Chart that I can't get out of my head

[Dr Kynes]

that tax plan is clearly not what history shows us has worked.

that tax plan would turn the laffer curve into the laugher curve.

but you go on spouting specious opinions and trotting out tired and lame ad hominems.

that was clearly reductio ad absurdum, not ad hominem.

do you even understand the rhetorical fallacies you use?

and repeating somebody else's post only works if the repetition makes sense in context and demonstrates the opponent's hypocrisy or stupidity.

 

[UncleBuck]

that was clearly reductio ad absurdum, not ad hominem.

do you even understand the rhetorical fallacies you use?

and repeating somebody else's post only works if the repetition makes sense in context and demonstrates the opponent's hypocrisy or stupidity.

i was expecting a 7 page essay with approximately 12 of the 7,000+ words actually attempting to refute what was said, with the rest being long-winded moaning about not so tangential topics.

 

[gagekko]

Don't let society and media fool you into thinking wealth is all that important. Wealthy peeps die like the rest of us and this world they set up is an illusion to prevent you from advancing to the next level.

You don't become a billionaire by being a nice guy and Karma is a bitch. It is said Steve Jobs was in excruciating pain his last days - what good did all his money do him in the end?

 

[Rancho Cucamonga]

Who cares........people need to stop worrying about what others have or don't have and take responsibility for themselves.

About 75% of the population, that's who.

 

[UncleBuck]

Who cares........people need to stop worrying about what others have or don't have and take responsibility for themselves.

i agree.

it would be quite nice if the GOP stopped worrying about how little the poor and middle class have in their quest to make them poorer and took responsibility for the hellscape they have inflicted upon this nation.

 

[fb360]

[youtube]QPKKQnijnsM[/youtube]

Think it's true?

We already have at least one other topic made by Padawan, if not more, on this exact video...

People who don't understand statistics and manipulation of data, and think they can make conclusions based off of data, are funny people.

 

[UncleBuck]

We already have at least one other topic made by Padawan, if not more, on this exact video...

People who don't understand statistics and manipulation of data, and think they can make conclusions based off of data, are funny people.

are you denying that the wealth inequality has grown?

and please don't inform nonsenseist that data can be manipulated, or that in fact, all data is manipulated in order to make a graph.

 

[fb360]

are you denying that the wealth inequality has grown?

and please don't inform nonsenseist that data can be manipulated, or that in fact, all data is manipulated in order to make a graph.

Grown compared to the days of the Rockefellers and Carnegies? I'm not for spreading wealth equally; I despise socialism.

You are partially correct about the data however. Data that is shown as full samples of the population, consists of NO manipulation. i.e. If I have 5 dogs, and include all 5 dogs in my statistics without bias, the data is considered to be RAW DATA, without manipulation. However, that does not mean that those data are representative of what I'm trying to prove, or what the reality is, which is exactly the case with this video. As I've said once before, that chart doesn't eliminate the 20 outliers that each have a wealth of >20B, and a combined wealth of over 600B. Just Bill Gates and Warren Buffet account for >120B... Furthermore, number 100 is worth <1x/100x #20. Remove those clear outliers, and you have data that is representative of the population. (20 out of >300million is considered well within the range of outliers.) What you are correct about is that nearly all data sets and manipulated in order to make them representative of the reality.

The chart in the video is used as a propaganda technique to scare EVERYONE. The only people who feel not cheated by that video are the top 20. Even the top 1% who are making 20M/year are making 1000x less than the true 1%.

 

[UncleBuck]

Grown compared to the days of the Rockefellers and Carnegies? I'm not for spreading wealth equally; I despise socialism.

You are partially correct about the data however. Data that is shown as full samples of the population, consists of NO manipulation. i.e. If I have 5 dogs, and include all 5 dogs in my statistics without bias, the data is considered to be RAW DATA, without manipulation. However, that does not mean that those data are representative of what I'm trying to prove, or what the reality is, which is exactly the case with this video. As I've said once before, that chart doesn't eliminate the 20 outliers that each have a wealth of >20B, and a combined wealth of over 600B. Just Bill Gates and Warren Buffet account for >120B... Furthermore, number 100 is worth <1x/100x #20. Remove those clear outliers, and you have data that is representative of the population. (20 out of >300million is considered well within the range of outliers.) What you are correct about is that nearly all data sets and manipulated in order to make them representative of the reality.

The chart in the video is used as a propaganda technique to scare EVERYONE. The only people who feel not cheated by that video are the top 20. Even the top 1% who are making 20M/year are making 1000x less than the true 1%.

you said it. no manipulation = raw data. raw data is not a graph or chart of any sort, it is just raw data.

anyhoo, i haven't watched the vid so i can't say what's up with this particular presentation, but all raw data will show that the inequality gap has done nothing but grow starting at about reagan, and is now at depression levels.

 

[fb360]

you said it. no manipulation = raw data. raw data is not a graph or chart of any sort, it is just raw data.

anyhoo, i haven't watched the vid so i can't say what's up with this particular presentation, but all raw data will show that the inequality gap has done nothing but grow starting at about reagan, and is now at depression levels.

I think you are misunderstanding that raw data can be expressed graphically as well as numerically. The manipulation comes in when you add a special scaling for the axises, or portray it as anything with bias. Any type of emphasis is considered bias, and consequently manipulated data

I agree that the top 20 are just getting more rich, but that is because they get away with financial murder. They maliciously manipulate the stock market, they maliciously pursue loopholes and illegal actions to keep their funds, all the while they continue taking from others. What needs to happen is that an equal playing field needs to be made and upheld.

 

[UncleBuck]

I think you are misunderstanding that raw data can be expressed graphically as well as numerically. The manipulation comes in when you add a special scaling for the axises, or portray it as anything with bias. Any type of emphasis is considered bias, and consequently manipulated data

I agree that the top 20 are just getting more rich, but that is because they get away with financial murder. They maliciously manipulate the stock market, they maliciously pursue loopholes and illegal actions to keep their funds, all the while they continue taking from others. What needs to happen is that an equal playing field needs to be made and upheld.

so you're saying that only 20 people are getting richer and the rest are not?

what the fuck is wrong with people in the politics section? there is this thing called reality, ya know.

 

[ChesusRice]

Who cares........people need to stop worrying about what others have or don't have and take responsibility for themselves.

Ever play monopoly near the end of the game. One guy has all the propertys. Then there is you.

Life isnt a game. We dont get to start over as easy

 

[ChesusRice]

Don't let society and media fool you into thinking wealth is all that important. Wealthy peeps die like the rest of us and this world they set up is an illusion to prevent you from advancing to the next level.

You don't become a billionaire by being a nice guy and Karma is a bitch. It is said Steve Jobs was in excruciating pain his last days - what good did all his money do him in the end?

It prolonged the end for years. Those without his resources would of been worm food years before with the same ailment

 

[fb360]

so you're saying that only 20 people are getting richer and the rest are not?

what the fuck is wrong with people in the politics section? there is this thing called reality, ya know.

That's not what I said at all. I said that the richest 20 Americans hold the VAST majority (>600Billion $$) of wealth. The chart displayed includes them, therefore skewing the data to the right (as was displayed with the 4 full screen bars at the end). My previous post was a bit misleading due to the fact I only spoke of the 20, however I never mentioned they are the only ones.

Remove those 20 individuals and all of a sudden the chart would look a lot like people think it looks. The chart is not representative of our society, and even goes so far to include those making 2million/year with those making 1000x that, or 2billion/year, in the same "1%" category (do we include those making 2k/year with those making 2M/year? NO, that'd stupid as fuck)... That is a poor representation of data, unless you are conscious of the fact that the data is indeed "misleading". My argument is that there is a huge disconnect between the top 20, and even 21-100, and obviously even more so with everyone after that. If you want to graphically display how wealth is spread relatively throughout our nation, you have to remove those outliers; there are >300 million other data points to consider, focusing the entire chart on 20 individuals is ASININE; and that's exactly what that chart does.

I'm fully aware that the rich are getting richer, and the poor getting poorer, all the while the middle class is falling out. I'm against that happening, but I'm not for playing Robin Hood and taking from the rich to spread to the poor. Like I mentioned, all that needs to happen is that the rich need to be held to the same standards as the poor. They shouldn't be allowed to funnel money illegally to their nonexistent grandchildren with a Roth IRA that is nontaxable. They shouldn't be allowed to maliciously manipulate the stock market; do you even pay attention to the stock market? But, they should not have to give all their money away to feed lazy fucks who want to freeload their way through life.

 

[bedspirit]

there are free markets al around us, since a free market is defined by a lack of government subsidies and government price controls.

every thursday in the summer and every weekend all year long i engage in free market activity at the farmer's market. \

i pay $50 a day for my stall, and can sell my vegetables and herbs for any price i choose. i could charge $50 each for my tomatoes, or i could charge a penny a dozen, and only the willingness of my customers to pay my price determines how many i sell.

i get no subsidies, and prices are determined solely by me, the producer/retailer.

diamonds also operate in a free market, with the prices determined solely by the producers, and what the market will pay. same with silver and gold, lettuce, turnips, tree nuts, lumber, furniture etc...

norway has a strong socialist system, restricting prices, levying heavy taxes and redistributing the wealth as the government chooses. they do a good job of controlling their markets and restraining capitalism's excesses, but they also restrain the ability of anyone who tries to get too far ahead of the curve, but they still engage in capitalism extensively. they likewise do a good job overall restricting the excesses of socialism, but this balance is tenuous at best, and if the pendulum swings too far in either direction their economy can easily collapse.

all centrally planned economies have one thing in common, they require a free market someplace to trade with or they become an isolated basket case like cuba where only the black market is free, and everybody is pretty eqiually fucked, except the top tier party apparatchiks, who always do well, or North Korea which is basically an autocratic monarchy with a splash of communist rhetoric to confuse the proles.

free markets tend to be healthy markets, with producers and buyers all enjoying the fruits of the market forces, until supply or demand outstrip their counterbalance.

compare modern market economies today to any other system and you will find no more equitable distribution overall save egalitarian tribal groups which are pretty much what marx describes as "Primitive Communism" but even those only work in small groups with strong social and familial ties.

even if you fall below the "Poverty Line" in america you are at no risk of starvation, youre unlikely to freeze to death in winter, and most likely live in a manner which would be considered the height of aristocratic luxury to medieval peasants.

we dont even realize how good we got it till we look at Somalia or North Korea.

why do you think all these mexicans, cubans, chinese, etc go through so much shit just to get to america? it's not so they can sit in a shitty camp outside wall street and chant for anarchy or socialism.

I agree with much of what you're saying, but I think it's very difficult to pinpoint small areas where the free market exists. Take your farmer's market for example. Demand for your products and the products of other retailers is already dampened because the government subsidizes some crops in this country. So if I'm on a tight budget, I'll just go to the local grocery and pick up some subsidized corn rather than spend the extra to purchase your unsubsidized green beans.
I thought that Diamonds did not operate in a free market at all. I thought De Beers had a monopoly over the whole market and they keep the prices artificially high.
There is a reason why this is important to point out. When Pinochet took over Chile in the 1970's, a bunch of American economists went down there in order to set up a true free market. The result was mixed. On one hand it did increase the county's GDP, but it also increased poverty and unemployment. When the economists were asked why it didn't result in a more equal distribution of wealth, as predicted, they said it was because Chile didn't privatize their copper mines. Not privatizing those mines supposedly had a butterfly effect that poisoned every other industry in the country, hence the poverty and the unemployment. I personally don't buy it, but if I did, then I would believe that there can't be any free markets anywhere until the government is completely removed from the economy. I don't think that's realistic at all, which is why I embrace a mixed economy.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I agree with much of what you're saying, but I think it's very difficult to pinpoint small areas where the free market exists. Take your farmer's market for example. Demand for your products and the products of other retailers is already dampened because the government subsidizes some crops in this country. So if I'm on a tight budget, I'll just go to the local grocery and pick up some subsidized corn rather than spend the extra to purchase your unsubsidized green beans.
I thought that Diamonds did not operate in a free market at all. I thought De Beers had a monopoly over the whole market and they keep the prices artificially high.
There is a reason why this is important to point out. When Pinochet took over Chile in the 1970's, a bunch of American economists went down there in order to set up a true free market. The result was mixed. On one hand it did increase the county's GDP, but it also increased poverty and unemployment. When the economists were asked why it didn't result in a more equal distribution of wealth, as predicted, they said it was because Chile didn't privatize their copper mines. Not privatizing those mines supposedly had a butterfly effect that poisoned every other industry in the country, hence the poverty and the unemployment. I personally don't buy it, but if I did, then I would believe that there can't be any free markets anywhere until the government is completely removed from the economy. I don't think that's realistic at all, which is why I embrace a mixed economy.

1 ) subsidized commodity corn is NOT the corn you buy at farmer's markets or in the grocer's freezer section. commodity corn has nothing to do with sweet corn, popcorn hominy or any of a variety of specialty maize crops.

2 ) oddly, my produce costs LESS than the shit you get from safeway, because i dont have to pay to truck it all ove the country, store it under refrigeration for weeks on end, and then artificially "ripen" it by flooding it with alene gas. when local crops are in, supermarkets have to drop their prices or be undersold, when local crops are NOT in, they make up the difference by raising prices and selling imported chilean or mexican tomatoes.\

3 ) debeers does NOT have a monopoly, and debeers is not a single entity, debeers is a cartel, or Trust. if you find a diamond in your backyard (it happens) or get a really awesome find in the arkansas public diamond mine you can sell it on the open market for the prices which are artificially inflated by debeers, who are NOT a government organization, and thus their restraint on production is not a restraint on the market. if they choose to withhold some production to increase prices that is FREE MARKET ACTION, and their few competitors may undersell them if they so desire.

4 ) pinochet was a bastard. he enriched himself on the backs of his people just the same as chaves and castro. he just did it with freedom and prosperity as the promise which will never materialize rather than a communist utopia.

as long as there is government and not anarchy we will alwaays have a "Mixed Economy" since the ultimate free market looks more like armed robbery than open markets. how far from freedom and how deep into government control our markets fall is the debate, not the reductio ad retardum of the plutocrats, neocons, anarcho-________________ists and marxists who occupy the extremes of the spectrum

 

[cannabineer]

so you're saying that only 20 people are getting richer and the rest are not?

what the fuck is wrong with people in the politics section? there is this thing called reality, ya know.

Total buzzkill in a weed forum! cn