here, I just don't understand why the average person in the US isn't outraged that the bill from the hospital costs them more than anywhere else for the same level of medical service. Any which way you look at it, it is the person who is sick that is getting screwed over.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29 2017, @10:28PM
American politics is all 'us vs them'
With a pool of maybe 10-15 percent moderates who might sway R or D during a particular election (the actual number might be significantly less, you would have to look at the past 30 years of election results and do some graphing.)
The lack of arguement over health care COSTS in America is mostly down to partisanship. Following that, it is down to empathy versus lack of empathy. Most republicans do not emphasize with people who have not lived their exact lifestyle. Many Dems DO, but at the same time they follow a party of mostly corporate whoring authoritarian hypocrites being too concerned with the next Republican getting into office to take the time to kill the Democratic party and start a new party that answers to its voting base and better matches the issues actual normal people have, while not getting into issues they don't. Copyright extension, pro-IP, anti-privacy laws, pro-law enforcement/military, gun restrictions, etc all get far more mindshare and voting than REAL normal people issues, like health care, fair and difficult to game tax rates, banking/personal information oversight, etc.
The republicans I have a hard time fathoming, because every republican I've talked to in the past 10-15 years is a zealot. And I mean the sort of stereotyped zealots who only listen to Fox News, or Newt Gingrich, or Glenn Beck. The sort who chose Trump even given his lack of religious foundation and treatment of women because Clinton is the Democratic Anti-Christ (As opposed to picking say the Libertarian candidate as a vote again either incumbent party. 5 percent would have gotten Green or Libertarian party government financial aid during the next election cycle, and 10+ percent was the last claimed number to get in on the nation televised debates, last I read.
As you can see, each side prefers to 'beat' the other side, even if in the long term it compromises their desired identity for the country. And the problem is, nobody at this point is working towards compromises that would provide the most important facets of each side's vision of the country so that it might be a country they all feel comfortable living in. Perhaps that is impossible, but since neither side would be willing to allow states to secede, or re-empower the States rights and get them to stop sucking on the Federal money teat in exchange for not compromising State authority (over roads, healthcare, and other things, most of which pulls in federal funding in exchange for compromises on driving age, smoking age, drinking age, etc.) so that each state can be a unique culture and people can migrate to the culture and legal environment that best suits them.
An interesting discussion could be had over where the US would be today if the South had seceded. Much of the current animosity can be traced back to the conflict between state and federal rights that happened as a result of the north and south's heated political conflict over whether slavery was moral and whether it should or should not continue to be legal. Given the flip in party stances in the years since, an interesting thought experiment is: Would America have remained two states divided over the issues of that time or would this current conflict still have occurred, only in two separate nations that would have resulted had the civil war not happened, resulting in the possibility of four or more nations split up along new hot button issues, or new party lines? This is a good mental exercise and discussion to have, given the current political situation because it may provide insight into how long democracy can work before people come across a new issue to fight over, and if oppression is necessary to keep people from breaking into successively smaller groups until you are back to city-states or smaller village entities due to conflict (and the inevitable replacement of them with kingdoms/nations when the militarily strong take over from those now-weak smaller groups.)
An additional discussion could be had over whether a president or any issue should be allowed with a simple majority rather than super-majority of votes, since the current system pits two almost balanced dissenting sides against each other, resulting in a very stable form of political control for the wealthy, whereas with a supermajority required very few bills would ever pass, and the majority would need to have either a huge amount of collusion between dissimiliar parties, or a single party effectively in control of the government (not unlike America has today, but as has been shown there is plenty of dissent in Congress even with a near-supermajority that would keep new laws from getting passed if the supermajority was the minimum bar to passing new legislation.)
If Congress was used to vote on legislation that then had to be voted on and approved by the public I think the system would be far closer to infalliable. If it makes it through both houses, plus the presidential veto (using say 80 percent as the replacement 'supermajority' bar for bypasing a veto), and passes a supermajority of the voting public, then it can be pretty well assumed that is the vision set forth for the country, for better or worse, rather than being the tyranny of a not-quite majority, as it stands with current Republican vs Democrat politics.