People Power

[chuck34]

Go back 3 pages and read again, and let's hope that 3 pages later you will not get back to the same point where you are now.

I don't need to go back 3 pages. Your last post stated that you wanted government to level things out. How do you propose that works?

[chuck34]

In mainstream politics, I said — i.e. within the mainstream parties in the world of elected politics. I would have thought this was clear.

But your veiled reference to the T.E.A. Party (ie right-wing nutcases) means that you think they are somehow "mainstream", yet OWS is not. Why is that? What is stopping a left-leaning type of T.E.A. party if OWS is not it.

[ioan]

This is basically what the T.E.A. party is about, demanding something better from our politicians, holding them accountable, etc. There is enough weight behind the T.E.A. party that if they chose to they could start a fairly viable 3rd party. But they seem to have chosen to try to change the Republican Party from the inside. Same with the OWS people. There are probably enough of them that if they really wanted to they could start a 3rd party.

That's what I am mostly afraid of, the weight behind the political parties is nowadays corporations who are rubbing their hands at the thought of shiny new laws tailor made to suit them.

You'd need to put some filthy rich, smart and altruist people in charge to make it 100% sure that the laws will be changed for good and enforced. Very difficult task.

[BDunnell]

But your veiled reference to the T.E.A. Party (ie right-wing nutcases) means that you think they are somehow "mainstream", yet OWS is not. Why is that? What is stopping a left-leaning type of T.E.A. party if OWS is not it.

I see almost no similarities at all. The TEA Party is, no matter how much you may wish to portray it as being an independent, non-partisan organisation, very specifically affiliated with one particular political party. This is simply not the case with the Occupy movements.

[BDunnell]

That's what I am mostly afraid of, the weight behind the political parties is nowadays corporations who are rubbing their hands at the thought of shiny new laws tailor made to suit them.

Do we think that a TEA Party government in the USA would be heroically independent of big business? I thought not.

[ArrowsFA1]

No, a thousand times no.
Right, so how are economic inequalities that can result in poverty, a lack of education and poor health (all of which affect an individual's ability to fulfill their potential) any different?

[ioan]

I don't need to go back 3 pages. Your last post stated that you wanted government to level things out. How do you propose that works?

I think I posted the answer a few pages back.
Taxes need to be equal and enforced, no more loopholes, no more offshore business and similar crap. All we need is some politicians who want to make it work, and this is where the difficult part starts.

[Rollo]

What is wrong with the voting population demading a change at the ballot box?

Who do you vote for that will make any difference whatsoever? It's worse in the United States because you've voluntarily shouted out the left (largely as a result of McCarthyism) and now have no plurality of voices. You're given a choice of almost identical nitwits, both of which have proven that they're incapable of running the country and an entire economic system that's perfectly fine with that.

[ioan]

Do we think that a TEA Party government in the USA would be heroically independent of big business? I thought not.

There is no party out there that isn't backed by someone, after all it's not like they can pay hundreds of millions needed for their electoral campaigns from their own pockets.
Heck even the Chinese Communist Party works on the same model nowadays.

[Rollo]

Do you not believe in taking personal responsibility? If you do, you should also feel that these corporations should take responsibility for their failure to pay as much as they should, and do the decent thing.

Corporations will not take responsibility for their failure to pay as much as they should because of two main reasons:
1. Self-Interest - Adam Smith noted that every entity in economics acts for their own self-interest; in the case of a corporation that means turning a profit.
2. Genovese Syndrome - Otherwise called the "bystander effect". Collectively it operates with corporations in the same way as it does for individuals who not not offer help to a victim in an emergency when other people are present.

Taken together, if society becomes more uneven, it has a tendency to remain that way unless acted on by a major social or calamitous event. Basically, because a Corporation is a non-corporeal entity, it has no conscience and therefore acts as such. Also, I think it's kind of obvious that people generally are losing any sense of moral compass they once had for a number of reasons.

Society itself is become fuller of crud and the institutions like governments and corporations which it appoints are also becoming fuller of crud.

[chuck34]

I see almost no similarities at all. The TEA Party is, no matter how much you may wish to portray it as being an independent, non-partisan organisation, very specifically affiliated with one particular political party. This is simply not the case with the Occupy movements.

Riiiight. Look at both movements with a critical eye, and you will see they are the same in organization and affiliation. It's just that one is on the left and one is on the right. Oh and one is involved in violence, rapes, hatred, and so on.

[ioan]

Taken together, if society becomes more uneven, it has a tendency to remain that way unless acted on by a major social or calamitous event. Basically, because a Corporation is a non-corporeal entity, it has no conscience and therefore acts as such. Also, I think it's kind of obvious that people generally are losing any sense of moral compass they once had for a number of reasons.

And that is why continuing this way will not have a happy end, and that's a thought I would rather not think about.

[chuck34]

Right, so how are economic inequalities that can result in poverty, a lack of education and poor health (all of which affect an individual's ability to fulfill their potential) any different?

You can not legislate away any of those issues. Nor can any altruistc mumbo-jumbo eliminate them.

[ioan]

You can not legislate away any of those issues. Nor can any altruistc mumbo-jumbo eliminate them.

Is that a defeatist attitude there? I'm shocked.

[chuck34]

I think I posted the answer a few pages back.
Taxes need to be equal and enforced, no more loopholes, no more offshore business and similar crap.

I would agree with this. And I bet millions of people on the left and the right would also agree.


All we need is some politicians who want to make it work, and this is where the difficult part starts.

Why is it difficult? And just because it's difficult we souldn't try? Or should we just protest with no plan to change anything?

[chuck34]

Who do you vote for that will make any difference whatsoever? It's worse in the United States because you've voluntarily shouted out the left (largely as a result of McCarthyism) and now have no plurality of voices. You're given a choice of almost identical nitwits, both of which have proven that they're incapable of running the country and an entire economic system that's perfectly fine with that.

The free market works in politics just as well as it does in economics. If there is so much demand for a particular voice (in this case one that isn't tied to corportations), then a candidate will eventually show up to fill that demand. Why doesn't one of the leaders/organizers of OWS step up and run for office?

[chuck34]

And that is why continuing this way will not have a happy end, and that's a thought I would rather not think about.

Ok. So what is your plan to avoid this un-happy end?

[chuck34]

Is that a defeatist attitude there? I'm shocked.

Far from defeatist. I believe in a truly free market, one where governments have the bare minimum of influence. That free market will allow those with the desire to avoid poverty, bad education, and poor healthcare.

[BDunnell]

I would agree with this. And I bet millions of people on the left and the right would also agree.

They would, and do.

[BDunnell]

Riiiight. Look at both movements with a critical eye, and you will see they are the same in organization and affiliation. It's just that one is on the left and one is on the right. Oh and one is involved in violence, rapes, hatred, and so on.

No, chuck, you are wrong. This statement betrays your complete lack of awareness of the sort of people engaged in the Occupy protests. They are simply not affiliated to a single party in the manner of the TEA Party members.

[ioan]

Why is it difficult? And just because it's difficult we souldn't try? Or should we just protest with no plan to change anything?

I never said we should give up, just that it is very difficult and maybe protests are what is needed to make politicians responsible again.

[ioan]

Ok. So what is your plan to avoid this un-happy end?

Change, a fair and enforced tax system, I think this is the 2nd time I answer this question on this very page.

[ioan]

I believe in a truly free market, one where governments have the bare minimum of influence.

Someone needs to set and enforce the rules of the game, and it has to be someone elected by the many who are the base of said market. You can't let the players make the rules as the game develops, we all see what that means in the end.


That free market will allow those with the desire to avoid poverty, bad education, and poor healthcare.

There is free market and it doesn't stop poverty, bad education and poor healthcare. Maybe this free market isn't that great after all?

[ioan]

No, chuck, you are wrong. This statement betrays your complete lack of awareness of the sort of people engaged in the Occupy protests. They are simply not affiliated to a single party in the manner of the TEA Party members.

Right, they are only affiliated to the common need for a change in better.

[BDunnell]

There is free market and it doesn't stop poverty, bad education and poor healthcare. Maybe this free market isn't that great after all?

And the imposition of the free market in education and healthcare does not guarantee improvement either.

[ArrowsFA1]

You can not legislate away any of those issues. Nor can any altruistc mumbo-jumbo eliminate them.
But can you explain how the economic issues we are discussing differ from other inequality issues that have been addressed by protests, sometimes violence & direct action, and ultimately legislation?

[chuck34]

No, chuck, you are wrong. This statement betrays your complete lack of awareness of the sort of people engaged in the Occupy protests. They are simply not affiliated to a single party in the manner of the TEA Party members.

And that statement betrays your complete lack of awareness of the sort of people engaged in the T.E.A. Party.

[BDunnell]

And that statement betrays your complete lack of awareness of the sort of people engaged in the T.E.A. Party.

What proportion of TEA Party members are Republicans and what proportion Democrats?

[chuck34]

I never said we should give up, just that it is very difficult and maybe protests are what is needed to make politicians responsible again.

So these protests are asking politicians to be responsible? Then why didn't these people join the T.E.A. party? Why are they Occupying Wall Street instead of Capital Hill?

[chuck34]

Change, a fair and enforced tax system, I think this is the 2nd time I answer this question on this very page.

So all that you are asking for is the elimination of tax loopholes?

[chuck34]

Someone needs to set and enforce the rules of the game, and it has to be someone elected by the many who are the base of said market. You can't let the players make the rules as the game develops, we all see what that means in the end.

Exaclty. that is what I mean by a government that has a bare minimum of influence. If the government wasn't giving out tax breaks and bailouts and sweetheart deals and the like, corporations wouldn't have so much influence. Government needs to be like an umpire, there to make sure the rules are followed, but not to make new ones that favor one team over the other.


There is free market and it doesn't stop poverty, bad education and poor healthcare. Maybe this free market isn't that great after all?

Name me one system that will stop any of those things.

[chuck34]

And the imposition of the free market in education and healthcare does not guarantee improvement either.

In the short term, you are correct, there may not be any improvement. But over the long term there will be improvement. And no, poor education and poor healthcare will never go away no matter the system.

[race aficionado]

In the short term, you are correct, there may not be any improvement. But over the long term there will be improvement. And no, poor education and poor healthcare will never go away no matter the system.
chuck . . . . I don't understand this statement . . .

[chuck34]

But can you explain how the economic issues we are discussing differ from other inequality issues that have been addressed by protests, sometimes violence & direct action, and ultimately legislation?

Because in a free market system everyone has the opportunity to advance, however some will fail. The other inequality issues such as discrimination, slavery, etc. mean that one has been denied access to the free market.

[BDunnell]

chuck . . . . I don't understand this statement . . .

Nor do I, for it seems to suggest in one breath that the private sector would both lead to improvements in education and healthcare, and not do away with poor provision.

I'm afraid that as soon as I read of involving the private sector in education, I think of the kid who was suspended from school in the USA for daring to wear a Pepsi T-shirt while a photo was being taken during his school's 'Coke In Education' day.

[BDunnell]

Because in a free market system everyone has the opportunity to advance, however some will fail. The other inequality issues such as discrimination, slavery, etc. mean that one has been denied access to the free market.

Is that how you view the imposition of systems such as apartheid, then — nothing more important than the denial to black people of access to the free market?

[chuck34]

chuck . . . . I don't understand this statement . . .

If we turned over the education and healthcare systems tomorrow to the pure free market system, there will be a period of time where designing men will deny access or otherwise rip people off. I am under no illusion that the system is completely perfect. However over the long term those designing men will tend to go bankrupt as people turn away from their poor schemes, and develop better alternatives. Therefore in the long term, the system will work itself out to provide better service at a lower cost.

[chuck34]

Is that how you view the imposition of systems such as apartheid, then — nothing more important than the denial to black people of access to the free market?

Basically when you brake it down, yes that is what it was. Certain people were denied access to the free market of housing. They were denied access to the free market of labor. They were denied access to the equal protection of the legal system.

It was also morally repugnant, but we are talking about issues outside of morality at the moment.

[BDunnell]

If we turned over the education and healthcare systems tomorrow to the pure free market system, there will be a period of time where designing men will deny access or otherwise rip people off. I am under no illusion that the system is completely perfect. However over the long term those designing men will tend to go bankrupt as people turn away from their poor schemes, and develop better alternatives. Therefore in the long term, the system will work itself out to provide better service at a lower cost.

Really? In every case? Experience tends to show otherwise. And given that you're always on at many of us to go into details, define 'better'.

[chuck34]

What proportion of TEA Party members are Republicans and what proportion Democrats?

What proportion of the protesters at OWS are Democrats and what proportion Republicans?

[BDunnell]

What proportion of the protesters at OWS are Democrats and what proportion Republicans?

I have no idea — just as I assume you have no idea about the answer to the question I posed, hence your non-answer. The difference seems to be that I am willing to admit that I don't know.

[chuck34]

Really? In every case? Experience tends to show otherwise. And given that you're always on at many of us to go into details, define 'better'.

What experience? Where is there a free market for education and healthcare?

For education I would define "better" as smarter, getting higher marks on standardized tests, heck in the US I'd settle for everyone graduating High School to be able to read all at a lower cost.

For healthcare I would define "better" as quicker access to doctors and treatments, lower cost treatments, etc. all at a lower cost.

[chuck34]

I have no idea — just as I assume you have no idea about the answer to the question I posed, hence your non-answer. The difference seems to be that I am willing to admit that I don't know.

I also do not know. I'm willing to admit that. Obviously at a T.E.A. party more people will self identify with the Republican party. Just as the opposite is true at OWS. However, you were implying that the T.E.A. Party was some arm of the Republican party. It is not, it has been in many cases co-opted by Republican politicians. The exact same is the case with OWS and the Democrat party. They are two sides of the same coin in that way, and that is my point.

[BDunnell]

What experience? Where is there a free market for education and healthcare?

I was referring to other areas in which we have seen privatisation in the UK, such as, to mention it again, public transport.

[chuck34]

I was referring to other areas in which we have seen privatisation in the UK, such as, to mention it again, public transport.

And to mention it again, was that system truly a free market or was it a privatisation where private companies provided a specific service at the specific direction of the government?


So to address your question more precicely then ... To define "better" in the transportation market would mean getting me from point A to point B faster and at a lower cost.

[BDunnell]

And to mention it again, was that system truly a free market or was it a privatisation where private companies provided a specific service at the specific direction of the government?

It was a privatisation in the sense that the running of all passenger trains was passed to private companies. I do not know the details of the extent to which they were obliged to provide certain service levels, but such is only sensible when providing public transport. In any case, many of the companies concerned were utterly crap at it. So much for the inherent superiority of the private sector.



So to address your question more precicely then ... To define "better" in the transportation market would mean getting me from point A to point B faster and at a lower cost.

Well, the privatised railways in the UK have not done that.

[chuck34]

It was a privatisation in the sense that the running of all passenger trains was passed to private companies. I do not know the details of the extent to which they were obliged to provide certain service levels, but such is only sensible when providing public transport. In any case, many of the companies concerned were utterly crap at it. So much for the inherent superiority of the private sector.

Well, the privatised railways in the UK have not done that.

You said it yourself, the privitized transportation was "obliged to provide certain service levels". That is not a free market. So you can not draw any conclusions about the superiority or lack thereof of the private sector from this example.

[race aficionado]

. . .
I suggest that perhaps those in Occupy Wall Street are occupying the wrong street. They might want to try Pennsylvania Ave. Or maybe instead of Zuccotti Park they should camp out on Capital Hill. Hmmm.... something to think about maybe?

I was at Zuckotti park this weekend and it was relatively empty . . . it's job has been fulfilled and now a different phase is in the making.
This is one of the events that is coming up:


Dear MoveOn member,
Last week, a committed group of 99% protesters, with tired feet and exhilarated souls, arrived in Washington after a 230-mile march from Occupy Wall Street.

Next week these few marchers are getting some serious reinforcements, because we're joining with a coalition of community groups, unions, occupiers, and more to "Take Back the Capitol" from December 5 – 9.

By bus, plane, car, and train, thousands of unemployed and underemployed people, students, community activists, union members, healthcare advocates, and occupiers from coast to coast are coming to Washington for an incredible week of action.

From fanning out to visit congressional offices to swarming the offices of the K Street lobbyists who helped roll back taxes on corporations and the 1%, each day next week will involve a targeted action for the 99% to take back our government from the corporations.

We've seen the kind of attention and impact the 99% can have in cities across the country. Now we need to take that energy to the heart of political power. Click below to sign up for this exciting week of action targeting our political leaders and the K Street lobbyists, and we'll connect you with the organizers in your area helping get people to Washington:

pretty cool. :s mokin:



http://gallery.me.com/emeseditorials#100213/and-20what-20do-20you-20stand-20for--20Really-&bgcolor=black


http://front.moveon.org/the%2Dsingle%2Dmost%2Dimportant%2Drobert%2Dreich%2 Dclip%2Dyou%2Dcan%2Dshare%2Dtoday/?rc=daily.share&id=33198-2316489-0bGnhHx

[Rollo]

In the short term, you are correct, there may not be any improvement. But over the long term there will be improvement. And no, poor education and poor healthcare will never go away no matter the system.

I was university educated in a state-run and owned university and when I tore my ACL, I was operated on in a state-run and owned hospital at zero end user cost to me. The country I live in does not have poor education and poor healthcare; quite on the contrary.

I live in a country that also happens outrank the United States in terms of life expectancy, literacy rates, quality-of-life index etc. The United States also happens to be the worst of the industrialised nations when it comes to infant mortality rates.



For education I would define "better" as smarter, getting higher marks on standardized tests, heck in the US I'd settle for everyone graduating High School to be able to read all at a lower cost.
For healthcare I would define "better" as quicker access to doctors and treatments, lower cost treatments, etc. all at a lower cost.

So then to summarise. Using your criteria: the country I live in is better at providing education and healthcare. Your position based on the free-market providing better outcomes is therefore bunk.

[Rollo]

However over the long term those designing men will tend to go bankrupt as people turn away from their poor schemes, and develop better alternatives. Therefore in the long term, the system will work itself out to provide better service at a lower cost.

No. The system will produce a more profitable system and totally neglect anything which does not turn a profit.

[anthonyvop]

I was university educated in a state-run and owned university and when I tore my ACL, I was operated on in a state-run and owned hospital at zero end user cost to me. The country I live in does not have poor education and poor healthcare; quite on the contrary.

I live in a country that also happens outrank the United States in terms of life expectancy, literacy rates, quality-of-life index etc. The United States also happens to be the worst of the industrialised nations when it comes to infant mortality rates.



So then to summarise. Using your criteria: the country I live in is better at providing education and healthcare. Your position based on the free-market providing better outcomes is therefore bunk.

Then why do millions of people every year try to come to the USA and a significantly smaller amount try to go you yours?

Could it be those "Facts" are just more propaganda to further a socialist agenda?

[BDunnell]

Then why do millions of people every year try to come to the USA and a significantly smaller amount try to go you yours?

Could it be those "Facts" are just more propaganda to further a socialist agenda?

One there from the 'My dad's tougher than your dad' school of debating.

[Rollo]

Then why do millions of people every year try to come to the USA and a significantly smaller amount try to go you yours?

Net migration for 2009/10:
USA - 2.25m on a population of 312m = 0.72115%
AUS - 177,600 on a population of 22.7m = 0.78238%

A "significantly smaller amount"? Proportionally it's 8% more than the United States.

[ioan]

And no, poor education and poor healthcare will never go away no matter the system.

How do you know? Seriously, isn't that a bit of a deaf statement?

[ioan]

If we turned over the education and healthcare systems tomorrow to the pure free market system, there will be a period of time where designing men will deny access or otherwise rip people off. I am under no illusion that the system is completely perfect. However over the long term those designing men will tend to go bankrupt as people turn away from their poor schemes, and develop better alternatives. Therefore in the long term, the system will work itself out to provide better service at a lower cost.

All was interesting and possible until thinking that something can be better and cheaper part.

Somehow the current industrial production that was moved to China based on the rules of the free market proves that wrong. Yes it got cheaper but quality is much worse and can't see it improve too much.

[Rollo]

The free market works in politics just as well as it does in economics. If there is so much demand for a particular voice (in this case one that isn't tied to corportations), then a candidate will eventually show up to fill that demand. Why doesn't one of the leaders/organizers of OWS step up and run for office?

There is no free-market in politics.

I'd now like to cite myself on this:

Duverger's Law suggests that in a plurality voting system, over time it should produce a tendency towards two-party politics. Really the only way to upset the system is to form a new party with sufficient clout to upend one of the existing two.
Especially in the United States where there is no direct opposition to the President in the mechanics of government (because he doesn't sit in the congress), it means that the job itself will only be a revolving door between two parties.

Because politics produces a tendency towards two-party politics, over time the relative market power of those two parties increases. Over time, due to economies-of-scale and other factors like the ability to raise capital and advertising, politics moves towards a duopoly.

That is what exists in America and indeed a great deal of single-seat parliamentary democracies. It's exacerbated by the first-past-the-post voting system and the single-seat presidency.

Your conceit, that "The free market works in politics just as well as it does in economics" might very well be true but the free market fails for precisely the same reasons - hence Duverger's Law.

[ioan]

For education I would define "better" as smarter, getting higher marks on standardized tests, heck in the US I'd settle for everyone graduating High School to be able to read all at a lower cost.

You are setting the bar lower there. getting better marks on standardized tests doesn't make one smarter. I see a better education in a completely different form.

What about making education better by allowing kids to develop their creative capabilities in a non standardized system? A system that allows every kid to make the best of their own abilities, where they do not have to be afraid that they will fail a standardized test even though their are exceptional in a certain field?

Standardization only suits the corporations who look for cheap workforce with standard knowledge required for a certain standard job.

[ioan]

ATo define "better" in the transportation market would mean getting me from point A to point B faster and at a lower cost.

Lower cost, lower cost, and again lower cost...
Let's not think only about the costs, we are talking about a world where the money wouldn't be anymore so unevenly distributed.
What about the quality of the service, don't they need to meet certain security standards? What about not only being fast but also on time?
Believe me, costs are not most important.

[ioan]

Then why do millions of people every year try to come to the USA and a significantly smaller amount try to go you yours?

How do you know that?!

[BDunnell]

You are setting the bar lower there. getting better marks on standardized tests doesn't make one smarter. I see a better education in a completely different form.

What about making education better by allowing kids to develop their creative capabilities in a non standardized system? A system that allows every kid to make the best of their own abilities, where they do not have to be afraid that they will fail a standardized test even though their are exceptional in a certain field?

Standardization only suits the corporations who look for cheap workforce with standard knowledge required for a certain standard job.

A very good post.

[ioan]

Thanks Ben.
I really enjoyed today's discussion. Time to go to bed now, my corporate job is waiting tomorrow morning! :)

[Bob Riebe]

You are setting the bar lower there. getting better marks on standardized tests doesn't make one smarter. I see a better education in a completely different form.

What about making education better by allowing kids to develop their creative capabilities in a non standardized system? A system that allows every kid to make the best of their own abilities, where they do not have to be afraid that they will fail a standardized test even though their are exceptional in a certain field?

Standardization only suits the corporations who look for cheap workforce with standard knowledge required for a certain standard job.

Is this before they can read, write and do advanced math skills?

[chuck34]

I was university educated in a state-run and owned university and when I tore my ACL, I was operated on in a state-run and owned hospital at zero end user cost to me. The country I live in does not have poor education and poor healthcare; quite on the contrary.

Great. I'm glad to hear you got a good education, and good healthcare. I never said it couldn't be done in a state-run system, just that I believe a free market system to be better. Zero cost you say, really? So you don't pay taxes then?


I live in a country that also happens outrank the United States in terms of life expectancy, literacy rates, quality-of-life index etc. The United States also happens to be the worst of the industrialised nations when it comes to infant mortality rates.

We went over this a while ago. Most of those statistics are bunk, mainly because the reporting mechanisms are flawed.


So then to summarise. Using your criteria: the country I live in is better at providing education and healthcare. Your position based on the free-market providing better outcomes is therefore bunk.

Who has said that the education and healthcare in the US is free market? I surely haven't said that. Far from it. There are relatively few private schools, most are state run, but those that are private are mostly among the best in the world. And healthcare is FAAAAARRRR from being run in a free market system. There are currently very few ways to judge free markets vs state-run in those areas.

[chuck34]

No. The system will produce a more profitable system and totally neglect anything which does not turn a profit.

Yes and if a company does not provide what the market is demanding (ie quality healthcare, good education, etc.) the consumers will turn to other avenues, thus reducing the profit of the poorly run company.

[chuck34]

How do you know? Seriously, isn't that a bit of a deaf statement?

Because humans are imperfect beings. We will never be able to solve every problem in every situation. To think otherwise is naive and foolish.

[chuck34]

All was interesting and possible until thinking that something can be better and cheaper part.

Things can't be better and cheaper? Wow I guess I should have kept my 286 computer that cost me $2500 or whatever it was from 1989.


Somehow the current industrial production that was moved to China based on the rules of the free market proves that wrong. Yes it got cheaper but quality is much worse and can't see it improve too much.

I can not honestly say that everything produced in China is of lesser quality, can you really make that blanket statement? And even if something is of lesser quality when it comes from China, consumers have made that trade-off decision for themselves. If you do not think this is the case why don't you set up a company that provides higher quality goods than are produced in China for slightly higher costs?

[chuck34]

There is no free-market in politics.

I'd now like to cite myself on this:


Because politics produces a tendency towards two-party politics, over time the relative market power of those two parties increases. Over time, due to economies-of-scale and other factors like the ability to raise capital and advertising, politics moves towards a duopoly.

That is what exists in America and indeed a great deal of single-seat parliamentary democracies. It's exacerbated by the first-past-the-post voting system and the single-seat presidency.

Your conceit, that "The free market works in politics just as well as it does in economics" might very well be true but the free market fails for precisely the same reasons - hence Duverger's Law.

No free market in politics? Tell that to the Federalists, the Democrat-Republicans, and the Whigs. And for that matter just because the two major parties haven't changed their names in over 100 years does not mean that they are static in their beliefs/platforms. Do you think Lincoln would be a Republican today? What about JFK? Just to name two.

[chuck34]

You are setting the bar lower there. getting better marks on standardized tests doesn't make one smarter. I see a better education in a completely different form.

What about making education better by allowing kids to develop their creative capabilities in a non standardized system? A system that allows every kid to make the best of their own abilities, where they do not have to be afraid that they will fail a standardized test even though their are exceptional in a certain field?

Standardization only suits the corporations who look for cheap workforce with standard knowledge required for a certain standard job.

Oh you must come from the everybody gets a trophy school of thought. Little Johnny can't add or subtract because he's too "creative" for that. Sorry but there aren't really any creative ways to read, or write with proper grammar, or add/subtract/etc. But yeah, let's let the kids be creative about things instead of teaching them what they need to know. That's what the public schools in this country have been doing for 30+ years, gotten us far hasn't it? There is a time and place for creativity, but that time is AFTER kids have learned the basics. We don't teach the basics in this country anymore, and I for one would like to get back to that.

[chuck34]

Lower cost, lower cost, and again lower cost...
Let's not think only about the costs, we are talking about a world where the money wouldn't be anymore so unevenly distributed.
What about the quality of the service, don't they need to meet certain security standards? What about not only being fast but also on time?
Believe me, costs are not most important.

I've been getting lectured for only thinking of money for so long, I thought that others actually thought of other things than money.

Costs are not constrained to monetary issues. Poor quality is a cost. Security is a cost. Being late is a cost.

[Rollo]

No free market in politics? Tell that to the Federalists, the Democrat-Republicans, and the Whigs.

They'd agree with me for precisely the reasons I've stated. How many Federalists, the Democrat-Republicans and Whigs are there in Congress? ZERO.
How many Constitution, Green, Libertarian or Modern Whigs are there in Congress? ZERO.

You've successfully demonstrated my point for me. Market Power is the ability to alter price (which in this case equates to votes) and in no way is the market perfectly competitive.

[chuck34]

They'd agree with me for precisely the reasons I've stated. How many Federalists, the Democrat-Republicans and Whigs are there in Congress? ZERO.
How many Constitution, Green, Libertarian or Modern Whigs are there in Congress? ZERO.

You've successfully demonstrated my point for me. Market Power is the ability to alter price (which in this case equates to votes) and in no way is the market perfectly competitive.

Um sorry no you are wrong. Perhaps it is simply because you do not know US political history. The Federalists, Democrat-Republicans, and the Whigs were all once dominant parties in our politics. Therfore they illustrate my point quite nicely, if you do not provide a product (political idea in this case) that enough people want to buy (vote for) then you go bankrupt (vanish from the political scene).

[airshifter]

42 pages later, and this discussion/debate/issue seems about as organized as most of the OWS protests. Quite a bit of it is nothing short of comical with various people contradicting themselves page after page, switching their views, disallowing others to use the same reasonings they are using, etc, etc.

I've still yet to see any answers to this IMO delusion of greater equality. If people really want greater equality, then we all wouldn't be posting on this thread. The average wage worldwide is still less that $10,000 US dollars the last time I looked. Time to start spreading the wealth for those that seek equality.

Others claim it's not about money or material things. Take that money that you don't need and and use it to work on the issues you feel important... peace, security, education, whatever those issues might be. After all, who needs money?

Fair taxes and rights with no government? Who collects those taxes or makes sure rights are enforced and fair?


Much like Chuck I've seen a lot of talk and no real solutions. The overall productivity of this thread could easily be compared to the UN.

[555-04Q2]

And did you protest against apartheid?

I know exactly where you want to go with this. I was only 18 in 1994 when our democratic government was elected. I did not understand what Apartheid was as I was a child during its reign. I never voted to oppress anyone. I am now paying the dues for my father and his fathers mistakes. This side of our debate is over :)

[555-04Q2]

That's not true anymore, and it hasn't been so for more than a decade.

I disagree, as I did it 8 years ago, which is less than a decade ago. A friend of mine also put everything he had on the line a few years ago.

[555-04Q2]

I know this isn't necessarily directed at me, but I'll answer anyway.

Hell no, it's not fair. But it (going to bed hungry) sure is a d@mn good motivator. It motivated him to better himself through education and hard work, so that neither he nor his family ever had to go hungry again. What would his motivation be to improve himself if the government just gave him and his family food? He very well may have had some motivation, but to say that it would have been as strong as it is, is foolish.

You and I are on the same wave length :)

[555-04Q2]

You are setting the bar lower there. getting better marks on standardized tests doesn't make one smarter. I see a better education in a completely different form.

What about making education better by allowing kids to develop their creative capabilities in a non standardized system? A system that allows every kid to make the best of their own abilities, where they do not have to be afraid that they will fail a standardized test even though their are exceptional in a certain field?

Standardization only suits the corporations who look for cheap workforce with standard knowledge required for a certain standard job.

Education at school is designed to teach basic skills such as reading, writing, common sense, self discipline etc etc to prepare youngsters for the world when you become an adult. It serves no other purpose at all. You can flunk every test at school yet become a success, but being able to read and write and disciplined does help get that success ;)

[555-04Q2]

Much like Chuck I've seen a lot of talk and no real solutions.

Because there is no solution. If people got off their ar$e and did things for themselves there would be no problems. Oh wait sorry...my bad... they are too busy washing the begging bowl to go out and make something of themselves :s arcastic:

[ArrowsFA1]

Because there is no solution. If people got off their ar$e and did things for themselves there would be no problems.
Either there are no problems that need solutions or there is a problem :crazy: :p

I think it was Chuck who made comparisons between the TEA Party & the Occupy movement so it was interesting to read this:

"If we lived in a country that had a growing economy and where the middle class felt that they could make a good living and had a chance for advancement and a decent life, there would be no tea party or Occupy Wall Street."
New York Times financial writer Joe Nocera critiques Occupy movement | GazetteNET (http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/11/29/noted-financial-writer-critiques-occupy-movement)

Obviously this is talking about the situation in the US, but these are issues which are not confined to one country. A solution suggested in the article makes sense to me:

Create a political movement that brings Wall Street back to being part of the economy that has some social utility instead of being part of the economy that's based on lining your own pockets.
I would argue that the regulators and Washington need to figure out a way to diminish the importance of lobbyists and the power of money in Washington, which is just overwhelming. Those are three things that are right off the top of my head that seem like they desperately need to be done.
How exactly people shift the emphasis of such a well engrained, self-interested monolith will be quite a challenge, but Occupy have made a start by getting off their arses and doing something, even if it's only raising awareness of the issues.

[555-04Q2]

Either there are no problems that need solutions or there is a problem :crazy: :p

I think it was Chuck who made comparisons between the TEA Party & the Occupy movement so it was interesting to read this:

New York Times financial writer Joe Nocera critiques Occupy movement | GazetteNET (http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/11/29/noted-financial-writer-critiques-occupy-movement)

Obviously this is talking about the situation in the US, but these are issues which are not confined to one country. A solution suggested in the article makes sense to me:

How exactly people shift the emphasis of such a well engrained, self-interested monolith will be quite a challenge, but Occupy have made a start by getting off their arses and doing something, even if it's only raising awareness of the issues.

It's really a simple thing. There is a system that has been put in place and people either sink in it or they adapt to it and buy a boat.

I also disagree with Occupy's ideals. They are pipe dreams :(

[race aficionado]

It's really a simple thing. There is a system that has been put in place and people either sink in it or they adapt to it and buy a boat.

That's precisely the point of the people's uprising - we don't like the current system that has been put in place - the same way your black brothers of South Africa revolted and changed the system that was in place because they were tired of sinking in it, they didn't want to "adapt" to the system's injustices and also, they could not afford to buy a boat.


I also disagree with Occupy's ideals.

Do you know their ideals?
Occupy Wall Street may not have a formal list of demands, but anyone who’s been paying attention understands the core problems that occupiers are protesting–that corporations have far too much power in our political system, that Wall Street banks crashed our economy but were never held accountable, and that the richest 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans–156 million people–combined.

And some say, "so what? get a job you lazy bums" - They say occupiers should stop protesting and just get a job.

The fact is that anybody who’s looked for a job in the last few years knows, there just aren’t jobs out there. That’s a big part of why occupiers are protesting. In September, there were four times as many unemployed people as job openings. And for those who are lucky enough to find a job, median wages today are lower than they were a decade ago.

Another myth is that the biggest crisis facing our country (USA) is out of control government spending.
The two biggest drivers of our deficit–by far–are the economic crash and the Bush tax cuts. We have millions of people out of work, corporations hoarding cash, and factories sitting idle. If we put all those people back to work–rebuilding infrastructure, educating our children, and researching new technologies–it’ll shrink the deficit and make our economy stronger for the long haul. And we can easily afford it if we make sure the rich–who are taking home a larger percentage of income than any time since 1917–pay their fair share.


They are pipe dreams :(

Getting rid of apartheid (this being one of many injustices that have been defeated throughout our history) was a pipe dream for many and look at the reality now.

source:
Top 5 FOX Myths To Debunk This Thanksgiving | MoveOn.Org (http://front.moveon.org/top%2D5%2Dfox%2Dmyths%2Dto%2Ddebunk%2Dthis%2Dthank sgiving/?rc=daily.share&id=33212-20154976-YRwgS3x)

[ioan]

Is this before they can read, write and do advanced math skills?

yes, it's right from the beginning, they can learn to read, write and basic maths while they develop their strengths.

[ioan]

Because humans are imperfect beings. We will never be able to solve every problem in every situation. To think otherwise is naive and foolish.

Again the defeatist attitude that you were accusing me of.

[ioan]

Things can't be better and cheaper? Wow I guess I should have kept my 286 computer that cost me $2500 or whatever it was from 1989.

That's called evolution, and it's due to people using their brains, it has little to do with the free market.
Or do you believe that Benz did invent the automobile because he wanted to make better profit against coaches?!
What about the phone?
What about electricity?
What about the laws of physics? Are these a result of the free market? No they are not. They are the result of the knowledge thirst of bright people, something the corporations do not like unless said bright people work for them and make them rich.

I say give people the means and the power to be creative and to share their knowledge in an equitable way. Forget about corporations, they the brake of our society.

[ioan]

Oh you must come from the everybody gets a trophy school of thought. Little Johnny can't add or subtract because he's too "creative" for that. Sorry but there aren't really any creative ways to read, or write with proper grammar, or add/subtract/etc. But yeah, let's let the kids be creative about things instead of teaching them what they need to know. That's what the public schools in this country have been doing for 30+ years, gotten us far hasn't it? There is a time and place for creativity, but that time is AFTER kids have learned the basics. We don't teach the basics in this country anymore, and I for one would like to get back to that.

The basics are not going to get you new ideas, they will mostly set the boundaries for most of the people's lives.

[ioan]

42 pages later, and this discussion/debate/issue seems about as organized as most of the OWS protests. Quite a bit of it is nothing short of comical with various people contradicting themselves page after page, switching their views, disallowing others to use the same reasonings they are using, etc, etc.

I've still yet to see any answers to this IMO delusion of greater equality. If people really want greater equality, then we all wouldn't be posting on this thread. The average wage worldwide is still less that $10,000 US dollars the last time I looked. Time to start spreading the wealth for those that seek equality.

Others claim it's not about money or material things. Take that money that you don't need and and use it to work on the issues you feel important... peace, security, education, whatever those issues might be. After all, who needs money?

Fair taxes and rights with no government? Who collects those taxes or makes sure rights are enforced and fair?


Much like Chuck I've seen a lot of talk and no real solutions. The overall productivity of this thread could easily be compared to the UN.

Talk about taking things out of context without reading attentively. :rolleyes:

For example, who said we should have Fair taxes and rights with no government?

[ioan]

I disagree, as I did it 8 years ago, which is less than a decade ago. A friend of mine also put everything he had on the line a few years ago.

Are you the CEO of one of the corporations that are pushing things their way?
I'm not sure we are talking about the same things and I do now understand why you are so committed to contradict us. Well I am not against the small to mid size business who are doing things as fair as they can, I am against corporations who influence the politics at state and global level.
In fact IMO one change that would help is to go back to a system where most people can have their own business and conduct it in a responsible way.

[ioan]

That's precisely the point of the people's uprising - we don't like the current system that has been put in place - the same way your black brothers of South Africa revolted and changed the system that was in place because they were tired of sinking in it, they didn't want to "adapt" to the system's injustices and also, they could not afford to buy a boat.



Do you know their ideals?
Occupy Wall Street may not have a formal list of demands, but anyone who’s been paying attention understands the core problems that occupiers are protesting–that corporations have far too much power in our political system, that Wall Street banks crashed our economy but were never held accountable, and that the richest 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans–156 million people–combined.

And some say, "so what? get a job you lazy bums" - They say occupiers should stop protesting and just get a job.

The fact is that anybody who’s looked for a job in the last few years knows, there just aren’t jobs out there. That’s a big part of why occupiers are protesting. In September, there were four times as many unemployed people as job openings. And for those who are lucky enough to find a job, median wages today are lower than they were a decade ago.

Another myth is that the biggest crisis facing our country (USA) is out of control government spending.
The two biggest drivers of our deficit–by far–are the economic crash and the Bush tax cuts. We have millions of people out of work, corporations hoarding cash, and factories sitting idle. If we put all those people back to work–rebuilding infrastructure, educating our children, and researching new technologies–it’ll shrink the deficit and make our economy stronger for the long haul. And we can easily afford it if we make sure the rich–who are taking home a larger percentage of income than any time since 1917–pay their fair share.



Getting rid of apartheid (this being one of many injustices that have been defeated throughout our history) was a pipe dream for many and look at the reality now.

source:
Top 5 FOX Myths To Debunk This Thanksgiving | MoveOn.Org (http://front.moveon.org/top%2D5%2Dfox%2Dmyths%2Dto%2Ddebunk%2Dthis%2Dthank sgiving/?rc=daily.share&id=33212-20154976-YRwgS3x)

:up:

[chuck34]

That's called evolution, and it's due to people using their brains, it has little to do with the free market.
Or do you believe that Benz did invent the automobile because he wanted to make better profit against coaches?!
What about the phone?
What about electricity?
What about the laws of physics? Are these a result of the free market? No they are not. They are the result of the knowledge thirst of bright people, something the corporations do not like unless said bright people work for them and make them rich.

I say give people the means and the power to be creative and to share their knowledge in an equitable way. Forget about corporations, they the brake of our society.

What do you suppose Newton learned in school? How about Edison? Bell? The Wright Brothers? On and on. Did they learn math, science, and grammar, or did they learn "creativity"

[chuck34]

Another myth is that the biggest crisis facing our country (USA) is out of control government spending.
The two biggest drivers of our deficit–by far–are the economic crash and the Bush tax cuts. We have millions of people out of work, corporations hoarding cash, and factories sitting idle. If we put all those people back to work–rebuilding infrastructure, educating our children, and researching new technologies–it’ll shrink the deficit and make our economy stronger for the long haul.]

You do realize that revenues to the Federal government went UP after the '03 tax cuts. Also earlier I posted the statistics that show that you would have to tax those making over $250,000 a year (Obama's rich) at a rate where thy would have to pay something like $600,000 a year just to ballance the books. How do you propose they do this? And who do you propose will pick up the tab to just magically restart these factories? Or who will pay for all this research you propose?

And someone needs to explain to me how this deficit issue is a revenue problem. In 1999, when the budget was "balanced", we took in MUCH less revenue. So what would be wrong with cutting government spending to 99 levels, inflation adjusted?

You have some lofty ideals, I'll give you that, but you just aren't grounded in any sort of financial reality.

[ioan]

What do you suppose Newton learned in school? How about Edison? Bell? The Wright Brothers? On and on. Did they learn math, science, and grammar, or did they learn "creativity"

Not sure. maybe you have clear description of what they used to do in the school. Did they pass their standardized test with brio?

[Bob Riebe]

Education at school is designed to teach basic skills such as reading, writing, common sense, self discipline etc etc to prepare youngsters for the world when you become an adult. It serves no other purpose at all. You can flunk every test at school yet become a success, but being able to read and write and disciplined does help get that success ;) That is a foolish statement based on some liberal twits thinking.
"Let the child find his own strengths"

Smokey Yunick who was probably the best automotive engineer ever with, and one of the best period, not much more than a grade school education-- said-- ANYONE who tries to do what I did without the education available nowadays is a damned fool.
(As Smokey was prone to nasty language, if I remember correctly he did not use that mild of a term)

[Bob Riebe]

yes, it's right from the beginning, they can learn to read, write and basic maths while they develop their strengths.
That is stupidity at its most obvious.

When I went back to college as a non-trad. student, the second year I was back the college started to offer sub 100 level courses because there were so many students who needed basic reading, writing and arithmetic, not math, arithmentic skills.

That is the the liberal no flunking or no " you will learn this whether you like it or not" as my tenth grade English teacher told me without batting an eye.
Back then those whose who failed to learns the required tasks were flunked till they did or quit. Let them rot.
Not one in my class of several hundred did either.
Any youth who refuses to meet the standards of a society can either meet basic standards or rot in their own hell-hole.
They should not be given any other choice.

[race aficionado]

And who do you propose will pick up the tab to just magically restart these factories?

Those so called "job creators", the corporations that actually do have the possibility to provide jobs are holding down to their money because they want the rules of the game to continue being the ones that have been convenient to them, ie , keep those tax cuts and loopholes as they are - and they are demanding this by holding the country hostage and also because they have already paid their politicians to do as they were paid to do - not what they were elected by the American citizens to do.

[Bob Riebe]

Not sure. maybe you have clear description of what they used to do in the school. Did they pass their standardized test with brio?Edison was taught reading, writing and arithmatic by his mother; Bell was taught same by his mother but had further formal education; the Wright Brothers were high-school graduates.

[Rollo]

You do realize that revenues to the Federal government went UP after the '03 tax cuts.

That was more to do with a growing economy than taxation policy.

In contrast the Australian government which had imposed a GST in 2001 was also taking in more revenues over a wider taxation base and was generating actual real surpluses. Then when the economy took a nose dive, it used stimulus spending from the revenue it had saved and thus Australia was the only country in the OECD which didn't go into recession.

The fact that the US Federal Government forewent taxation that it could have collected by increasing taxation in a boom, is further proof that both the Republicans and Democrats are idiots.

[BDunnell]

Oh you must come from the everybody gets a trophy school of thought. Little Johnny can't add or subtract because he's too "creative" for that. Sorry but there aren't really any creative ways to read, or write with proper grammar, or add/subtract/etc. But yeah, let's let the kids be creative about things instead of teaching them what they need to know. That's what the public schools in this country have been doing for 30+ years, gotten us far hasn't it? There is a time and place for creativity, but that time is AFTER kids have learned the basics. We don't teach the basics in this country anymore, and I for one would like to get back to that.

It is possible to teach the basics, get them through to the individual, and still allow them to be creative. It seemed to work for me. The two things are hardly mutually exclusive.

[ioan]

That is stupidity at its most obvious

Luckily you are intelligent, who knows what the world would have become without you.
Maybe next time you learn to read before typing.

[BDunnell]

Edison was taught reading, writing and arithmatic by his mother; Bell was taught same by his mother but had further formal education; the Wright Brothers were high-school graduates.

Interesting that you are here lecturing people about the need to know 'the basics', yet here you mis-spell 'arithmetic', quite a simple word to get right.

[BDunnell]

I know exactly where you want to go with this. I was only 18 in 1994 when our democratic government was elected. I did not understand what Apartheid was as I was a child during its reign. I never voted to oppress anyone. I am now paying the dues for my father and his fathers mistakes. This side of our debate is over :)

Fair enough.

[ioan]

Edison was taught reading, writing and arithmatic by his mother; Bell was taught same by his mother but had further formal education; the Wright Brothers were high-school graduates.

Still you didn't tell us if they passed the standardized test or were intelligent open minded people first of all.
I guess they were intelligent open minded otherwise they wouldn't have come up with revolutionary ideas.
And I doubt that it's reading, writing and basic arithmetic that made people come up with incredible breakthrough ideas.

Who am I kidding though, we all have to learn to live and work in a standardized society that kills differences and above all individuality, to conform to Bob's views. :\

[BDunnell]

Still you didn't tell us if they passed the standardized test or were intelligent open minded people first of all.
I guess they were intelligent open minded otherwise they wouldn't have come up with revolutionary ideas.
And I doubt that it's reading, writing and basic arithmetic that made people come up with incredible breakthrough ideas.

Who am I kidding though, we all have to learn to live and work in a standardized society that kills differences and above all individuality, to conform to Bob's views. :\

And which no doubt teaches children only obedient servility towards a certain set of norms.

[ioan]

It is possible to teach the basics, get them through to the individual, and still allow them to be creative. It seemed to work for me. The two things are hardly mutually exclusive.

Exactly, but then again you need to be open minded to understand this concept instead of persisting with decades old failed concepts.

Let's face it the percentage of illiterate people is soaring in the ranks of people who went at the kind of school that Chuck and Bob advocate.
Kids are simply not the same they were back when the world didn't offer so much distraction. If we want to keep them interested in 'education' things need to change. We need a system that captivates the young people, where they feel like they are free and can make a difference instead of keeping them afraid of standardized tests.
Bottom line we need to shape a system that rewards individuality.

[ioan]

And which no doubt teaches children only obedient servility towards a certain set of norms.

Yes, the one that kills creativity because doing something different is bad, very very bad.

[BDunnell]

Exactly, but then again you need to be open minded to understand this concept instead of persisting with decades old failed concepts.

Let's face it the percentage of illiterate people is soaring in the ranks of people who went at the kind of school that Chuck and Bob advocate.
Kids are simply not the same they were back when the world didn't offer so much distraction. If we want to keep them interested in 'education' things need to change. We need a system that captivates the young people, where they feel like they are free and can make a difference instead of keeping them afraid of standardized tests.
Bottom line we need to shape a system that rewards individuality.

While, also, ensuring that kids do get the basics. I believe it is important for certain standards to be upheld, particularly in the speaking and writing of whatever's mother tongue may be. This is an area where, in English at least, things have slipped. But it is perfectly possible to do this and ensure that children are encouraged to each be their own person. I can't understand the mentality of anyone who objects to the development of a sense of individuality. That goes against human nature.

[airshifter]

Because there is no solution. If people got off their ar$e and did things for themselves there would be no problems. Oh wait sorry...my bad... they are too busy washing the begging bowl to go out and make something of themselves :s arcastic:

And don't forget... it's all the fault of the large companies and corporations that most of us support in some way, shape, or form. Those evil people that provide the rest of the world with valuable goods and services cause all the grief due to their greed! :laugh:

I really enjoy the comments about the lack of corporate taxes which make it obvious that the vast majority have no idea how corporate taxation works. But their bottom line claims seem to be that if we tax the corporations more and make them pay their "fair share" then life will be better for all of us. I guess they just don't worry about the tens of thousands the corporations would lay off to remain profitable.

[airshifter]

While, also, ensuring that kids do get the basics. I believe it is important for certain standards to be upheld, particularly in the speaking and writing of whatever's mother tongue may be. This is an area where, in English at least, things have slipped. But it is perfectly possible to do this and ensure that children are encouraged to each be their own person. I can't understand the mentality of anyone who objects to the development of a sense of individuality. That goes against human nature.

This I can agree with... but I'm failing to see where any children are punished for being individuals in the current learning systems. Though some don't agree, testing of some form is required to gauge the basics of the system.

[Bob Riebe]

Luckily you are intelligent, who knows what the world would have become without you.
Maybe next time you learn to read before typing.Your point if you have one?
Of course you may have intended to say proofread.

[Bob Riebe]

Interesting that you are here lecturing people about the need to know 'the basics', yet here you mis-spell 'arithmetic', quite a simple word to get right.You are correct that was a boner and should not have been made; at the same time I do not have a spell checker on this computer, which with the new hard drive- now seems to have acquired the jumping cursor curse another Vaio before it was replacedy this one had.
When I use Word, I triple check my spelling but for these forums, I rarely do so and if the post is not locked, fix it at a later date when I catch one.

[Bob Riebe]

Exactly, but then again you need to be open minded to understand this concept instead of persisting with decades old failed concepts.

Let's face it the percentage of illiterate people is soaring in the ranks of people who went at the kind of school that Chuck and Bob advocate.
Kids are simply not the same they were back when the world didn't offer so much distraction.--- What a load of absolute BS ---- If we want to keep them interested in 'education' things need to change. We need a system that captivates the young people, where they feel like they are free and can make a difference instead of keeping them afraid of standardized tests. If they are afraid of the tests, let the little twits wreak in their own stench of stupidity
Bottom line we need to shape a system that rewards individuality.Ah such happy talk from the Never Land school of thought.
They are children, children follow adult leads, children lead no one.
As these "individuals" go off and refuse the norms of a society, as taught in grade school, i.e. they prefer to be racist, (oh here is the liberals favorite) homophobe, pedophile, prefer to deficate when and where they prefer your Never Land society will just say, "Oh dear to each his own."
After all they are individuals who do not serve society as a whole, they live to serve themselves and only themselves as they were taught in grade school, there are no standards to live up to.

My oh my what wonderful society. Just a spoonful of sugar....

[Rollo]

And don't forget... it's all the fault of the large companies and corporations that most of us support in some way, shape, or form. Those evil people that provide the rest of the world with valuable goods and services cause all the grief due to their greed! :laugh:

I really enjoy the comments about the lack of corporate taxes which make it obvious that the vast majority have no idea how corporate taxation works. But their bottom line claims seem to be that if we tax the corporations more and make them pay their "fair share" then life will be better for all of us. I guess they just don't worry about the tens of thousands the corporations would lay off to remain profitable.

I work as an accountant; in my line of work I have helped clients set up many many companies with the express purpose of tax minimisation. Be they Trusts, Companies, Joint Ventures, Limited Partnerships or even instruments like Superannuation Funds, things are set up all the time precisely for this reason.
Money always follows the path of least resistance and taxation law is always at least twenty steps behind, because lawyers will look at existing taxation law and always work out schemes to minimise taxation.

The question of what is "Fair" is always worth asking of society. What's Fair and Just ought to be ideals of any cohesive society.

[BDunnell]

This I can agree with... but I'm failing to see where any children are punished for being individuals in the current learning systems. Though some don't agree, testing of some form is required to gauge the basics of the system.

Not necessarily directly punished, but it is not encouraged by increasingly standardised curriculums (curricula?) and testing.

[555-04Q2]

This thread is going nowhere :(

Until people start taking control of their own destiny (in the face of whatever obstacles they face) they will moan about how unfair everything is and point the finger at someone else instead of looking in the mirror first.

Me, I'm going to continue making a success of myself without waiting for someone else to make thinks "fairer" for me!

[BDunnell]

This thread is going nowhere :(

Until people start taking control of their own destiny (in the face of whatever obstacles they face) they will moan about how unfair everything is and point the finger at someone else instead of looking in the mirror first.

There you go again, assuming that I, as someone who does have concerns about fairness, in some way have not taken control of my own destiny. It is possible to be hard-working, successful at what one does and still believe that the ever-growing gap between richest and poorest in society is a concern.

[ioan]

This I can agree with... but I'm failing to see where any children are punished for being individuals in the current learning systems. Though some don't agree, testing of some form is required to gauge the basics of the system.

Is the current system flexible?
Are the tests not standardized in order to differentiate on predefined criteria?
Do the tests only gauge the basics?

Answer these questions honestly and it will help you not to fail anymore when looking for the issues of the current system.

PS: and as Ben pointed it out, their are not directly punished, but they are restricted in developing individually as much has possible at an age when it counts most.

[ioan]

Your point if you have one?
Of course you may have intended to say proofread.

What point to repeat my points if you can't read them?

[ioan]

This thread is going nowhere :(

Until people start taking control of their own destiny (in the face of whatever obstacles they face) they will moan about how unfair everything is and point the finger at someone else instead of looking in the mirror first.

Me, I'm going to continue making a success of myself without waiting for someone else to make thinks "fairer" for me!

We are exactly taking about taking control about our destiny, the issue for you is that our views about our future is not in agreement with your views about your and other people's future.

[ioan]

There you go again, assuming that I, as someone who does have concerns about fairness, in some way have not taken control of my own destiny. It is possible to be hard-working, successful at what one does and still believe that the ever-growing gap between richest and poorest in society is a concern.

:up:
The black and white world with its prejudices.

[Bob Riebe]

What point to repeat my points if you can't read them?If you do not have a point just say so.
Thank you kindly.

[ioan]

If you do not have a point just say so.
Thank you kindly.

Let's just say that I have no intention to make public what I think about you, that's my point and you should be happy with it.

Now what about going back to having a discussion about the theme of this thread?

[airshifter]

Is the current system flexible?
Are the tests not standardized in order to differentiate on predefined criteria?
Do the tests only gauge the basics?

Answer these questions honestly and it will help you not to fail anymore when looking for the issues of the current system.

PS: and as Ben pointed it out, their are not directly punished, but they are restricted in developing individually as much has possible at an age when it counts most.

Speaking for the area in which I live, the system is in fact very flexible. We have specialty programs within local public schools for just about anything you can think of, from the very gifted to those struggling with basics, arts programs, law programs, general academic programs, etc. One of the people that does some occasional work for the company I'm in is a special education teacher who helps those struggling at the basic high school level with job placement skills. There are even advanced care programs for special education needs, to include all day programs for severe impairments such as advanced autism.

Yes most standardized tests are still taken, however in the case of some students they are grade and progress adjusted. Last year my daughter took the standard tests for the 8th grade level, but she was in 6th grade. This year she has several high school credit courses yet she is only in 7th grade.


I understand that it's not every area that has such programs, but to be honest from what I've seen our local public schools can do an excellent job, but it takes parents involved in their childs education as much as it takes a good school. I personally think that many parents fail their children and place blame on the schools for expecting the school to deal with issues beyond the responsiblity of the school.

[race aficionado]

. . . . but it takes parents involved in their childs education as much as it takes a good school. I personally think that many parents fail their children and place blame on the schools for expecting the school to deal with issues beyond the responsiblity of the school.

BINGO!!!
Parent Power.

:s mokin:

[airshifter]

I work as an accountant; in my line of work I have helped clients set up many many companies with the express purpose of tax minimisation. Be they Trusts, Companies, Joint Ventures, Limited Partnerships or even instruments like Superannuation Funds, things are set up all the time precisely for this reason.
Money always follows the path of least resistance and taxation law is always at least twenty steps behind, because lawyers will look at existing taxation law and always work out schemes to minimise taxation.

The question of what is "Fair" is always worth asking of society. What's Fair and Just ought to be ideals of any cohesive society.

I don't disagree with the above at all. Any business would be wise to pay minimal taxes within the law.

That being said, can you honestly say that individuals don't do the same? A large percentage of people who have personal taxes done by accountants and/or tax services do so only in hopes of a larger return or a lesser payment. So why is it large corporations that everyone is so up in arms about? From my experiences the smaller cash oriented business owners are the most likely to "cook the books", while large corporations have much more documentation in each transaction making it harder to do so. And lets face facts, quite a few individuals will blatantly cheat on taxes as much as possible regardless of if they file themselves or pay someone to do it for them. This includes a great many people getting huge tax breaks and financial assistant through the government, and I see that in action all the time.

I'd venture to say that at least in the US, the combined loopholes, cheating, evasion etc of a specific amount of money within a group of individuals is equal to or greater than the majority of major corporations making that same amount of money. Likewise with bailout programs, federal aid for disasters, etc.

I have long advocated getting rid of all income taxes and closing loopholes in collecting consumption taxes. That alone removes the ability of millions of small business owners to cheat and not declare cash transactions. It also taxes all the illegal money flowing through the hands of all people. The only way they would avoid taxation is by not spending.


As for "fair and just" once again I pose the reality of it. Is it "fair and just" that any of us living in relative luxury with modern technologies, medicine, ect live as such at our income levels when the wage of the average worker on a wordwide scale is still less than $10,000?

Any of us living with any luxury items at all could easily adjust our lifestyles and assist those less fortunate through charity and our time, but how many people do that instead of wanting more for themselves first?

[airshifter]

BINGO!!!
Parent Power.

:s mokin:


It's no shock at all to me that would would agree on this point Race! :)

[ArrowsFA1]

Pay growth for workers in Britain hit a record low between 2010 and 2011, according to official data last week. Pay was up just 0.4% on a year ago in terms of gross weekly earnings, meaning that incomes are tumbling in real terms, given that inflation stands at 5%. The Office for National Statistics also said the gap between Britain's highest and lowest paid workers had widened dramatically over the past year.
The big squeeze: warning over incomes as Britain goes on strike | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/30/austerity-biggest-fall-family-income)

[Rollo]

I have long advocated getting rid of all income taxes and closing loopholes in collecting consumption taxes. That alone removes the ability of millions of small business owners to cheat and not declare cash transactions. It also taxes all the illegal money flowing through the hands of all people. The only way they would avoid taxation is by not spending.

Because the utility of income decreases as income increases, it means that as people's income goes up, they're not as likely to spend that next Dollar. The burden of consumption taxes fall more squarely on poorer people because they spend comparatively more of their income and it's even worse for retirees, who might spend more than their income by driving down pooled savings.


Any of us living with any luxury items at all could easily adjust our lifestyles and assist those less fortunate through charity and our time, but how many people do that instead of wanting more for themselves first?

The US has kinder provisions for deductions on charity than Australia does and so rates of charity are higher, but typically the rate of charity in Australia amounts to less than 0.5% of income. As a way of actually providing for people less fortunate, it's pretty well much fighting against human nature.

Aside:
Ten Graphs that show that the US has very low taxation:
Ten Charts that Prove the United States Is a Low-Tax Country (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/low_tax.html)

And a report which indicates that the United States is the third lowest taxing nation in the the OECD
Tax revenues stabilise in OECD countries in 2010 (http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3746,en_21571361_44315115_49102162_1_1_1_1,00.ht ml)
Mexico (18.7% in 2010) and Chile (20.9%) have the lowest tax-to-GDP ratios among OECD countries. The United States has the third lowest ratio in the OECD region at 24.8% with Korea at 25.1% and Turkey at 26.0%.

[airshifter]

Because the utility of income decreases as income increases, it means that as people's income goes up, they're not as likely to spend that next Dollar. The burden of consumption taxes fall more squarely on poorer people because they spend comparatively more of their income and it's even worse for retirees, who might spend more than their income by driving down pooled savings.


Taking the burden off the less fortunate is simple. Basic needs have no tax or very little. As the items change in status to wants/luxuries the tax rises. Some of our state and local tax is already structured this way and it's easy to do.



The US has kinder provisions for deductions on charity than Australia does and so rates of charity are higher, but typically the rate of charity in Australia amounts to less than 0.5% of income. As a way of actually providing for people less fortunate, it's pretty well much fighting against human nature.



But my point remains regardless of what nations allow more charity deductions. Most "average people" on these forums have a great deal more luxury than they think and take it for granted. If they really wanted to make a change they could, but IMO most people tend to look out for themselves and not others, even when they are saying change needs to be made.


And once again, nobody justifies the claims against the large corporations other than pointing fingers and saying they are guilty of something the general public is not guilty of. If not for the general publics own desires the corporations wouldn't ever get wealthy to begin with.

[Rollo]

And once again, nobody justifies the claims against the large corporations other than pointing fingers and saying they are guilty of something the general public is not guilty of. If not for the general publics own desires the corporations wouldn't ever get wealthy to begin with.

But if a corporation is the method of organisation which is used to answer the question of collective wealth, then it stands to reason that that same person should be also made to answer the question of collective governance and more specifically how to pay for that.
Someone somewhere has to pay the piper and the truth of the matter is that currently corporations collectively are a dead weight when it comes to paying for the governance of the United States (I mention the US because other nations like Australia run surpluses because we have decent government and taxation policies).
Cut government spending to ZERO and you still have a problem which needs to be paid for. The point is that the US generally isn't paying enough tax and hasn't done so, almost since its inception and someone needs to start paying.

[Mark]

But as you say the USA has always been a low tax low spend country (except with military spending!). So any political party which promised more tax isn't going to be around for long.

[airshifter]

But if a corporation is the method of organisation which is used to answer the question of collective wealth, then it stands to reason that that same person should be also made to answer the question of collective governance and more specifically how to pay for that.
Someone somewhere has to pay the piper and the truth of the matter is that currently corporations collectively are a dead weight when it comes to paying for the governance of the United States (I mention the US because other nations like Australia run surpluses because we have decent government and taxation policies).
Cut government spending to ZERO and you still have a problem which needs to be paid for. The point is that the US generally isn't paying enough tax and hasn't done so, almost since its inception and someone needs to start paying.

The corporate tax rate in the US is higher than that of most countries, it's simply filled with far too many loopholes in the code. But this is no different IMO than the personal tax code. There are far too many breaks and loopholes that can be exploited. In the US the tax system has actually become a form of welfare in some cases, as people can get a return larger than what they paid in.

I've still yet to see any example of the corporations being at fault. Just as with any wise taxpayer they try to keep taxes as low as legal. I don't currently own any corporations but can't reason the anger directed at them, as they pay their legal share the same as anyone else.

IMO the problem in the US is more centered around hidden and/or deceptive assistance and welfare programs (both at home and abroad), waste within many agencies, and poor budget practices. Individual states often do a much better job at all of the above, and end up with budget surpluses many years.

[airshifter]

But as you say the USA has always been a low tax low spend country (except with military spending!). So any political party which promised more tax isn't going to be around for long.

This I can probably agree with. The problem is that too many politicians will cater to idiots who actually think we are going to end up with a quality government run health care system at no cost to them. Which would be true for many of the idiots since they are the ones sitting on their butts waiting for a hand out.

Though they won't often admit it, the politicians have to understand that if the working class doesn't keep paying the bill for these programs, they lose the vote of those on both sides of the program.

[BDunnell]

IMO the problem in the US is more centered around hidden and/or deceptive assistance and welfare programs (both at home and abroad), waste within many agencies, and poor budget practices.

Ah, waste. Much is always made of how much can be made in savings by avoiding 'waste'. Truth is the sums more often than not turn out to be tiny.

[BDunnell]

This I can probably agree with. The problem is that too many politicians will cater to idiots who actually think we are going to end up with a quality government run health care system at no cost to them. Which would be true for many of the idiots since they are the ones sitting on their butts waiting for a hand out.

Do we think such people exist in significant numbers in Europe?

[airshifter]

Do we think such people exist in significant numbers in Europe?

I'll leave that opinion up to those of you that live there. I know here in the US there are IMO far too many people thinking that it's up to the government to "get them ahead" in life. Also far too many milking the system and working under the table, thus double dipping and screwing those of us that work for what we have and pay the taxes that provides them with such assistance.

I can agree that on the issue of waste alone the sums are probably a drop in the bucket of a national budget. But all those drops make ripples and eventually waves. Being a private contractor working on various military installations I see constant waste in contracts, and lack of thought on daily procedures that create waste within the government workers, both military and civilian.

As an example to the above, I work on 5 different bases on a regular basis. I will have 5 different passes to work on those bases. I have one pass that my company pays for and gets me on two of the bases. For the other three I submit paperwork and wait for a background check, then go pick up their specific pass. All of the administration fees and background check fees are absorbed by the base. So when all is said and done I'm subject to background checks 4 times a year, and 3 of those times the government foots the bill.

The one pass we pay for checks just as in depth for background information, but also monitors on a month to month basis for any activity that would cause a pass to be revoked. It's a more efficient system and runs at zero cost to the particular base, but most haven't adopted it. I'm unsure of the total cost per background checks and the passes, labor involved at the pass offices, etc. But as an example on one of the bases that use the pass we pay for, the authorized list for day visitors that obtain those passes is close to 2000 pages, so likely in the neighborhood of 25,000 to 30,000 contractors they were in the past footing the bill for.

[airshifter]

I just saw this link today on my home page. Let's just take a look at how evil all these corporations are.



The 10 most charitable companies in America

The 10 Most Charitable Companies in America - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-10-most-charitable-companies-in-america.html)

The Most Generous: Kroger
2010 Giving: $64,000,000
Percentage of 2009 Profits: 10.9%


2nd Most Generous: Macy's
2010 Giving: $41,226,887
Percentage of 2009 Profits: 8.1%


3rd Most Generous: Safeway
2010 Giving: $76,500,000
Percentage of 2009 Profits: 7.5%


4th Most Generous: Dow Chemical
2010 Giving: $34,237,817
Percentage of 2009 Profits: 7.3%


5th Most Generous: Morgan Stanley
2010 Giving: $55,641,610
Percentage of 2009 Profits: 5.7%


The Biggest Donor: Wal-Mart
2010 Giving: $319,454,996
2009 Giving: $288,091,839
Change: 10.9%


2nd Biggest Donor: Goldman Sachs
2010 Giving: $315,383,413
2009 Giving: $69,569,895
Change: 353.3%


3rd Biggest Donor: Wells Fargo
2010 Giving: $219,132,065
2009 Giving: $202,014,244
Change: 8.5%


4th Biggest Donor: Bank of America
2010 Giving: $207,939,857
2009 Giving: $209,116,567
Change: -0.6%


5th Biggest Donor: Exxon Mobil
2010 Giving: $198,692,197
2009 Giving: $187,121,560
Change: 6.2%



Those numbers add up fairly quick. And unlike the government, I have a choice to support or not support any business that is in turn charitable. The government just takes it and leaves me no choice in the matter.

[ArrowsFA1]

...unlike the government, I have a choice to support or not support any business that is in turn charitable.
Do you not have the choice to support or not support your political representative?

Not buying your petrol (gas!) from Mobil, for example, is hardly going to make a dent on their profits.

[anthonyvop]

Do you not have the choice to support or not support your political representative?



We have no choice when it comes to paying Taxes. We do have a choice on who we elect to decide how to spend our money but we are the victim of the whims of the populace. Every election it is getting harder and harder to win against people who vote themselves a raise.

This person's vote is equal to mine.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

[anthonyvop]

Do we think such people exist in significant numbers in Europe?

Significant? If the Europeans who post here are any judge then it is a huge majority

[anthonyvop]

But as you say the USA has always been a low tax low spend country (except with military spending!). So any political party which promised more tax isn't going to be around for long.

Actually the USA has one of the highest corporate taxes on the planet and there was a time when the highest Tax bracket was over 90%

[anthonyvop]

Ah, waste. Much is always made of how much can be made in savings by avoiding 'waste'. Truth is the sums more often than not turn out to be tiny.

I would have to disagree with you on that one. Public Healthcare is one Huge waste.

[Rollo]

I would have to disagree with you on that one. Public Healthcare is one Huge waste.

I agree. It probably is in the United States. I doubt that there is the skill to run a public healthcare system in the US properly.

[anthonyvop]

I agree. It probably is in the United States. I doubt that there is the skill to run a public healthcare system in the US properly.

Public? No better than any other country.

But the USA does have the best Private healthcare system on the planet. And isn't that what is more important? It is the private sector that has created the vast majority of advances in medicine and healthcare.

[BDunnell]

Significant? If the Europeans who post here are any judge then it is a huge majority

I see no such people here at all. You, by contrast, see in people purely what you wish to see and nothing more.

[airshifter]

Do you not have the choice to support or not support your political representative?

Not buying your petrol (gas!) from Mobil, for example, is hardly going to make a dent on their profits.

As with most people of age I can vote, but I've yet to see any candidate (local, state or national) promise me that all the taxes I pay are optional. Even they know better than that lie.

As for the corporations, who I buy gas from won't make a dent. But if tens of millions of people think (from your example) Mobil is corrupt or greedy then we could sure make them feel the crunch.

[Rollo]

But the USA does have the best Private healthcare system on the planet. And isn't that what is more important? It is the private sector that has created the vast majority of advances in medicine and healthcare.

You might have the best Private healthcare system on the planet. It still doesn't change the fact that you pay significantly more for that and that not everyone is covered by that standard. The utility of the system in Australia is open to everyone and it shows because we have a higher life expectancy and pay on average less than 30% for it than what you do.

But of course the medical system in the US sees you all as customers rather than patients, which I suppose is a good thing, because collectively you've agreed that your money is better off in the hands of Big Pharma rather than your pockets.


Public? No better than any other country.

Yeah, no "better", rather worse.

[airshifter]

And here we go, and example of a failed system. This a couple hours later on the same home page that I posted the charity link from.

People living in a 1.2 million dollar home and getting public assistance. Just how equal do they want to be?

Seattle welfare recipient lives in million-dollar home | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/seattle-welfare-recipient-lives-million-dollar-home-161252749.html)

Based on the article, they stated their proper address. If these people didn't lie and got away with this, what do the ones actually trying hard to scam the system get away with?

[Rollo]

We have no choice when it comes to paying Taxes. We do have a choice on who we elect to decide how to spend our money but we are the victim of the whims of the populace. Every election it is getting harder and harder to win against people who vote themselves a raise.

This person's vote is equal to mine.

Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI)

You do have a have choice on who you elect to decide how to spend your money but rather than choosing politicians who would choose to improve the quality of the labour force through education programs, you collectively choose as a nation you decide to treat people like refuse; the results have followed.

Up until 2008 Germany had free education and collectively the German people are the most productive people in Europe as a result. Unless of course you happen to think there is something special about Germans, then there can't really be much other reason for it.

Why is it so hard for America to take responsibility for its own people? Moreover, I think it's a sad indictment if you are a representative of the American people that you should gloat over people like this.

[anthonyvop]

I see no such people here at all. You, by contrast, see in people purely what you wish to see and nothing more.

Really? Don't you believe that all people should have access to free healthcare?

[Rollo]

Really? Don't you believe that all people should have access to free healthcare?

My wife is an American and because she lives in Australia, she has it.

[anthonyvop]

You might have the best Private healthcare system on the planet. It still doesn't change the fact that you pay significantly more for that and that not everyone is covered by that standard.


So? A quality product usually costs more than a similar product of a lesser quality. You have a problem with that?


The utility of the system in Australia is open to everyone and it shows because we have a higher life expectancy and pay on average less than 30% for it than what you do.

Life expectancy has never been a good yardstick to measure healthcare. Lifestyle has a bigger affect. Athletics, War, Driving...etc all have an influence.


But of course the medical system in the US sees you all as customers rather than patients, which I suppose is a good thing, because collectively you've agreed that your money is better off in the hands of Big Pharma rather than your pockets.

Unfortunately I am forced to pay extra to subsidize the lazy and unproductive. That is the problem. People like you think it is OK to spend other people's money just so they can feel good about themselves. Hence I am forced to pay more for a product.

And yes, I much prefer my money going to a private company that produces an honest product than to a government who just TAKES IT BY FORCE and disburses it to whichever voting block they want to appease.



Yeah, no "better", rather worse.

Not Perfect but much better than anywhere else....That is a fact that no amount of liberal whining can change.

[anthonyvop]

My wife is an American and because she lives in Australia, she has it.

So?

[ioan]

So?

So, what?

[Bob Riebe]

So, what?Say what?

[anthonyvop]

Say what?

http://www.undrcrwn.com/storage/SAYHEYHEY.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=128292822 0204

[race aficionado]

Pay Gap Between Rich And Poor Growing Faster In UK Than Any Other High-Income Country


Just read this . . . . and not because it is in print does it mean it is true . . . . is it?

Pay Gap Between Rich And Poor Growing Faster In UK Than Any Other High-Income Country (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/12/05/pay-gap-growing-faster-in-britain_n_1128955.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false)

[Rollo]

Just read this . . . . and not because it is in print does it mean it is true . . . . is it?


Top earners draw away from lowest paid - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cfeba520-1f6d-11e1-9916-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1fmds9GAT)
The gap between the highest and lowest paid has grown more quickly in Britain than in any other advanced economy over the past three decades, reflecting a broader rise in inequality across the developed world.
- Financial Times, 05/12/11

UK Income Inequality Rising Faster Than Other OECD Countries (http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201112050535dowjonesdjonline000 102&title=uk-income-inequality-rising-faster-than-other-oecd-countries)
LONDON -- The gap between rich and poor has risen faster in the U.K. than in any other OECD country since 1975 and the U.K. government should consider increasing taxes on top earners to address the inequality, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said Monday.
In a report on inequality, the OECD said income inequality peaked in the U.K. in 2000 and subsequently fell, but it began rising again in 2005 and is now well above the OECD average.
- NASDAQ, 06/12/11

Income inequality growing faster in UK than any other rich country, says OECD | Society | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/05/income-inequality-growing-faster-uk)
Top 10% have incomes 12 times greater than bottom 10%, up from eight times greater in 1985, thinktank's study reveals Income inequality among working-age people has risen faster in Britain than in any other rich nation since the mid-1970s, according to a report by the OECD.
- The Grauniad, 05/12/11

Once is fluke. Twice is coincidence. Three times is a pattern.

http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/07/myth-confirmed.jpg

[ioan]

BTW, today Germany did break the 1000 billion Euro exports / year barrier, and are expected to reach 1075 billions by the end of this year.
The only country that exports more is China, who by the way is approx 14 larger as population.

This must be the reason why the US rating agencies think Germany should lose it's AAA rating, they are not making enough money to pay their debts! :rotflmao:

[ioan]

:erm:

I guess it happens to everyone every now and then.

[ioan]

I can live with that! ;)

Anyway, we are slightly derailing the topic, something I really don't want to happen in this case.

[anthonyvop]

Top earners draw away from lowest paid - FT.com (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cfeba520-1f6d-11e1-9916-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1fmds9GAT)
The gap between the highest and lowest paid has grown more quickly in Britain than in any other advanced economy over the past three decades, reflecting a broader rise in inequality across the developed world.
- Financial Times, 05/12/11

UK Income Inequality Rising Faster Than Other OECD Countries (http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201112050535dowjonesdjonline000 102&title=uk-income-inequality-rising-faster-than-other-oecd-countries)
LONDON -- The gap between rich and poor has risen faster in the U.K. than in any other OECD country since 1975 and the U.K. government should consider increasing taxes on top earners to address the inequality, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said Monday.
In a report on inequality, the OECD said income inequality peaked in the U.K. in 2000 and subsequently fell, but it began rising again in 2005 and is now well above the OECD average.
- NASDAQ, 06/12/11

Income inequality growing faster in UK than any other rich country, says OECD | Society | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/05/income-inequality-growing-faster-uk)
Top 10% have incomes 12 times greater than bottom 10%, up from eight times greater in 1985, thinktank's study reveals Income inequality among working-age people has risen faster in Britain than in any other rich nation since the mid-1970s, according to a report by the OECD.
- The Grauniad, 05/12/11

Once is fluke. Twice is coincidence. Three times is a pattern.

http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/07/myth-confirmed.jpg

By punishing the higher earners with higher Taxes it in no way means the lower earners wages will improve. Actually the reverse would happen. The economy will suffer and People would lose jobs

[Rollo]

The reasons underlying the OECD report have very little to do with taxation policy but rather punishing labour itself.

Admittedly Britain went through a rapid period of privatisation in the 1980s which did make those companies far more efficient than they were, but it didn't to a thing for the manufacturing industries which existed, not the firms which supported manufacturing.
Nor did privatisation do anything for the people who had been displaced, and now thrity years later we have particularly in the north of England and Scotland a generation of people who've grown up where no-one in the family has a job.

And with reference to this comment:

By punishing the higher earners with higher Taxes it in no way means the lower earners wages will improve. Actually the reverse would happen. The economy will suffer and People would lose jobs

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_structure/incometaxrates_1974to1990.pdf

Over the period, tax rates FELL dramatically not rose, and yet jobs departed Britain's shores. History has yet again proved you wrong.

[BDunnell]

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_structure/incometaxrates_1974to1990.pdf

Over the period, tax rates FELL dramatically not rose, and yet jobs departed Britain's shores. History has yet again proved you wrong.

I doubt Tony will accept HMRC's figures, as he probably believes it to be a criminal organisation that should be charged with STEALING our money.

[airshifter]

Over the period, tax rates FELL dramatically not rose, and yet jobs departed Britain's shores. History has yet again proved you wrong.

If you would actually read his comments rather than attack everything he says, you would realize that history has proben nothing in regards to his comment. Where does history show that increasing taxes on those earning more increase the average workers wages?


You seem to be under the impression that if we place more taxes on the wealthy and the corporations then everything will be taken care of. Do you really think the upper level management won't simply cut more of the average workers wage to compensate for the increased taxes? In the case of the corporations they will generally either do the same or increase the price of the products sold and pass the tax increases on to the consumer. So you will still have that generation without work but now their purchasing power with their government benefits has decreased.

[race aficionado]

I know airshifter did not address this to me but allow me to quote part of his post to make a comment related to our topic:


. . .

You seem to be under the impression that if we place more taxes on the wealthy and the corporations then everything will be taken care of.

Increasing taxes - in other words: everybody paying their fair share of taxes, will not take care of everything but it will be a good start.


Do you really think the upper level management won't simply cut more of the average workers wage to compensate for the increased taxes? In the case of the corporations they will generally either do the same or increase the price of the products sold and pass the tax increases on to the consumer.

There is a perfect example of why things are wrong. Why punish the average worker or the consumer to make up for those extra million$$$$ "lost" when they were told to pay their taxes just like I also did?

That reeks of greed and a lack of social consciousness.

[anthonyvop]

The reasons underlying the OECD report have very little to do with taxation policy but rather punishing labour itself.

Admittedly Britain went through a rapid period of privatisation in the 1980s which did make those companies far more efficient than they were, but it didn't to a thing for the manufacturing industries which existed, not the firms which supported manufacturing.
Nor did privatisation do anything for the people who had been displaced, and now thrity years later we have particularly in the north of England and Scotland a generation of people who've grown up where no-one in the family has a job.

And with reference to this comment:


http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_structure/incometaxrates_1974to1990.pdf

Over the period, tax rates FELL dramatically not rose, and yet jobs departed Britain's shores. History has yet again proved you wrong.

There are other actions by the government that hurt job creation along with Taxation.

Tax rate fell in general but rules and regulations(Which in reality is a form or taxation) rose considerably.....So History again has proven me correct.

[anthonyvop]

I know airshifter did not address this to me but allow me to quote part of his post to make a comment related to our topic:



Increasing taxes - in other words: everybody paying their fair share of taxes, will not take care of everything but it will be a good start.



There is a perfect example of why things are wrong. Why punish the average worker or the consumer to make up for those extra million$$$$ "lost" when they were told to pay their taxes just like I also did?

That reeks of greed and a lack of social consciousness.

Their fair share?

So you are in favor of a Flat Tax....Cool

[race aficionado]

Their fair share?

So you are in favor of a Flat Tax....Cool

Did I say that?

I don't know if that was an attempt of humor but no, I did not say that.

[Rollo]

Tax rate fell in general but rules and regulations(Which in reality is a form or taxation) rose considerably.....

Again No.

The transport, coal, iron and steel, banking, electricity, equity trading, financial services telecommunications, public housing, airlines etc were all DEregulated in Britain in the 1980s, which is precisely the opposite of what you've said.


So History again has proven me correct.

Only in the eyes someone who is either accidentally or willfully ignorant or an abject liar; so you're one of those three but I don't know which one.

[t_paulet]

I only know mark youdao. so nice/

[ArrowsFA1]

The ever growing gap between the highest and lowest paid is not a result of government policy or taxation; it's simply one small group of people rewarding themselves at the expense of others because they can.

[BDunnell]

Only in the eyes someone who is either accidentally or willfully ignorant or an abject liar; so you're one of those three but I don't know which one.

Given the well-known stories about the gun and his attendance of university, I would plump for the latter.

[chuck34]

The ever growing gap between the highest and lowest paid is not a result of government policy or taxation; it's simply one small group of people rewarding themselves at the expense of others because they can.

Last try, I promise.

What do you propose we do about it? Raise taxes? How does that help? Increase minimum wage? How does that help? Something else that I can't think of?

Once again I will ask you to please try to refrain from trying to convince me there is a problem. For the sake of moving this argument forward, I am agreeing with you, there is a problem with a "wealth gap". Now what do we do about it? Please, I really do want to hear your ideas.

[ArrowsFA1]

What do you propose we do about it?
chuck, take a look back through the thread and you'll find some suggestions in response to your question.

...For the sake of moving this argument forward, I am agreeing with you, there is a problem with a "wealth gap". Now what do we do about it?
Perhaps as you agree (for the sake of argument) you might provide your own solutions :)

[anthonyvop]

Did I say that?

I don't know if that was an attempt of humor but no, I did not say that.

You said FAIR share. And the only truly FAIR form of Taxation is a Flat Tax. So you did say that.

[anthonyvop]

Again No.

The transport, coal, iron and steel, banking, electricity, equity trading, financial services telecommunications, public housing, airlines etc were all DEregulated in Britain in the 1980s, which is precisely the opposite of what you've said.



Only in the eyes someone who is either accidentally or willfully ignorant or an abject liar; so you're one of those three but I don't know which one.

That industries in the UK have been deregulated over the past few decades is laughable. Privatized in some cases but deregulated? Don't be silly.

[ArrowsFA1]

On the specific issue of the growing salary gap:

Mandatory reporting of top-to-bottom (as well as top-to-median) pay ratios, and an expectation that policies on low-paid staff and contractors will be published.[/*:m:2j1x6ynp]
Widen the composition of remuneration committees to include employees (who are more likely to have a longer- term perspective and to require proper justifications for high executive pay). Also widen the agenda of committees (to discourage the idea that executive pay and performance is the only lever in company performance), and reviewing the role of remuneration consultants.[/*:m:2j1x6ynp]
Measures to encourage investor assertiveness, by making investors and companies more transparent and remuneration votes binding.[/*:m:2j1x6ynp]One Society » The gulf between employees (http://www.onesociety.org.uk/2011/09/the-gulf-between-employees%e2%80%99-pay-and-chief-executives%e2%80%99-pay-and-the-adverse-impacts-on-uk-plc/)

[chuck34]

chuck, take a look back through the thread and you'll find some suggestions in response to your question.

I have been in and out for the past week or so. Perhaps I missed it. Can you point me to a post, or give a quick summation? Honestly, the only thing I have seen is people trying to convince one another that this is some sort of tragedy, and that it is going to cause the next comming of the French Revolution. I really haven't actually seen any solutions being proposed.


Perhaps as you agree (for the sake of argument) you might provide your own solutions :)

It is very hard for me to step outside of my own philosophy. I can not see how it is government's responsibility to "narrow the gap". And beyond that I can not see how government stepping in to "do something" won't just make the problem worse.

If I personally felt there was too wide a gap between my income and my boss's income, I would take some personal responsibilty for the situation, put together a list of what I do for the company, what value that adds to the company, and how much my wages should increase to reflect that value. But that's just me, I believe in that outdated concept of personal responsibility.

[chuck34]

On the specific issue of the growing salary gap:

Mandatory reporting of top-to-bottom (as well as top-to-median) pay ratios, and an expectation that policies on low-paid staff and contractors will be published.[/*:m:3eail6n3]
Widen the composition of remuneration committees to include employees (who are more likely to have a longer- term perspective and to require proper justifications for high executive pay). Also widen the agenda of committees (to discourage the idea that executive pay and performance is the only lever in company performance), and reviewing the role of remuneration consultants.[/*:m:3eail6n3]
Measures to encourage investor assertiveness, by making investors and companies more transparent and remuneration votes binding.[/*:m:3eail6n3]One Society » The gulf between employees (http://www.onesociety.org.uk/2011/09/the-gulf-between-employees%e2%80%99-pay-and-chief-executives%e2%80%99-pay-and-the-adverse-impacts-on-uk-plc/)

Hey thoses actually sound like reasonable measues that might actually have an effect over the long term. Congratulations, it only took 47 pages to get to a reasonable response.

Now, why is there a need for mass protests for this?

[ArrowsFA1]

I have been in and out for the past week or so. Perhaps I missed it. Can you point me to a post, or give a quick summation?
You didn't miss them because you've responded to most, if not all, of them.


I believe in that outdated concept of personal responsibility.
It's not outdated in my book, and people can certainly attempt to address their own situation but one individual in isolation is unlikely to solve the widespread nature of growing inequality.


Now, why is there a need for mass protests for this?
See above.

[chuck34]

You didn't miss them because you've responded to most, if not all, of them.

I sure don't remember responding to any solutions, except the one you just posted. Just people vaguly talking about charities, and governments, and on and on, about nothing.


It's not outdated in my book, and people can certainly attempt to address their own situation but one individual in isolation is unlikely to solve the widespread nature of growing inequality.

Why not? One stone can start an avalanche. If your individual situation is not your responsibility who's is it? Who do you propose takes on the responsibility for "fairness" and "equality"?


See above.

A mass protest with no clear message is how you propose to change the "wealth gap"? May I suggest at least some clairity of purpose?

[ArrowsFA1]

Who do you propose takes on the responsibility for "fairness" and "equality"?
Perhaps those on remuneration committees should take a look at their own responsibilities as part of the "reasonable measures" (your view) linked to in my earlier post.


A mass protest with no clear message is how you propose to change the "wealth gap"?
No, but perhaps it has started an avalanche.

[chuck34]

Perhaps those on remuneration committees should take a look at their own responsibilities as part of the "reasonable measures" (your view) linked to in my earlier post.

Are those renumeration committees solely made up of persons with affiliations to the companies, ie owners, board members, employees?


No, but perhaps it has started an avalanche.

So you've seen wages start to go up since this started?

[ArrowsFA1]

Are those renumeration committees solely made up of persons with affiliations to the companies, ie owners, board members, employees?
No. Non-executive directors from other companies often sit on these committees - described as "members of a ‘cosy club’" by a Parliamentary Committee (link (http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/treasury-committee/tc0809pn41/)). Lower level employees are rarely, as far as I know, involved.


So you've seen wages start to go up since this started?
:dozey:

[chuck34]

No. Non-executive directors from other companies often sit on these committees - described as "members of a ‘cosy club’" by a Parliamentary Committee (link (http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/treasury-committee/tc0809pn41/)). Lower level employees are rarely, as far as I know, involved.

I would definitly like to see lower level employees involved with something like this. Also, I do not see the point of having directors from other companies involved. Why would they protect the best interests of a potential competitor?

[ArrowsFA1]

...Why would they protect the best interests of a potential competitor?
The argument is that they each protect their own individual interests by sitting on eachothers renumeration committees and rewarding themselves with the kind of pay increases that we see. Hence the ever widening wage gap.

[ioan]

Last try, I promise.

What do you propose we do about it?

Bring in a law that sets the minimum wage in all companies to 10% of the highest earnings (wage + bonuses) in the respective company.
I bet the stock holders won't agree anymore that the CEO earns millions every year.

And don't tell us that it isn't fair to punish the poor CEOs.

[ioan]

A mass protest with no clear message is how you propose to change the "wealth gap"? May I suggest at least some clairity of purpose?

The message is clear, we need to change the huge gap.
What is unclear about it?

[ioan]

So you've seen wages start to go up since this started?

Just say you were kidding when you posted the above question.

[race aficionado]

You said FAIR share. And the only truly FAIR form of Taxation is a Flat Tax. So you did say that.

Come on Anthony . . . . that's you saying that, no need to go "ventriloquist' on me. :p :


:s mokin:

[Rollo]

You said FAIR share. And the only truly FAIR form of Taxation is a Flat Tax. So you did say that.

On what basis would you propose to base this Flat Tax on?

[chuck34]

Bring in a law that sets the minimum wage in all companies to 10% of the highest earnings (wage + bonuses) in the respective company.
I bet the stock holders won't agree anymore that the CEO earns millions every year.

And don't tell us that it isn't fair to punish the poor CEOs.

You tell me why that is fair then. Do you really think that all CEOs only put in 10% more work than the janitor? Do they really only have 10% more at risk in their company? Have they really only invested 10% more than anyone else?

And what do you suppose will happen to prices? How many companies do you suspect will flee to China and elsewhere at that point.

[chuck34]

The message is clear, we need to change the huge gap.
What is unclear about it?

Is that really what you hear coming from the "Occupy" protests? I hear a confusing mess of differing ideas. From tax the rich, to end corporate greed, to destroy the system and rebuild it, to simple gimmie, gimmie, gimmie.

[ioan]

Is that really what you hear coming from the "Occupy" protests? I hear a confusing mess of differing ideas. From tax the rich, to end corporate greed, to destroy the system and rebuild it, to simple gimmie, gimmie, gimmie.

I do not talk only about the Occupy movement, what matters to me is the fact that this movement exists and that it is the result of the huge differences that have been mentioned in this thread.
What I see is that if there is no serious change to reduce this enormous financial difference then the resulting social issue might culminate in something we do not want to see in our lifetime. And I sincerely hope that there will be a solution to avoid a huge fallout.

[ArrowsFA1]

Also, I do not see the point of having directors from other companies involved.
So do you perhaps now understand why there is, at the very least, concern about the way those at the top maintain and increase their wealth?

[chuck34]

So do you perhaps now understand why there is, at the very least, concern about the way those at the top maintain and increase their wealth?

Sure. I never said there wasn't corruption, or crony-ism, or anything like that. What I question is the need for massive protests, particularly on Wall Street. I think that if there is a need for protests, the center of those protests should be centered around Capital Hill, not Wall Street. But honestly most of the issues that have been brought up on this thread (pay gaps, etc.) are not a matter for massive protests, or mass movements. They are individual matters that should be delt with individually. What I believe should be protested are all sweet-heart deals that Congresscritters get, the kick-backs that corporations get from them, and the corruption within our politicians. I honestly can't blame the CEO's from trying to get the best deals they can, that's only natural. I tend to blame our elected officials for being so short sighted as to allow themselves to be bought in such a manner.

[BDunnell]

You tell me why that is fair then. Do you really think that all CEOs only put in 10% more work than the janitor? Do they really only have 10% more at risk in their company? Have they really only invested 10% more than anyone else?

Whether or not 10 per cent is correct, who on earth could ever come up with a measure? I suspect it would even be beyond you.

[BDunnell]

Sure. I never said there wasn't corruption, or crony-ism, or anything like that. What I question is the need for massive protests, particularly on Wall Street. I think that if there is a need for protests, the center of those protests should be centered around Capital Hill, not Wall Street.

I suspect you would be of the view that there is never a need to protest against the private sector, no matter what it did.

[chuck34]

Whether or not 10 per cent is correct, who on earth could ever come up with a measure? I suspect it would even be beyond you.

How hard is it to measure when a CEO has sunk his life savings into a company, and a "low earner" has zero invested? How hard is it to measure when a CEO dips into his own personal income to make ends meet, and a laborer has not a care in the world how the lights stay on? How hard is it to measure when the owner of the company works well over 100 hours a week, and the janitor barely works 40?

But yes, it may be beyond me to pin the exact value. But I am not the one that came up with a hair-brained concept of pegging earnings at 10%, so why should I be the one charged with defending such a scheme?

[chuck34]

I suspect you would be of the view that there is never a need to protest against the private sector, no matter what it did.

There are certainly times where protests are warranted. That is actually a vital part of the free market in my view. But you should be protesting something specific such as a company that has ripped you off, or discriminated against you, or other such specific instances. I just don't see what the point is in protesting a company you have no dealings with because you feel their CEO is making too much. Who cares? How does that effect you? Who are you to put a price on that CEO's value?

[ioan]

You tell me why that is fair then. Do you really think that all CEOs only put in 10% more work than the janitor? Do they really only have 10% more at risk in their company? Have they really only invested 10% more than anyone else?

And what do you suppose will happen to prices? How many companies do you suspect will flee to China and elsewhere at that point.

Huh?! What kind of Maths is that?
I think you'll find that the CEO in my proposal would get 10 times what the janitor gets.

[ioan]

How hard is it to measure when a CEO has sunk his life savings into a company, ...

That's some kind of urban legend that the usual suspects bring up again and again around here!

How much money did Bill Gates invest in MS? I think you'll find that it wasn't exactly his lifetime savings, especially given his age when he started the company.

How much money did invest Porsche's CEO in the Porsche Company? Pretty much nothing as it was set up by someone else a long time ago.

And there is a bunch of example out there about how those who are paid most didn't really invest much in the business they are in charge of right now, mostly because most of the companies/banks paying exorbitant wages were not set up by their present CEOs, and the founders did not have a similar politics back in the day when they invested their 'lifetime savings'.

[chuck34]

Huh?! What kind of Maths is that?
I think you'll find that the CEO in my proposal would get 10 times what the janitor gets.

But the CEO has more than 10 times invested into the company. Why is it fair to only allow him to earn 10x as much?

[chuck34]

That's some kind of urban legend that the usual suspects bring up again and again around here!

How much money did Bill Gates invest in MS? I think you'll find that it wasn't exactly his lifetime savings, especially given his age when he started the company.

How much money did invest Porsche's CEO in the Porsche Company? Pretty much nothing as it was set up by someone else a long time ago.

And there is a bunch of example out there about how those who are paid most didn't really invest much in the business they are in charge of right now, mostly because most of the companies/banks paying exorbitant wages were not set up by their present CEOs, and the founders did not have a similar politics back in the day when they invested their 'lifetime savings'.

I don't honestly know how much those two particular individuals invested. But again it isn't all about money. How much time and energy did those individuals put into getting their respective companies off the ground? Especially when you compare Gate's and Prosche's investment (time, energy, money, reputation, etc) with the janitor's, do you think that would be more or less than a 10% ratio.

And since we're speaking of specific examples ... The owner of the company I work for literally mortgaged his farm to start the business. I sure as heck didn't do anything like that to work here, so who am I to deny him whatever he wants? Particularly as long as he continues to pay me what I think I'm worth.

[ArrowsFA1]

...But honestly most of the issues that have been brought up on this thread (pay gaps, etc.) are not a matter for massive protests, or mass movements. They are individual matters that should be delt with individually.
How?

How does an individual make such fundamental change happen alone?

[chuck34]

How?

How does an individual make such fundamental change happen alone?

If my boss is making way more than I am, and I feel I should be making closer wages to him, I go to him with the facts about what I do to add value to the company and ask for a raise. Why does it take massive protests for me to ask for a raise?

[ioan]

I don't honestly know how much those two particular individuals invested. But again it isn't all about money.

Than why do you use it as a means to justify their huge incomes?


How much time and energy did those individuals put into getting their respective companies off the ground? Especially when you compare Gate's and Prosche's investment (time, energy, money, reputation, etc) with the janitor's, do you think that would be more or less than a 10% ratio.

Again, most of them didn't get their respective companies off the ground, and even if they did they didn't do it single handedly, they did it with their partners and employees, who most probably did work their but1s off to make the company grow and become successful.

There is simply no way to justify what your are trying to justify, and that is paying peanuts to those who keep an empire running day after day, or do you believe that a CEO, or his VPs and managers can do it on their own?

[ioan]

If my boss is making way more than I am, and I feel I should be making closer wages to him, I go to him with the facts about what I do to add value to the company and ask for a raise. Why does it take massive protests for me to ask for a raise?

I think all of them do it, they all first go to their boss/manager and ask for a raise.
What if instead of getting a raise they get the boot?
How much leverage do you think that Joe has to ask for a higher pay? The answer from the boss will be: 'There's 10 others knocking on the door to work for less!'

Everyone does what's easiest first, in this case ask for a raise, before choosing to slip in a park or on Wall Street. I am 100% sure of that, it's because of natures law of least resistance.

[chuck34]

Than why do you use it as a means to justify their huge incomes?

Where have I tried to justify Bill Gate's or Ferdinand Porsche's (or whomever is currently running his company) income? I honestly have not delved into either one of their specific instances.

But to get specific ... I don't think that Porsche's CEO's income is justified, they make over-priced cars that do not perform that well. So I don't buy their cars. Therefore his income is of no concern to me. He is not stealing from me. I do find value in Microsoft's products, and I do use them. Yes they are a bit overpriced, and a bit "buggy". But I don't think that the cost/benifit scale is too far out of whack. So Bill Gates makes massive amounts of money, but I get something of value in return. That's how this whole system works. How are their incomes hurting you?


Again, most of them didn't get their respective companies off the ground, and even if they did they didn't do it single handedly, they did it with their partners and employees, who most probably did work their but1s off to make the company grow and become successful.

And those partners, and employees have been compensated at a rate which was negotiated between the two parties. Or are you suggesting the use of slave labor?


There is simply no way to justify what your are trying to justify, and that is paying peanuts to those who keep an empire running day after day, or do you believe that a CEO, or his VPs and managers can do it on their own?

If you believe you are being paid peanuts, ask for a raise. If you feel a company is mistreating their employees, don't buy their products. What is the justification for the protests?

[chuck34]

I think all of them do it, they all first go to their boss/manager and ask for a raise.

Are you sure?


What if instead of getting a raise they get the boot?

There are other jobs out there. Yes they may be harder to find now than in the past, but there are jobs out there.

And what if their boss finds out they are using up sick days to go sleep in a park, and fires them for that?


How much leverage do you think that Joe has to ask for a higher pay? The answer from the boss will be: 'There's 10 others knocking on the door to work for less!'

And you have just described the free market system my friend. The market will pay what the value of an employee is. If a boss fires a high value employee simply for asking for a raise, then they deserve the quality of employee they get. Which will be lower, if you hadn't figured that out.


Everyone does what's easiest first, in this case ask for a raise, before choosing to slip in a park or on Wall Street. I am 100% sure of that, it's because of natures law of least resistance.

Perhaps. But I am not willing to say that everyone Occupying Wall Street, or wherever else, has presented a well thought out case for why they deserve a raise. If I go by the people that I've seen on the news, I'd say the majority have not presented such a case.

[Rollo]

It's not feasible to peg board members wages against the profits of the company because as soon as you'd set any statutory limit, there'd be people like me looking at the rules and finding some method of subverting it.
Set up a shell company in another country and have the first firm pay them administration fees (which would be written as an expense), or even a Discretionary Unit Trust where all profits would be paid into and then pay people from that. You'd have to look at what the proposed law actually said but I'm sure that there'd be some method to avoid any statutory requirement.


And there is a bunch of example out there about how those who are paid most didn't really invest much in the business they are in charge of right now, mostly because most of the companies/banks paying exorbitant wages were not set up by their present CEOs, and the founders did not have a similar politics back in the day when they invested their 'lifetime savings'.

It would wager that virtually every listed company on most börsen/equities exchanges didn't invest terribly much in the businesses they are in charge of right now; to wit, Rupert Murdoch's personal holdings in News Corp are no more than about 9% with the Murdoch family owning about 27% of the company.

The actual money for most listed equities comes from savings and/or retirement funds. Managers of those funds then use that money to purchase shares and then they control the voting rights owing to those shares; not the people's money who it was in the first place.
Owing to disclosure requirements in a lot of Western countries, board members know what the board members in other companies are being paid and then demand similar amounts.

Even if "mom and pop" shareholders do get together and vote against the pay that board members get, fund managers and people in similar situations (who are also often on boards themselves) will vote against them and vote in board members' pay anyway.
That scenario was played out exactly at the Annual General Meeting of Qantas in Australia on 27th October 2011 when institutional investors (including CEO Alan Joyce's $10m holdings) collectively voted against private shareholdings and the CEO Alan Joyce got his 71% pay increase. Two days later he grounded the airline, leaving 70,000 people stranded around the world and he blamed it on the Federal Govt for not acting.

[Rollo]

And you have just described the free market system my friend. The market will pay what the value of an employee is. If a boss fires a high value employee simply for asking for a raise, then they deserve the quality of employee they get. Which will be lower, if you hadn't figured that out.

The demand curve for labour shifts to the left when companies find a cheaper source of labour overseas and when the supply and demand curves don't meet, people don't get employed - simple as that. The problem is that people still need to pay for the rent and the electric and the gas and whatnot, so it's not like as a group they can shift the supply curve so easily.

[BDunnell]

There are other jobs out there. Yes they may be harder to find now than in the past, but there are jobs out there.

Another example of the undue confidence you have in the private sector, if I may say so.

[anthonyvop]

I think all of them do it, they all first go to their boss/manager and ask for a raise.
What if instead of getting a raise they get the boot?
How much leverage do you think that Joe has to ask for a higher pay? The answer from the boss will be: 'There's 10 others knocking on the door to work for less!'.


That is because "Joe" decided to be inconsequential and replaceable. There are many others who worked hard and became valuable.


Everyone does what's easiest first, in this case ask for a raise, before choosing to slip in a park or on Wall Street. I am 100% sure of that, it's because of natures law of least resistance.

Those that succeed in life and business don't do things half=assed, expecting it to be handed to them then protest when things go bad.

[BDunnell]

That is because "Joe" decided to be inconsequential and replaceable. There are many others who worked hard and became valuable.

So at no time has a boss ever been at fault in such a situation, and sacked someone they shouldn't have?



Those that succeed in life and business don't do things half=assed, expecting it to be handed to them then protest when things go bad.

You have an extremely narrow definition of what constitutes success. It seems solely to involve monetary income and, somehow, the fact that a successful person never protests.

[Bob Riebe]

There are other jobs out there. Yes they may be harder to find now than in the past, but there are jobs out there.
That particular cry is both true and a placebo cry from those who never had to find a job that paid the bills.
That people were foolish and spent more than they really should have on their income is pointless when the "other jobs" out there do not pay the bills, or due to their age they are not hired.
To simply say their are other jobs out there, is a Never Land reply by those who made enough that they can live off of their reserve for years. Most people cannot do that.

[Bob Riebe]

Another example of the undue confidence you have in the private sector, if I may say so.
All government money comes from the private sector.
How the U.S. government has handled the money they took from private civilians, should have no one having confidence in their ability to replace the private sector as the ones who drive the economy.
The long over-due attention being paid to Washington employees cronyism says all that needs to be said for Obama and his socialist dictates he wants to force on us.

[airshifter]

I know airshifter did not address this to me but allow me to quote part of his post to make a comment related to our topic:

Any comment is welcome on anything I post.



Increasing taxes - in other words: everybody paying their fair share of taxes, will not take care of everything but it will be a good start.


I don't disagree with everyone paying their fair share. But it seems the majority of people think the fair share for the wealthy should continue to be higher and higher. This I don't agree with at all. Corporate tax in the US is one of the highest in the world, and raising it more will hurt the average person through job losses and increased prices. As it stands now IMO there are far too many people getting far too many tax breaks, and the Corporations take advantage of them no more than the next person. Currently the US tax system is based on a sliding scale and in most cases the more you make the higher the percentage you pay. But there are a great number of people paying zero tax, or getting assitance through the tax system. This doesn't bother me when they are people actually in need, especially in times like this that the economy and other factors have found honest hard working people struggling to pay their bills and get by. But far too often I've seen with my own eyes people getting such assistance while living a lifestyle as good as those working hard for it.

I posted an example above of people getting housing assistance while living in a 1.2 million dollar home. Should you or I be paying more in taxes to help such people? For about two years we had people living in the house next to us and getting most of their rent paid by housing assitance. My wife and I put some $30,000 down on a home, both worked to pay our bills and get ahead, the people in the next house lived there for almost nothing... I might add while they cheated the system and worked under the table jobs to get that assistance.

There are also IMO far too many government benefits that take only income into account. A person can often have great assets yet get assistance. In my reality a persons total worth should be taken into consideration, not income alone. A few years back both myself and wife made some job changes, and when doing so essentially both took a good part of the summer off work. Had a chosen to do so, I could have easily applied for benefits and received them due to "being out of work", even though in reality it was a matter of choice and there was no financial concern.

I could go on for pages about government waste and abuse, as well as the many, many flaws in the tax system in this country.



There is a perfect example of why things are wrong. Why punish the average worker or the consumer to make up for those extra million$$$$ "lost" when they were told to pay their taxes just like I also did?

That reeks of greed and a lack of social consciousness.

But then again, the link and clips I posted recently showed the huge amounts of money some of those large companies gave to charities of their choice. Just the listed companies had over a billion dollars in contributions. And some of those companies gave a decent percentage of their profits as well.

A business of any type exists to make profit, not to help others get ahead. Though some refuse to see it any business with employees is essentially exploiting the potential of those employees for profit. I know full well the company I work for makes a profit from my efforts. But having been in business myself for many years, I also know what they went through and what they risk to do so. So as long as they treat me fairly I will continue to contract to them.

[airshifter]

Just another tidbit in the Occupy movement.

Occupy protests move to foreclosed homes - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/occupy-protests-move-foreclosed-homes-222136796.html)

Wrong in so many ways I can't even count them. I'm not saying this is indicative of the Occupy protesters as a whole, but it reflects on the lack of organization of the entire movement.




And also a serious question for everyone participating in this thread. As many seemed to be concerned with the widening gap between the rich and poor, I'd like to know how many people here have actually ever started a legal business of any kind at all.

[555-04Q2]

And also a serious question for everyone participating in this thread. As many seemed to be concerned with the widening gap between the rich and poor, I'd like to know how many people here have actually ever started a legal business of any kind at all.

I have, legal and very successful. I'm stuffed if my janitor is going to earn the same or similar to what I do, after I took the risk of loans and bonding the house to get going and I have to worry about having to pay him every month. No f#cking way is that going to ever happen!

As for Occupy, a monkey with a banana stuck up his ar$e would make more sense than that lot :down:

[ArrowsFA1]

I'm stuffed if my janitor is going to earn the same or similar to what I do, after I took the risk of loans and bonding the house to get going and I have to worry about having to pay him every month. No f#cking way is that going to ever happen!
No-one is arguing that all employees should be paid the same; just that the vast differences that can be seen are unjustifiable.


The market will pay what the value of an employee is.
Really? We've seen that non-executive directors sit on each others salary committees and award each other nice big pay rises year on year, while giving those further down the food chain small rises if they're lucky. These are not wage awards related to performance or productivity.

Still, the argument goes that the "free market" ensures the survival of the fittest and the profits they generate filter down to benefit all, but everything points to that being an empty promise.


"This study dispels the assumptions that the benefits of economic growth will automatically trickle down to the disadvantaged and that great inequality fosters social mobility. Without a comprehensive strategy for inclusive growth, inequality will continue to rise."
BBC News - Wage inequality 'getting worse' in leading economies (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16012293)


Inequality in earnings has doubled in India over the last two decades, making it one of the worst performers in terms of salary disparities from all the emerging economies.
India's income inequality has doubled in 20 years - report - AlertNet (http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/indias-income-inequality-has-doubled-in-20-years-report)


Globalization yields unbalanced outcomes that manifest themselves in wage inequality and job vulnerability. Distribution of the benefits of globalization is anything but fair.
Wage Inequality Is a Global Challenge (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/11/wage_inequality.html)


What's certain is that the rich have emerged from the rubble of the last 30 years as indisputable winners. Since 1980, middle-class wages have largely stagnated and lower-class wages have declined, while the upper echelons of American society have seen a windfall.
15 Facts About U.S. Income Inequality That Everyone Should Know (CHARTS) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/us-inequality-infographic_n_845042.html#s261411&title=Wage_Inequality)

The "free market" simply does not do what its' proponents say it does.

[Rudy Tamasz]

You have an extremely narrow definition of what constitutes success. It seems solely to involve monetary income and, somehow, the fact that a successful person never protests.

Bono, who's kinda successful protests all the time against something (or anything?). A bunch of millionaires called Metallica truly enjoys writing songs about how desperate it is living in this world. Then there's Wyclef Jean and many more.

[chuck34]

Another example of the undue confidence you have in the private sector, if I may say so.


That particular cry is both true and a placebo cry from those who never had to find a job that paid the bills.
That people were foolish and spent more than they really should have on their income is pointless when the "other jobs" out there do not pay the bills, or due to their age they are not hired.
To simply say their are other jobs out there, is a Never Land reply by those who made enough that they can live off of their reserve for years. Most people cannot do that.

So you guys are telling me that if I went to Monster.com or a thousand other job sites out there that there will be zero job postings, in or out of my field. And that absolutely zero percent of those jobs will pay at a higher rate than what I currently have? Interesting.

[chuck34]

The demand curve for labour shifts to the left when companies find a cheaper source of labour overseas and when the supply and demand curves don't meet, people don't get employed - simple as that. The problem is that people still need to pay for the rent and the electric and the gas and whatnot, so it's not like as a group they can shift the supply curve so easily.

So what do you do? Outlaw outsourcing of jobs? Then are you willing to pay $80-$100 for a pair of jeans?

Or do you take the personal responsibility for your own situation, and get the education you need to get a job that is not so easily outsourced? And if you don't currently have the education, do you also take the responsibility to work menial jobs (fast food and what-not) to make it through? Or do you just protest?

[chuck34]

No-one is arguing that all employees should be paid the same; just that the vast differences that can be seen are unjustifiable.

How do you define what the gap should be? Who is in control of maintaining that gap? What enforcement mechanism(s) do they have?


Really? We've seen that non-executive directors sit on each others salary committees and award each other nice big pay rises year on year, while giving those further down the food chain small rises if they're lucky. These are not wage awards related to performance or productivity.

Still, the argument goes that the "free market" ensures the survival of the fittest and the profits they generate filter down to benefit all, but everything points to that being an empty promise.

Ah the old falicy that we live in a free market. Many of those companies that pay their boards too high actually went bankrupt and failed back in '08. But our Federal government, in it's infinite wisdom, decided to step in and bail them out. Thus removing any consequences that would have been a lesson to other companies/boards. At this point, why wouldn't boards just keep on voting themselves raise after raise? I mean come on, there's no downside to it, if we go bankrupt we'll just get a bailout.


BBC News - Wage inequality 'getting worse' in leading economies (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16012293)


India's income inequality has doubled in 20 years - report - AlertNet (http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/indias-income-inequality-has-doubled-in-20-years-report)


Wage Inequality Is a Global Challenge (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/11/wage_inequality.html)


15 Facts About U.S. Income Inequality That Everyone Should Know (CHARTS) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/us-inequality-infographic_n_845042.html#s261411&title=Wage_Inequality)

The "free market" simply does not do what its' proponents say it does.

Again, lots and lots of links on why this is so bad, and getting worse, oh my! But strangely no discussion of any solutions. Hmmmm.

[555-04Q2]

Again, lots and lots of links on why this is so bad, and getting worse, oh my! But strangely no discussion of any solutions. Hmmmm.

There is no solution required where there is no problem, hence the lack of solutions to a problem that does not actually exist.

[ArrowsFA1]

Again, lots and lots of links on why this is so bad, and getting worse, oh my! But strangely no discussion of any solutions. Hmmmm.
Nice attempt at diversion but earlier in this thread...

Hey thoses actually sound like reasonable measues that might actually have an effect over the long term.
There is discussion of solutions but you appear to have a rather selective memory :p


There is no solution required where there is no problem, hence the lack of solutions to a problem that does not actually exist.
Inequality (see thread for evidence it exists and the effects it has) in society as a whole is not a problem?

[555-04Q2]

Inequality (see thread for evidence it exists and the effects it has) in society as a whole is not a problem?

Yes, that is correct.

[race aficionado]

There is no solution required where there is no problem, hence the lack of solutions to a problem that does not actually exist.

. . . for you.

There are many many more people in this planet and we (I included- not you)) do have a big problem that is being manifested more and more every day and therefore we (many, many of us, not you) are looking for solutions that will surely manifest themselves as we work together to figure them out.

[chuck34]

Nice attempt at diversion but earlier in this thread...

There is discussion of solutions but you appear to have a rather selective memory :p

No diversion on my part, nor selective memory. I was pointing out that you posted one thought about a solution, but now you're just back to your old tricks of putting up links to the problem instead of further fleshing out the solutions.

I know I'm a bore to most of you. But to me b!tching about the problem without discussion of possible solutions and the possible consequences of said solutions is rather boring to me, and really accomplishes nothing.

[chuck34]

. . . for you.

There are many many more people in this planet and we (I included- not you)) do have a big problem that is being manifested more and more every day and therefore we (many, many of us, not you) are looking for solutions that will surely manifest themselves as we work together to figure them out.

So what is your proposed solution then? Protest to what end?

[555-04Q2]

. . . for you.

There are many many more people in this planet and we (I included- not you)) do have a big problem that is being manifested more and more every day and therefore we (many, many of us, not you) are looking for solutions that will surely manifest themselves as we work together to figure them out.

race, the only "solution" to the so called "problem(s)" is for people to knuckle down and get things done for themselves. The only "problem" is the limitations that people put on themselves, the rest are either just lazy or stupid or both.

[555-04Q2]

. . . for you.

These so called "problems" did exist for me many years ago. I decided they were not "problems" but just a temporary roadblock and found a way around them. I don't expect my neighbour to cut my lawn, I cut it myself.

[ArrowsFA1]

Yes, that is correct.
That's disappointing because it appears as if you're looking at things from the narrow perspective of your own situation which is, undoubtedly a successful one and credit to you for that.

You appear to argue that everyone has the same chance of moving up the ladder and that is certainly the idea behind equality of opportunity but the fact (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/social-mobility) is as income differences have widened, social mobility has slowed.

Put simply the opportunity for people to do as you've done is decreasing because of inequality in society.

Do you not see this as a problem because you've already climbed the ladder?

[chuck34]

You appear to argue that everyone has the same chance of moving up the ladder and that is certainly the idea behind equality of opportunity but the fact (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/social-mobility) is as income differences have widened, social mobility has slowed.

Put simply the opportunity for people to do as you've done is decreasing because of inequality in society.

I keep hearing that. But what is physically stopping a poor person from moving up? There are plenty of examples of this happening. You repeatidly state that the occurances of people moving up is slowing, but you never explain what barriers there are now to social mobility. Back 50 years ago, the wealth gap was less, but a guy was able to become incredibly wealthy, after starting out relatively poor. What barriers have been put up since then? WHY does the ratio between the really poor and the really rich effect social mobility?

Correlation does not equal causation.


Do you not see this as a problem because you've already climbed the ladder?

I have not climbed the ladder to any sort of height as 555, but I don't see that as some sort of problem to be solved. I have made choices in my life, and I am where I am. If I become unhappy with where I am I will do something to change it. Why must everything be someone else's fault?

[ArrowsFA1]

WHY does the ratio between the really poor and the really rich effect social mobility?
Here's just one reason:

Greater inequalities of outcome seem to make it easier for rich parents to pass on their advantages.
Evidence: Social Mobility | The Equality Trust (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/social-mobility)


I have not climbed the ladder to any sort of height as 555, but I don't see that as some sort of problem to be solved.
I agree. You're happy, 555's happy. There is no problem from your own individual perspective.

[BDunnell]

All government money comes from the private sector.

By exactly the same token, all money that flows into corporations derives originally from the public, in one way or another.

[BDunnell]

Bono, who's kinda successful protests all the time against something (or anything?). A bunch of millionaires called Metallica truly enjoys writing songs about how desperate it is living in this world. Then there's Wyclef Jean and many more.

What do you advocate? Banning them from doing so?

I would add that good songs about hedge funds and derivative trading are few in number. So are good songs from any of the artists you mention.

[BDunnell]

These so called "problems" did exist for me many years ago. I decided they were not "problems" but just a temporary roadblock and found a way around them. I don't expect my neighbour to cut my lawn, I cut it myself.

I can't seem to stress enough that, again, you seem not to have in you the ability to understand that not everyone wants to follow exactly your path; that those who protest are not all lazy by any means; and that in these little stories you tell about your own life, you are, I hate to tell you, far from exceptional, yet you bring them out as though they ought to be incredible revelations for those of us whose opinions are to the left of your own.

[Rollo]

All government money comes from the private sector.

All money is a reflection of the goods and services being produced by an economy (or borrowed from someone else). Goods and services can be produced by either people working in government or the private sector.

Quoted for truth:

By exactly the same token, all money that flows into corporations derives originally from the public, in one way or another.

Theoretically if what Mr Riebe said was true, then in a totally statist economy, nothing at all would have been produced at all. Are we therefore to take it that this magically appeared from nowhere?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/43998092_6882f98d73.jpg

[anthonyvop]

So at no time has a boss ever been at fault in such a situation, and sacked someone they shouldn't have?

Many times Bosses have made bed decisions. But a Good employee would be snapped up quickly even in a down economy



You have an extremely narrow definition of what constitutes success. It seems solely to involve monetary income and, somehow, the fact that a successful person never protests.

We are discussing the economics and Jobs....Not some silly, altruistic, Ideal spewed forth by some one who wants to appear superior by appearing all Touchy feely.

[Bob Riebe]

So you guys are telling me that if I went to Monster.com or a thousand other job sites out there that there will be zero job postings, in or out of my field. And that absolutely zero percent of those jobs will pay at a higher rate than what I currently have? Interesting.
No one has said that.--
Let's deal with this in a more serious manner.
If some who lost a job has spent years or decades to pay off his house and finally has. You are saying-- well hells bells jim-ed, just sell that house and move where a job is available.
So jim-ed does that, gets the job, buys a new house, the job ends so now he no longer has a house he owns, is tens of thousands of dollars more in debt than he was and no longer has a job.

Your simplistic senario fails to take into account the realities of life.


This country is no longer what it was where any one could simply get a factory, hard labor or janitor job (which pay very well).
Housing costs have soared so high, even with the houses sitting empty, that a job at quick-food joint will only pay enough to-- maybe -- rent a cheap apartment and which means zero money going in the bank.
The old rules no longer apply.

[Bob Riebe]

All money is a reflection of the goods and services being produced by an economy (or borrowed from someone else). Goods and services can be produced by either people working in government or the private sector.

Quoted for truth:


Theoretically if what Mr Riebe said was true, then in a totally statist economy, nothing at all would have been produced at all. Are we therefore to take it that this magically appeared from nowhere?

By exactly the same token, all money that flows into corporations derives originally from the public, in one way or another.
Which comes from wages paid by corporations or small business, unless it is welfare money paid by the government which is taken from corporations and the general public.

All monies paid to government employees is taken from corporations or the publc via taxes.

The U.S. Government has zero money. All money comes from taxes.

[555-04Q2]

That's disappointing because it appears as if you're looking at things from the narrow perspective of your own situation which is, undoubtedly a successful one and credit to you for that.

You appear to argue that everyone has the same chance of moving up the ladder and that is certainly the idea behind equality of opportunity but the fact (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/social-mobility) is as income differences have widened, social mobility has slowed.

Put simply the opportunity for people to do as you've done is decreasing because of inequality in society.

Do you not see this as a problem because you've already climbed the ladder?

As I said (call me mean, selfish, uncaring, stubborn, it does not bother me) I still don't see a "problem". People make what they want of themselves and they can't blame others for their situation. If you want something, it IS obtainable if you aim for it and stick to your guns. Protesting in a park will not get you up any ladder, it will merely put you 1 day further behind the others that ARE trying to improve their lives.

[555-04Q2]

I agree. You're happy, 555's happy. There is no problem from your own individual perspective.

Yes, because some of us got off our backsides and did something about it :)

[555-04Q2]

I can't seem to stress enough that, again, you seem not to have in you the ability to understand that not everyone wants to follow exactly your path; that those who protest are not all lazy by any means; and that in these little stories you tell about your own life, you are, I hate to tell you, far from exceptional, yet you bring them out as though they ought to be incredible revelations for those of us whose opinions are to the left of your own.

No BD, I am merely pointing out that if these people who are unhappy got off their ar$e$ they may actually achieve something for themselves. Set a goal and go get it. They may not become CEO's, top level managers, business owners, billionaires etc but they can improve their lives in a number of ways, not just with money or company positions, but with their general quality of life.

I don't understand what is so hard to understand about getting things done for oneself instead of b!tch!ng about how it is someone else's fault :crazy:

[555-04Q2]

The U.S. Government has zero money. All money comes from taxes.

Correct :up: And to make things worse, 99% of governments around the world are in debt up to their ears.

[Rudy Tamasz]

What do you advocate? Banning them from doing so?

I would add that good songs about hedge funds and derivative trading are few in number. So are good songs from any of the artists you mention.

Absolutely. Watch the headlines today. "Rudy slams Bono for populism, insists on shutting him up."

I find it interesting, though, that these people went all the way to the upper steps of the social ladder and now criticise the modern day vices and problems standing on piles of money.

[BDunnell]

We are discussing the economics and Jobs....Not some silly, altruistic, Ideal spewed forth by some one who wants to appear superior by appearing all Touchy feely.

In what sense is mention of the fact that success is not just defined by money silly or altruistic?

[ArrowsFA1]

The old rules no longer apply.
:up:


As I said (call me mean, selfish, uncaring, stubborn, it does not bother me) I still don't see a "problem". People make what they want of themselves and they can't blame others for their situation. If you want something, it IS obtainable if you aim for it and stick to your guns. Protesting in a park will not get you up any ladder, it will merely put you 1 day further behind the others that ARE trying to improve their lives.
I still think you're looking at this from a far too narrow, individual level. Those protesting in a park do want sometiing, and not just for themselves - greater equality, rather than increasing inequality. It is obtainable and they are trying to do something about it.

Meanwhile, elsewhere people are still trying to "make what they want of themselves" but the evidence shows that increasing inequality makes it increasingly difficult for them to do so. That doesn't stop them trying but it does make it less and less likely they will succeed.

Evidence also shows that in the last 30yrs a smaller gap between rich and poor means a happier, healthier, and more successful population as a whole. I'm bemused why people are against closing this gap given the benefits for all of us.

[555-04Q2]

:up:


I still think you're looking at this from a far too narrow, individual level. Those protesting in a park do want sometiing, and not just for themselves - greater equality, rather than increasing inequality. It is obtainable and they are trying to do something about it.

Meanwhile, elsewhere people are still trying to "make what they want of themselves" but the evidence shows that increasing inequality makes it increasingly difficult for them to do so. That doesn't stop them trying but it does make it less and less likely they will succeed.

Evidence also shows that in the last 30yrs a smaller gap between rich and poor means a happier, healthier, and more successful population as a whole. I'm bemused why people are against closing this gap given the benefits for all of us.

I'm not against the gap closing (I'm all for everyone having money/being secure/happy etc) but I am against people expecting things to be done for them to get it instead of doing it themselves. The fact is there are people out there that refuse to put in the hard work and effort to do things for themselves yet they expect these things as some sort of "right" of theirs, so they publicly protest and interupt the rest of our lives in the HOPE that they get what they want. Poor form :down:

People need to start appreciating what they have and not what they don't have.

[555-04Q2]

In what sense is mention of the fact that success is not just defined by money silly or altruistic?

For me REAL success is raising my kids to be hard working men who respect their elders, respect that hard work, dedication and persistance is the key to success and to ensure my wife and I can retire happily later in life. Having money is just a bonus. You can't take money with you when you die, but you can keep your legacy when you are gone.