User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 93

  1. #21
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Yours, yes, but maybe not his. If {a} causes a phenomenon which would otherwise be absent in {b} there are grounds for using the word "create" in reference to {a} creating {b}. This is more than just semantics - either its presence creates the phenomenon or it doesn't.

    (Using God as an example is a rhetorical trap because only God can create in that context - everything that is and will be was created by God. There are no easy analogies because "middle class" talks about an emergent social property. It'd be like saying that humans created murder, which is true only because it is a social construct.)
    You're missing my general point: the distinction between create and contribute.

    To contribute means to merely play a role, to create means to play a sole or the main role.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #22
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,535

    Default

    The most striking thing about the middle class is that they don't own the means of production.

    The means of production are owned by the bourgeoisie.

    And the middle class are afraid of falling back into the underclass. So the middle class are keen to do the bidding of the bourgeoisie.

    So the middle class are inherently undignified. So this must be concealed and hidden from view behind status symbols.

  3. #23
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    A majority of American households (54%) own stocks, so technically, they do own a share of the means of production.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  4. #24
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,535

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    A majority of American households (54%) own stocks, so technically, they do own a share of the means of production.
    This is true. And as you say, it is a technicality as ownership is concentrated among a few.

    And this technicality is quoted as a form of propaganda for the few.

    And never, in the field of human conflict, was so much owed by so many to so few.

  5. #25
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole
    And never, in the field of human conflict, was so much owed by so many to so few.
    Ideally, we create the environment where people can acquire more wealth. I do hope you are not suggesting that the government be used to level the playing field, since that will only transfer wealth from the privileged few in business to the privileged few in government.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  6. #26
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    A majority of American households (54%) own stocks, so technically, they do own a share of the means of production.
    This is misleading, as 90% of the population only owns 20% (or less depending on how you want to define equity) of the value of "production".

  7. #27
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    From Reuters:

    Stop adding up the wealth of the poor

    An excerpt...



    It’s the meme that refuses to die. It started, back in 2011, with the Waltons: six members of the family, we were repeatedly told, were worth as much as the bottom 30% of all Americans combined. I tried to address this silly stat back then, but now it’s gone global: back in January, Oxfam announced that the world’s 85 richest people had the same wealth as the bottom half of the global population. And now Forbes has come along to say that, actually, it’s not 85 people — it’s a mere 67.

    Oxfam does a pretty bad job of footnoting its report, but I did manage to finally track down how it arrived at this conclusion. The 85 (or 67) number is easy: you just start at the top of the Forbes billionaires list, and start counting up the combined wealth until you reach $1.7 trillion. The harder question is: where does the $1.7 trillion number come from?

    The answer is that it comes from a pair of tables in Credit Suisse’s 2013 Global Wealth Databook. First of all, you have to find the total wealth in the world, which you can find at the bottom of the fourth column on page 89: it’s $241 trillion. Then, you flick forwards to page 146, where you find the proportion of all global wealth held by each of the world’s income deciles. The top 10% have 86% of the wealth; the next 10% have 7.8%, and so on. Add up the bottom five deciles, and you get 0.7% (not 0.71%, which is the number in the Oxfam report; I have no idea where that extra basis point came from). And if you multiply $241 trillion by 0.7%, you get $1.7 trillion.

    All of which makes a certain amount of sense, until you start looking a bit closer. For instance, notice anything odd about this chart?


    The weird thing is that triangle in the top left hand corner. If you look at the tables in the Credit Suisse datebook, China has zero people in the bottom 10% of the world population: everybody in China is in the top 90% of global wealth, and the vast majority of Chinese are in the top half of global wealth. India is on the list, though: if you’re looking for the poorest 10% of the world’s population, you’ll find 16.4% of them in India, and another 4.4% in Bangladesh. Pakistan has 2.6% of the world’s bottom 10%, while Nigeria has 3.9%.

    But there’s one unlikely country which has a whopping 7.5% of the poorest of the poor — second only to India. That country? The United States.

    How is it that the US can have 7.5% of the bottom decile, when it has only 0.21% of the second decile and 0.16% of the third? The answer: we’re talking about net worth, here: assets minus debts. And if you add up the net worth of the world’s bottom decile, it comes to minus a trillion dollars. The poorest people in the world, using the Credit Suisse methodology, aren’t in India or Pakistan or Bangladesh: they’re people like Jérôme Kerviel, who has a negative net worth of something in the region of $6 billion.

    America, of course, is the spiritual home of the overindebted — people underwater on their mortgages, recent graduates with massive student loans, renters carrying five-figure car loans and credit-card obligations, uninsured people who just got out of hospital, you name it. If you’re looking for people with significant negative net worth, in a way it’s surprising that only 7.5% of the world’s bottom 10% are in the US.

    And as you start adding all those people up — the people who dominate the bottom 10% of the wealth rankings — their negative wealth only grows in magnitude: you get further and further away from zero.

    The result is that if you take the bottom 30% of the world’s population — the poorest 2 billion people in the world — their total aggregate net worth is not low, it’s not zero, it’s negative. To the tune of roughly half a trillion dollars. My niece, who just got her first 50 cents in pocket money, has more money than the poorest 2 billion people in the world combined.

    Or at least she does if you really consider Jérôme Kerviel to be the poorest person in the world, and much poorer than anybody trying to get by on less than a dollar a day. All of whom would happily change places with, say, Eike Batista, even if the latter, thanks to his debts, has a negative net worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Now $1.7 trillion is undoubtedly a lot of money: there is an astonishing amount of wealth inequality in the world, and it’s shocking that just 67 people are worth that much. You could spread that money around the “bottom billion” and give them $1,700 each: enough to put them squarely in the fourth global wealth decile. But let’s look at just the top two-fifths of the 3.5 billion people referred to in the Oxfam stat. That’s 1.4 billion people; between them, they are worth $2.2 trillion. And they’re a subset of the 3.5 billion people who between them are worth $1.7 trillion.

    The first lesson of this story is that it’s very easy, and rather misleading, to construct any statistic along the lines of “the top X people have the same amount of wealth as the bottom Y people”.

    The second lesson of this story is broader: that when you’re talking about poor people, aggregating wealth is a silly and ultimately pointless exercise. Some poor people have modest savings; some poor people are deeply in debt; some poor people have nothing at all. (Also, some rich people are deeply in debt, which helps to throw off the statistics.) By lumping them all together and aggregating all those positive and negative ledger balances, you arrive at a number which is inevitably going to be low, but which is also largely meaningless. The Chinese tend to have large personal savings as a percentage of household income, but that doesn’t make them richer than Americans who have negative household savings — not in the way that we commonly understand the terms “rich” and “poor”.

  8. #28
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby
    This is misleading, as 90% of the population only owns 20% (or less depending on how you want to define equity) of the value of "production".
    Interesting, but does that 90% include Millenials (poor, young people) and Gen Z (babies and teenagers)? There are over 120 million of those (just a guess). If you only count those people who've been working for a decade or more, it's closer to 40%, no? And 40% isn't that bad.

    @DiscoBiscuit , excellent detective work. I knew they were playing with the numbers, but I didn't know how they were doing it.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  9. #29
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Interesting, but does that 90% include Millenials (poor, young people) and Gen Z (babies and teenagers)? There are over 120 million of those (just a guess). If you only count those people who've been working for a decade or more, it's closer to 40%, no? And 40% isn't that bad.
    By household. If it helps, the bottom 80% (household) own ~4% of their wealth in stocks (Levy produced papers, but the data is fairly available). The number you are talking about includes pension funds, which is about 13% of their wealth.

  10. #30
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    There is nothing wrong with concentrating wealth as long as the prosperity is shared. A rising tide raises all boats but some boats are raised higher. The lefty approach is to sink all boats
    Sharing prosperity is lefty concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    A majority of American households (54%) own stocks, so technically, they do own a share of the means of production.
    The reason for a high number of stock ownership is due to that whole 401k swindle. Most people have absolutely no clue what is happening to their money. There was a time when people's retirement savings would go into a pension fund, now that money is being skimmed by Wall Street boys. Sad shit, really. Btw, my view points are not coming from an ideological perspective - just general cynicism that I acquired while working for financial institutions.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-12-2016, 08:58 PM
  2. Ignorance must be brought to the light. It must be eradicated.
    By iNtrovert in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 08-19-2014, 03:06 PM
  3. [NT] I must be crazy.
    By Haphazard in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-30-2010, 09:16 PM
  4. I'm this, so you must be this
    By tovlo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05-02-2008, 04:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO