Great piece on Chinese disinformation

JD08

Evidence based and data driven
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
7,475
The wage gap charts don't lie.
That's a byproduct. Besides, why does anybody care what the top earners make except for envy? Would you be happy if we were all paupers except for a few of the ruling elite? Why does the gap mean anything at all?
 

CFLCane

Junior
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
5,006
That's a byproduct. Besides, why does anybody care what the top earners make except for envy? Would you be happy if we were all paupers except for a few of the ruling elite? Why does the gap mean anything at all?
Like i said earlier. The increasing imbalance will lead to inevitable instability and change. Bernie Sanders/Socialisms popularity is a stark warning. See History of the world for reference.
 

JD08

Evidence based and data driven
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
7,475
Like i said earlier. The increasing imbalance will lead to inevitable instability and change. Bernie Sanders/Socialisms popularity is a stark warning. See History of the world for reference.
Wealth inequality is a symptom. It allows political predators to capitalize on people's fear and envy so they can get power.

Nobody can actually explain why the inequality is actually bad.
 

CaneOil

Junior
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
3,634
I'm all for ditching those fuucks in China, but Central America will never be prosperous.
The Mexican people are some of the hardest working people I've seen. This side of the border and their side. They can do just about any manufacturing job. It would be the smartest thing we ever could do to bring many of those jobs back to our countries.
 

SayWhat

Sophomore
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
3,452
That's a byproduct. Besides, why does anybody care what the top earners make except for envy? Would you be happy if we were all paupers except for a few of the ruling elite? Why does the gap mean anything at all?
78 percent of the country lives paycheck to paycheck. That's according to Forbes. The numbers vary and it's even more alarming when you go to 3 months of savings, 6 months, etc.

I would say most are already paupers in the grand scheme of things.

As to why it means something, that's debatable. I'm not going to get into it, but that makes for a lot of slaves to the system or basically few haves and a whole lot of have nots.
 

JD08

Evidence based and data driven
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
7,475
78 percent of the country lives paycheck to paycheck. That's according to Forbes. The numbers vary and it's even more alarming when you go to 3 months of savings, 6 months, etc.

I would say most are already paupers in the grand scheme of things.

As to why it means something, that's debatable. I'm not going to get into it, but that makes for a lot of slaves to the system or basically few haves and a whole lot of have nots.
No argument, but consider that our poor still live better than 95% of the rest of the world.

Also, there always have been and always will be haves and have nots. In no way does that justify taking something from somebody just because they have it and you want it.

There is this foolish narrative that suggests not wanting to take from the rich means you don't care about the poor. That's completely wrong.
 

SayWhat

Sophomore
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
3,452
No argument, but consider that our poor still live better than 95% of the rest of the world.

Also, there always have been and always will be haves and have nots. In no way does that justify taking something from somebody just because they have it and you want it.

There is this foolish narrative that suggests not wanting to take from the rich means you don't care about the poor. That's completely wrong.
I don't have an issue with haves and have nuts.

Where I take issue is when the system caters to the haves so they can have more. That's what we currently have and it's a big discussion.

The craziest **** to me on the planet is where automobile insurance companies use credit reports to offer rates. You're 29 or whatever, have a clean driving record, good credit, you get a cheaper rate than the guy who is also 29 with the same car, driving record, but a lower credit score. It's nuts.

Anyhow, about to go off-topic, but ol'Cheetoh in charge is a strange man. He got shook there, but since he feels "good" about it, he's allowed to rage on a simple question.
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2019
Messages
13
Wealth inequality is a symptom. It allows political predators to capitalize on people's fear and envy so they can get power.

Nobody can actually explain why the inequality is actually bad.
What? There are whole fields of study devoted to researching the corrosiveness of wealth & income inequality. It's highly correlated with worse health outcomes, decreased social cohesion & trust in institutions, increased crime, reduced social mobility, reduced political involvement. The super rich are able to commandeer the political process to further rig the game and ultimately become obstacles to healthy economic development. Have you gotten tested for coronavirus? If you or your family needed to be, how easily do you think you could get one if you/they were showing symptoms but didn't fit all the criteria? Whatever your answer is, Jeff Bezos' is better. Does that seem like a good thing for society to you?
 

Tit-e-skr

Sophomore
Joined
Aug 22, 2017
Messages
1,234
The Mexican people are some of the hardest working people I've seen. This side of the border and their side. They can do just about any manufacturing job. It would be the smartest thing we ever could do to bring many of those jobs back to our countries.
Brother I'm with you.....the idea that a communist government has so much control over so many of our vital products is mind "bottling".
 

SayWhat

Sophomore
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
3,452
To be fair, the Chinese are some hard ass workers as well and pushed from childhood to be the best they can. Most don't buy into what their government is selling, I have known a few through the years, but there's not much they can do. Eventually, they will rise up is my guess.
 

JD08

Evidence based and data driven
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
7,475
What? There are whole fields of study devoted to researching the corrosiveness of wealth & income inequality. It's highly correlated with worse health outcomes, decreased social cohesion & trust in institutions, increased crime, reduced social mobility, reduced political involvement. The super rich are able to commandeer the political process to further rig the game and ultimately become obstacles to healthy economic development. Have you gotten tested for coronavirus? If you or your family needed to be, how easily do you think you could get one if you/they were showing symptoms but didn't fit all the criteria? Whatever your answer is, Jeff Bezos' is better. Does that seem like a good thing for society to you?
I never said it was a good thing. I said it's a symptom of problems, not a problem in and of itself. The reason people think it's a problem is because millionaire "socialists" campaign to fix it by giving people "free" things paid for by taking from the rich. The solution is always more taxes and more government, giving them more power. Their goal is socialism. Look at the AIG bailout. They were too big to fail. Now we have new government entities to monitor their health. Why wasn't the solution to not allow companies to ever get too big to fail and force them to split if they are? That's not far off from our anti-trust laws.

Remember that with capitalism the rich become powerful and with socialism the powerful become rich. The difference is that anyone can become rich with capitalism but only the politically connected can become powerful with socialism.
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2019
Messages
13
I never said it was a good thing. I said it's a symptom of problems, not a problem in and of itself. The reason people think it's a problem is because millionaire "socialists" campaign to fix it by giving people "free" things paid for by taking from the rich. The solution is always more taxes and more government, giving them more power. Their goal is socialism. Look at the AIG bailout. They were too big to fail. Now we have new government entities to monitor their health. Why wasn't the solution to not allow companies to ever get too big to fail and force them to split if they are? That's not far off from our anti-trust laws.

Remember that with capitalism the rich become powerful and with socialism the powerful become rich. The difference is that anyone can become rich with capitalism but only the politically connected can become powerful with socialism.
I think you're close to a good answer on this but your conclusion presents a false dilemma - our choices aren't between full capitalism and full socialism. There's a whole range of options in between those two things that would both allow for people to become successful without inordinate power accruing to the rich & the subsequent game rigging that comes with it. Anti-trust laws a great example of that - back when they were instituted they were considered anti-capitalist, and in many ways they are, but we recognized that companies becoming monopolies is not good for society as whole. Unfortunately these laws aren't really enforced anymore, certainly not to the degree where they would prevent another AIG. Amazon a good example. As far as progressive taxation of the super rich is concerned, it's just as much of a revenue generation tool (economists go back and forth in studies on whether taxing the rich truly generates a lot of tax revenue, but that's a longer post) as it is a power limiting one - if well designed, it prevents massive pools of wealth passing from generation to generation to people who didn't earn it but nevertheless use it to influence politics. None of the Waltons who are alive today built Wal-Mart, in fact several of them don't even work for the company. But they're still billionaires and still spend millions on lobbying efforts & to influence elections.

Most of the Nordic countries have robust welfare systems, heavy government ownership of industry & heavily progressive taxation schemes that would be considered "socialist" here. They have Gini coefficients (the measure of wealth inequality) that are among the lowest in the developed world. They also consistently rank ahead of the US in economic freedom indicators, demonstrating that you can have the cake and eat it too.

Anyway fvck this virus shyt has me too damn bored lol. Talking economics on the canes board. Stay safe everyone.
 

RemainMack

Sophomore
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
1,357
Nobody expresses more negative sentiment to the CCP than my Chinese friends, fwiw.
Same actually. They all hate it and they all say with plenty of family over there that the number of deaths due to covid19 is being wayyyyy underreported.

i don’t trust CCP with regard to anything.
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
17,698
I think you're close to a good answer on this but your conclusion presents a false dilemma - our choices aren't between full capitalism and full socialism. There's a whole range of options in between those two things that would both allow for people to become successful without inordinate power accruing to the rich & the subsequent game rigging that comes with it. Anti-trust laws a great example of that - back when they were instituted they were considered anti-capitalist, and in many ways they are, but we recognized that companies becoming monopolies is not good for society as whole. Unfortunately these laws aren't really enforced anymore, certainly not to the degree where they would prevent another AIG. Amazon a good example. As far as progressive taxation of the super rich is concerned, it's just as much of a revenue generation tool (economists go back and forth in studies on whether taxing the rich truly generates a lot of tax revenue, but that's a longer post) as it is a power limiting one - if well designed, it prevents massive pools of wealth passing from generation to generation to people who didn't earn it but nevertheless use it to influence politics. None of the Waltons who are alive today built Wal-Mart, in fact several of them don't even work for the company. But they're still billionaires and still spend millions on lobbying efforts & to influence elections.

Most of the Nordic countries have robust welfare systems, heavy government ownership of industry & heavily progressive taxation schemes that would be considered "socialist" here. They have Gini coefficients (the measure of wealth inequality) that are among the lowest in the developed world. They also consistently rank ahead of the US in economic freedom indicators, demonstrating that you can have the cake and eat it too.

Anyway fvck this virus shyt has me too damn bored lol. Talking economics on the canes board. Stay safe everyone.
Norway and Sweden are beautiful examples. But this is what I tell people when they use them. Small countries. Strict borders. A homogeneous population. Undoable in the United States. For that and many other reasons. Our system is far from perfect but it’s the best system in my opinion for our country

And look at the differences between Norway and Sweden even.
 

JD08

Evidence based and data driven
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
7,475
Norway and Sweden are beautiful examples. But this is what I tell people when they use them. Small countries. Strict borders. A homogeneous population. Undoable in the United States. For that and many other reasons. Our system is far from perfect but it’s the best system in my opinion for our country

And look at the differences between Norway and Sweden even.
Not to mention their tax rates are ridiculous.
 
Top