Are the Poor Getting Poorer?

[Lootifer]

I like how you linked the state-legalised rape of woman in middle-age Scotland to increasing the top rate of a progressive tax system. Bravo!

[Phatscotty]

I like how you linked the state-legalised rape of woman to the state-legalised rape of your paycheck.

[Lootifer]

You post is pretty much representative of one of main reasons why the US has such a poor foreign perception

I have no problem with your ideals, it's the manner in which so many americans communicate their ideals that results in the world thinking you guys are idiots.

[BigBallinStalin]

The overall problem is not having a directed or demand system, the overall problem is finding the correct mix. The other problem is knowing when that control from above IS necessary, which problems are serious enough that they cannot just be left for the markets and peoples individual greed/will to decide. (I use greed to mean not just the desire for money, but the desire for kids to have "popular" clothes, for people to have more than their neighbor -- a vital component of the market, but an urge that needs to have limits).

How does "one" know when it is necessary?

Individual make stupid decisions. The collective usually does better. The exception is when it comes to science. Science is where many of the disputes lie now. That is, science is pretty clear that our current lifestyle is hurting us and absolutely hurting our futures. Yet, that voice is being silenced because it is too inconvenient for the people who now have the most power.


The REAL reason there is so much opposition to alternative energy, etc is that it would take away from some of the profits of the oil companies and others in power today. Other players would certainly step in. Your argument that not supporting oil so heavily would inherently destroy industry is wrong. It would change it, not destroy it, except that we have reached a point where the problem is getting so serious the changes might have to happen too quickly. Changing too quickly WILL be harmful. The longer we wait to shift our economy, thinking, the harsher it will be.

AND...on top of all that, the continued inattention to sustainability has led to a mindset that ignores impact of company decisions on not just the environment, but workers here as well. The two are inticrately tied. That is, you can have some jobs without sustainability. However, nothing will last.. it will be just another series of booms and busts, with the booms getting smaller and he busts getting deeper until we decide on sustainability.

The collective of private governance or the government?

[Phatscotty]

You post is pretty much representative of one of main reasons why the US has such a poor foreign perception

I have no problem with your ideals, it's the manner in which so many americans communicate their ideals that results in the world thinking you guys are idiots.

Oh, see I thought it was entertaining. However it's clear from your last post you didn't get the point(read the first line of the post you are railing about one more time, the point is right there), which is okay, but which also disqualifies you for speaking for "the entire world"

[PLAYER57832]

The overall problem is not having a directed or demand system, the overall problem is finding the correct mix. The other problem is knowing when that control from above IS necessary, which problems are serious enough that they cannot just be left for the markets and peoples individual greed/will to decide. (I use greed to mean not just the desire for money, but the desire for kids to have "popular" clothes, for people to have more than their neighbor -- a vital component of the market, but an urge that needs to have limits).

How does "one" know when it is necessary?

Individual make stupid decisions. The collective usually does better. The exception is when it comes to science. Science is where many of the disputes lie now. That is, science is pretty clear that our current lifestyle is hurting us and absolutely hurting our futures. Yet, that voice is being silenced because it is too inconvenient for the people who now have the most power.


The REAL reason there is so much opposition to alternative energy, etc is that it would take away from some of the profits of the oil companies and others in power today. Other players would certainly step in. Your argument that not supporting oil so heavily would inherently destroy industry is wrong. It would change it, not destroy it, except that we have reached a point where the problem is getting so serious the changes might have to happen too quickly. Changing too quickly WILL be harmful. The longer we wait to shift our economy, thinking, the harsher it will be.

AND...on top of all that, the continued inattention to sustainability has led to a mindset that ignores impact of company decisions on not just the environment, but workers here as well. The two are inticrately tied. That is, you can have some jobs without sustainability. However, nothing will last.. it will be just another series of booms and busts, with the booms getting smaller and he busts getting deeper until we decide on sustainability.

The collective of private governance or the government?

Neither.

[Phatscotty]

Loot, do you pay taxes at all? if so how much?

[Baron Von PWN]

If I could change the subject....one thing I have always believed is that our black market employs a lot of the "poor".

I bet you that 10's millions of people who are "poor" on paper actually make a lot of money dealing drugs or unreported tips or prostitution etc. One of the things I realized as far as legalizing drugs goes is the most likely unanticipated impact on the poor. And yes this is another effort to show that America's poor really aren't as poor as the bleeding hearts would have you believe, as far as changing our entire system based on it. I'm not saying that the life of the drug dealer or prostitute is glorious or is not a product of a fucked up system, but I am saying many of those people are poor on paper yet live lifestyles far beyond those of the middle class.

This song inspired my thoughts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSaSVNbS8zs Silk used to openly brag he was still getting food stamps and counted as "poor"

I'm rather skeptical of your drug dealer theory. I suspect the nature of that business does not employ many people, mostly due to the fact that the larger your operation the easier to get busted, I would be very surprised if illicit drug production/distribution employs more than a million people in the USA. A quick google search didin't turn anything up so I could be way off base, if anyone knows of a good source on this I would be interested to see it. However I suspect you may have a point on the more gray side of undocumented work. That is work that isn't illegal but rather is not documented in order to avoid taxes. So basically any under the table work.

[PLAYER57832]

If I could change the subject....one thing I have always believed is that our black market employs a lot of the "poor".

I bet you that 10's millions of people who are "poor" on paper actually make a lot of money dealing drugs or unreported tips or prostitution etc. One of the things I realized as far as legalizing drugs goes is the most likely unanticipated impact on the poor. And yes this is another effort to show that America's poor really aren't as poor as the bleeding hearts would have you believe, as far as changing our entire system based on it. I'm not saying that the life of the drug dealer or prostitute is glorious or is not a product of a fucked up system, but I am saying many of those people are poor on paper yet live lifestyles far beyond those of the middle class.

Nope. Criminals abound at all socioeconomic levels.

The true black market you describe, the outright criminal economy, is always a relatively small perecentage. I could get into why, but its complicated..and most of those folks actually are not on the low income rolls. In fact, its pretty stupid to be on those roles if you are a criminal, because you are more likely to be "found out".

Its much easier to hide criminality if you have a small business. That gets into some tricky issues. A LOT of small businesses make small "cheats". They won't necessarily count all cash takes, etc. Its not the kid of criminality to which you referred and whether it is even really criminal can be debatable. (sort of like the difference between speeding on an empty highway and driving drunk by a busy playground).

[Lootifer]

Loot, do you pay taxes at all? if so how much?

Tax rates in New Zealand:
up to $14,000 10.5 cents 12.54 cents
from $14,001 to $48,000 17.5 cents 19.54 cents
from $48,001 to $70,000 30 cents 32.04 cents
$70,001 and over 33 cents 35.04 cents

First number is base rate, second number is inclusive of ACC levy (free healthcare for accidents).

All in NZD (about 0.75-0.8 USD for every 1.0 NZD at the moment).

My job titles pay band is pretty wide, but ~75k-125k pa is about right (high end analyst role). Working out my effective tax rate requires knowing exactly how much I earn, but you get the idea

[BigBallinStalin]

The overall problem is not having a directed or demand system, the overall problem is finding the correct mix. The other problem is knowing when that control from above IS necessary, which problems are serious enough that they cannot just be left for the markets and peoples individual greed/will to decide. (I use greed to mean not just the desire for money, but the desire for kids to have "popular" clothes, for people to have more than their neighbor -- a vital component of the market, but an urge that needs to have limits).

How does "one" know when it is necessary?

Individual make stupid decisions. The collective usually does better. The exception is when it comes to science. Science is where many of the disputes lie now. That is, science is pretty clear that our current lifestyle is hurting us and absolutely hurting our futures. Yet, that voice is being silenced because it is too inconvenient for the people who now have the most power.


The REAL reason there is so much opposition to alternative energy, etc is that it would take away from some of the profits of the oil companies and others in power today. Other players would certainly step in. Your argument that not supporting oil so heavily would inherently destroy industry is wrong. It would change it, not destroy it, except that we have reached a point where the problem is getting so serious the changes might have to happen too quickly. Changing too quickly WILL be harmful. The longer we wait to shift our economy, thinking, the harsher it will be.

AND...on top of all that, the continued inattention to sustainability has led to a mindset that ignores impact of company decisions on not just the environment, but workers here as well. The two are inticrately tied. That is, you can have some jobs without sustainability. However, nothing will last.. it will be just another series of booms and busts, with the booms getting smaller and he busts getting deeper until we decide on sustainability.

The collective of private governance or the government?

Neither.

So what do you mean by "control from above"? Who or what is making the much needed decisions here?

[PLAYER57832]

Right now, we are being steered mostly by the demands of big corporations, putting profit into the pockets of the 1% -- the group that, contrary to some things we hear is basically NOT the middle class that moved up. Those are part of the 10-20% that most of us might consider "wealthy", but they are not the top folks.

[BigBallinStalin]

The overall problem is not having a directed or demand system, the overall problem is finding the correct mix. The other problem is knowing when that control from above IS necessary, which problems are serious enough that they cannot just be left for the markets and peoples individual greed/will to decide. (I use greed to mean not just the desire for money, but the desire for kids to have "popular" clothes, for people to have more than their neighbor -- a vital component of the market, but an urge that needs to have limits).

BBS: How does "one" know when it is necessary?

PLAYER: Individual make stupid decisions. The collective usually does better. The exception is when it comes to science. Science is where many of the disputes lie now. That is, science is pretty clear that our current lifestyle is hurting us and absolutely hurting our futures. Yet, that voice is being silenced because it is too inconvenient for the people who now have the most power.

BBS: The collective of private governance or the government?

PLAYER: Neither.

BBS: So what do you mean by "control from above"? Who or what is making the much needed decisions here?

PLAYER: Right now, we are being steered mostly by the demands of big corporations, putting profit into the pockets of the 1% -- the group that, contrary to some things we hear is basically NOT the middle class that moved up. Those are part of the 10-20% that most of us might consider "wealthy", but they are not the top folks.

Just so we're clear:

We agree that political actors and bureaucracies are influenced by certain corporations, but that various components of the government influence corporations--at times against the will of corporations. Also, we agree that corporations aren't this homogenous blob of a single decision-making entity (i.e. the corporate influences have objectives that differ from other corporations').

[Lootifer]

Anyway, when people appeal to government intervention or control over the provision of a certain good, they just assume that the intervention is better than waiting out the temporary market failure or perceived problem. What they don't expect is that the outcome in the long-run usually becomes worse, and when that happens, they just demand further government intervention. "Politician-entrepreneurs" spot this opportunity and provide people "the solution," because the politicians are aware of the people's high time-preference regarding these problems (i.e. the people don't want to wait regardless of the long-term benefits).

Given that situation, and that government intervention crowds out demand for private solutions, I don't readily assume that the government can create more opportunities for people, or assume that the government is the answer to any particular problem.

...snip...

We do, but appealing to the government as the solution only assumes that such a method would produce a more optimal solution in the long-term. It might make things worse, or marginally improve things as the loss of more rapid improvements provided by the market in the long-run.

You are making a fairly big generalisation at there beginning and drawing on from that.

You seem to assume that anyone who is pro-govt fails to grasp the fundamentals of the situation. This isn't correct; sure there's a whole bunch of misinformed out there, but please don't assume we are all like that.

Here's some fun facts:
- Government intervention is not pareto efficient.
- Neither is pure free market allocation of goods.

Now your agrument is that the cost of the former far outweighs the costs of the latter. But you are looking from economic pov where $1 = $1 no matter where it is spent. However since I am from social wellbeing school of thought I disagree. I disagree because [I believe] $1 spent by someone with $1,000,000 of disposible income has a significantly lesser value than someone who has $100 of disposible income.

Therefore if you account for this in your economic model (using value rather than $$) inequality of results actually now means something (in a free market situation I agree with you guys that it shouldn't mean anything, it should be predominantly about equality of opportunity).

It means something because as you add value upwards there is a secondary loss of value caused by a depreciation on the value of money as it goes up the wealth gradient.

A fun example is the current housing crisis in the US. The perceived problem was that some people didn't own homes; therefore, they should. The appeal to government was made, and the government happily obliged them. That was in 1996. The government provided bad incentives for large banks to make loans to risky borrowers with the (most likely) implicit agreement to bail out the bank if things go bad. 2007 comes around, and whoops! Even default credit swaps were enabled from previous laws which extended into the 1980s IIRC. Given this instance, I don't immediately assume that the government should step in whenever people perceive that there's a problem, or that temporary "market failure" occurred.

Oh I agree. I personally have always been mystified by the desires of the collective to own a house. Shelter is a basic human right of course and possibly should be subsidised but Shelter and owning a home aren't the same thing lol.

I've no idea because I can't predict the behavior of millions of people acting on newly created opportunities, which have come into existence after the government has stopped crowding out the demand for goods and services.

Humor me, you're clearly a smart person. Have a go at explaining with logic and rationale what you think would happen.

How can I? I'm not millions of people, nor am I the collection of entrepreneurs who succeed or fail in providing some good/solution.

I am finding this argument crops up again and again. "We don't know what will happen in a purely free market because it's never been seen before!".

Pretty weak if you ask me; I mean most economic assertions and ideas were proved by the mathmaticians significantly after their acceptance by the "debaters". Also it seems to only apply to this; you are quite happy to accept the assertion that a government cannot possibly act efficiently, even in an ideal world...?

...snip...

TV was transmitted through air waves for 50 years since its introduction. This was prolonged because the FCC prevented innovation. After the market was deregulated (mostly privatized), cable TV can into being extremely quickly. Apparently, that change wasn't going to occur any time soon while the status quo remained.

I self admittedly don't know enough about the situation to pass judgement; however if it's anything like the housing bubble-making factory over the past two decades then I'll happy agree with you Crazy Americans!

(1) Barriers to entry depend not just on the capital required, but also on the laws/regulations involved. So, the regulation can increase transaction costs to the point which prohibits entrepreneurs from providing the good.

(2) How do you know?

(1) Yes, but I was referring to a hypothetical where regulation was eliminated; the barriers to entry and the inefficiencies I explained will still exist.

(2) I'm employed specifically for my ability to think systemically and holistically; I dont like to blow my own trumpet but it is something I am reasonably good at. That dialog is just my assertion; it may be wrong, so please feel free to throw some arguments/disagreements my way about it

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm 50% through my response, and I'll invest more time making it succinct... I get what you're saying, but I'll post another time.

[PLAYER57832]

Just so we're clear:

We agree that political actors and bureaucracies are influenced by certain corporations, but that various components of the government influence corporations--at times against the will of corporations. Also, we agree that corporations aren't this homogenous blob of a single decision-making entity (i.e. the corporate influences have objectives that differ from other corporations').

No, I don't agree with the above at all, except that corporations do differ. Most importantly, though, you leave out quite a few steps. The details make all the difference.

[BigBallinStalin]

Just so we're clear:

We agree that political actors and bureaucracies are influenced by certain corporations, but that various components of the government influence corporations--at times against the will of corporations. Also, we agree that corporations aren't this homogenous blob of a single decision-making entity (i.e. the corporate influences have objectives that differ from other corporations').

No, I don't agree with the above at all, except that corporations do differ. Most importantly, though, you leave out quite a few steps. The details make all the difference.

[quote="PLAYER57832"]

The overall problem is not having a directed or demand system, the overall problem is finding the correct mix. The other problem is knowing when that control from above IS necessary, which problems are serious enough that they cannot just be left for the markets and peoples individual greed/will to decide. (I use greed to mean not just the desire for money, but the desire for kids to have "popular" clothes, for people to have more than their neighbor -- a vital component of the market, but an urge that needs to have limits).

So, first it's problems to be solved by the government, and then it's teh homogenous blob of big, bad corporations.


How do the decision-makers know when control from above is necessary?

[Gillipig]

No the poor just seem poorer because the rich are getting richer.

[PLAYER57832]

Just so we're clear:

We agree that political actors and bureaucracies are influenced by certain corporations, but that various components of the government influence corporations--at times against the will of corporations. Also, we agree that corporations aren't this homogenous blob of a single decision-making entity (i.e. the corporate influences have objectives that differ from other corporations').

No, I don't agree with the above at all, except that corporations do differ. Most importantly, though, you leave out quite a few steps. The details make all the difference.

The overall problem is not having a directed or demand system, the overall problem is finding the correct mix. The other problem is knowing when that control from above IS necessary, which problems are serious enough that they cannot just be left for the markets and peoples individual greed/will to decide. (I use greed to mean not just the desire for money, but the desire for kids to have "popular" clothes, for people to have more than their neighbor -- a vital component of the market, but an urge that needs to have limits).

So, first it's problems to be solved by the government, and then it's teh homogenous blob of big, bad corporations.

Nope, only if you insist on putting your old stereotypical categories on the matter. None of those categories actually explain the situation well, but folks insisting that they do is part of why no solutions are really being presented by much of anyone in the mainstream.

How do the decision-makers know when control from above is necessary?

Depends on to whom you refer as decision makers. Overall, our system is supposed to be based upon decisions being made by the populus. That depends on education, which is why so much effort has been spent by the right on modifying language and limiting education. Most Corporations have bought into this becuase it met their temporary goals, which have nothing to do with societal needs or success and solely to do with making a profit.

Ultimately, if people are given real and true information, the mostly will make reasonable decisions. Our system has been heavily subverted by the twisting of free speech with truth and education. We need free speech for opinions. We need people to question facts. We don't need, but have gotten whole industries devoted to twisting information to suit particular individuals desires.

That happened in the Yellow Journalism era. It is happening now. Crackdowns after the yellow journalism era probably helped bring in McCarthyism. Yet, they also brought the 60's "revolutions."

Of course, to some extent ALL of that has always been illusion. However, the illusion did not really matter that much, because people's ability to destroy their world was effectively limited to specific regions, a generation or two. That is no longer the case. The impending problems are worldwide and will last for many, many generations unless corrected.

Sadly, I don't think the folks in power are going to care until the problems start to impact them more directly. That won't happen until the system is truly collapsing. its possible they will wake up, but so much power has been shifted over to essentially blind corporations (blind in the sense that they have no purpose other than profit and are specifically structured to sheild decision makers from external negative results, even many internal negative results), it will take more than just a few CEOs and managers waking up. The system is structured such that when the people in power start to see that their companies are causing problems and really and truly begin to try to solve them, they get ousted unless they can configure it as either required (by governments, etc) OR as something that will generate stockholder profits.

[Lootifer]

I'm 50% through my response, and I'll invest more time making it succinct... I get what you're saying, but I'll post another time.

Hi!

[Phatscotty]

omg dodge king dodge king omg omg omg omg

I like what Gillip said though
.
It's not so much"we are poor and don't have food to eat or a place to live" but it's more "they have soooooo much more than I do, And I can't even get an appendectomy that I need."

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm 50% through my response, and I'll invest more time making it succinct... I get what you're saying, but I'll post another time.

Hi!

Hello, Lootifer!

For your response, I've boosted you 5 spaces forward in the queue!

Your time is important to us; please hold...

[Lootifer]

lalalalallalalalala! WHO DOESNT LOVE HOLD MUSIC AMIRITE?!!?

(i was just making sure you hadnmt forgotten little ole loot)

[Lootifer]

omg dodge king dodge king omg omg omg omg

I dont get this

You talking to me?

[Symmetry]

omg dodge king dodge king omg omg omg omg

I dont get this

You talking to me?

It's Scotty's Nom de Guerre. Sometimes he tries to pass it on to other people, but it doesn't work. He'll always be the dodge king of our hearts.