What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The pitchforks are coming (1 Viewer)

A letter from a top 0.01% to his fellow ultra-rich.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U6_9uJEpCTk

When is the looming civil war part 2 going to happen?

Are the ultra-rich FBG's safe?
Fun fact: once the top 0.01% are eliminated.... there will still be a 0.01%.
I think you missed the point. It's not that there is a 0.01%, but rather that their share of the economy has grown disproportionate to the rest of society.

 
To be honest, I'm not sure if you're proposing me questions or are expecting me to propose questions to you. The bottom line is the US economy as it exists today has moved beyond the specialization presented in your video. I can understand that we could disagree as to why, but at this point I'm not sure you even agree that we've moved beyond that, and should be questioning why. Do you really think our economy is still in the process of specializing?
Oh, it's definitely becoming more specialized in the sense that the video meant. I didn't think that question was as interesting as the Wall St.-versus-managers dynamic, so I didn't comment on it. But I definitely thing it's true. (Also, that video really wasn't about gains from specialization; that was the subject of a different video in the series. This one was about the gains from trade -- which benefit from, but do not depend on, gains from specialization.)

Look at Footballguys. It used to be that the writers were all-purpose fantasy football writers. Now some people specialize just in IDP leagues, other specialize in dynasty, others in Daily Games, others in injuries, and so on.

It doesn't matter that Footballguys as a whole is still a diversified generalist (within FF). What matters is that the individual writers are more specialized: that's where the efficiency gains come from.

It's the same in other industries. There used to be biologists; now there are geneticists, protistologist, biochemical engineers, biogeographists, etc. Same with medicine, law, software design, and so on. People are specializing more and more.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
To be honest, I'm not sure if you're proposing me questions or are expecting me to propose questions to you. The bottom line is the US economy as it exists today has moved beyond the specialization presented in your video. I can understand that we could disagree as to why, but at this point I'm not sure you even agree that we've moved beyond that, and should be questioning why. Do you really think our economy is still in the process of specializing?
Oh, it's definitely becoming more specialized in the sense that the video meant. I didn't think that question was as interesting as the Wall St.-versus-managers dynamic, so I didn't comment on it. But I definitely thing it's true.

Look at Footballguys. It used to be the the writers were all-purpose fantasy football writers. Now some people specialize just in IDP leagues, other specialize in dynasty, others in Daily Games, others in injuries, and so on.

It doesn't matter that Footballguys as a whole is still a diversified generalist. What matters is that the individual writers are more specialized: that's where the efficiency gains come from.

It's the same in other industries. There used to be biologists; now there are geneticists, protistologist, biochemical engineers, biogeographists, etc. Same with medicine, law, software design, and so on. People are specializing more and more.
Do you shop?

 
The poor and middle class are not going to rise up, get political, or even get mad as long as they can sit at home on their fat asses watching American Idol.

 
Times are changing, now the poor get fat
They will drop weight quickly when the country deteriorates in to chaos.And they will not be happy that they can no longer get their cheetos and baconators
Who's this "they" you speak of? Aren't you the guy complaining about your gf's mother's cooking and don't have the money to eat out?
The overweight poor, not the other "they"
That's the genius of their plan... Make the cheapest food out of genetically modified organisms and high fructose corn syrup to extract the most profit and the poor will be too tired and out of shape to carry pitchforks and chase them...win - win... genius!

 
Times are changing, now the poor get fat
They will drop weight quickly when the country deteriorates in to chaos.And they will not be happy that they can no longer get their cheetos and baconators
Who's this "they" you speak of? Aren't you the guy complaining about your gf's mother's cooking and don't have the money to eat out?
The overweight poor, not the other "they"
That's the genius of their plan... Make the cheapest food out of genetically modified organisms and high fructose corn syrup to extract the most profit and the poor will be too tired and out of shape to carry pitchforks and chase them...win - win... genius!
Thats why I avoid it

 
To be honest, I'm not sure if you're proposing me questions or are expecting me to propose questions to you. The bottom line is the US economy as it exists today has moved beyond the specialization presented in your video. I can understand that we could disagree as to why, but at this point I'm not sure you even agree that we've moved beyond that, and should be questioning why. Do you really think our economy is still in the process of specializing?
Oh, it's definitely becoming more specialized in the sense that the video meant. I didn't think that question was as interesting as the Wall St.-versus-managers dynamic, so I didn't comment on it. But I definitely thing it's true.

Look at Footballguys. It used to be the the writers were all-purpose fantasy football writers. Now some people specialize just in IDP leagues, other specialize in dynasty, others in Daily Games, others in injuries, and so on.

It doesn't matter that Footballguys as a whole is still a diversified generalist. What matters is that the individual writers are more specialized: that's where the efficiency gains come from.

It's the same in other industries. There used to be biologists; now there are geneticists, protistologist, biochemical engineers, biogeographists, etc. Same with medicine, law, software design, and so on. People are specializing more and more.
Do you shop?
Mostly at Amazon.

 
To be honest, I'm not sure if you're proposing me questions or are expecting me to propose questions to you. The bottom line is the US economy as it exists today has moved beyond the specialization presented in your video. I can understand that we could disagree as to why, but at this point I'm not sure you even agree that we've moved beyond that, and should be questioning why. Do you really think our economy is still in the process of specializing?
Oh, it's definitely becoming more specialized in the sense that the video meant. I didn't think that question was as interesting as the Wall St.-versus-managers dynamic, so I didn't comment on it. But I definitely thing it's true.

Look at Footballguys. It used to be the the writers were all-purpose fantasy football writers. Now some people specialize just in IDP leagues, other specialize in dynasty, others in Daily Games, others in injuries, and so on.

It doesn't matter that Footballguys as a whole is still a diversified generalist. What matters is that the individual writers are more specialized: that's where the efficiency gains come from.

It's the same in other industries. There used to be biologists; now there are geneticists, protistologist, biochemical engineers, biogeographists, etc. Same with medicine, law, software design, and so on. People are specializing more and more.
Do you shop?
Mostly at Amazon.
How often do you experience the world without using the Internet?

 
To be honest, I'm not sure if you're proposing me questions or are expecting me to propose questions to you. The bottom line is the US economy as it exists today has moved beyond the specialization presented in your video. I can understand that we could disagree as to why, but at this point I'm not sure you even agree that we've moved beyond that, and should be questioning why. Do you really think our economy is still in the process of specializing?
Oh, it's definitely becoming more specialized in the sense that the video meant. I didn't think that question was as interesting as the Wall St.-versus-managers dynamic, so I didn't comment on it. But I definitely thing it's true.

Look at Footballguys. It used to be the the writers were all-purpose fantasy football writers. Now some people specialize just in IDP leagues, other specialize in dynasty, others in Daily Games, others in injuries, and so on.

It doesn't matter that Footballguys as a whole is still a diversified generalist. What matters is that the individual writers are more specialized: that's where the efficiency gains come from.

It's the same in other industries. There used to be biologists; now there are geneticists, protistologist, biochemical engineers, biogeographists, etc. Same with medicine, law, software design, and so on. People are specializing more and more.
Do you shop?
Mostly at Amazon.
How often do you experience the world without using the Internet?
Almost every day.

 
To be honest, I'm not sure if you're proposing me questions or are expecting me to propose questions to you. The bottom line is the US economy as it exists today has moved beyond the specialization presented in your video. I can understand that we could disagree as to why, but at this point I'm not sure you even agree that we've moved beyond that, and should be questioning why. Do you really think our economy is still in the process of specializing?
Oh, it's definitely becoming more specialized in the sense that the video meant. I didn't think that question was as interesting as the Wall St.-versus-managers dynamic, so I didn't comment on it. But I definitely thing it's true.

Look at Footballguys. It used to be the the writers were all-purpose fantasy football writers. Now some people specialize just in IDP leagues, other specialize in dynasty, others in Daily Games, others in injuries, and so on.

It doesn't matter that Footballguys as a whole is still a diversified generalist. What matters is that the individual writers are more specialized: that's where the efficiency gains come from.

It's the same in other industries. There used to be biologists; now there are geneticists, protistologist, biochemical engineers, biogeographists, etc. Same with medicine, law, software design, and so on. People are specializing more and more.
Do you shop?
Mostly at Amazon.
How often do you experience the world without using the Internet?
Almost every day.
Other than your Footballguys writers example, every example you mentioned requires a college degree. So I'm wondering just how in tune you are with what life is like for the majority of Americans who don't have one.

 
And this is why Obama want's to neuter the 2nd Amendment. Remove the pitchfork and the 99% are helpless.

 
And this is why Obama want's to neuter the 2nd Amendment. Remove the pitchfork and the 99% are helpless.
It's a little unclear whether you're advocating pistols and shotguns against jet fighters, or a preemptive strike against the rich. Could you clarify? Because Obama and the second amendment have nothing to do with arming yourself in case the Rockefellers come for you with clubs and switchblades, I wouldn't think.

 
A letter from a top 0.01% to his fellow ultra-rich.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U6_9uJEpCTk

When is the looming civil war part 2 going to happen?

Are the ultra-rich FBG's safe?
Fun fact: once the top 0.01% are eliminated.... there will still be a 0.01%.
I think you missed the point. It's not that there is a 0.01%, but rather that their share of the economy has grown disproportionate to the rest of society.
The fact that you think point is that the top .01% wealth wouldn't/shouldn't grow faster that the lower tiers is pretty foolish. To think that the people who are the best at acquiring wealth would continue to separate from people investing in Nascar commemorative plates is not shocking at all and almost a given.

Unless everyone is equally terrible at managing money to Saints point there will always be someone to be jealous of.

 
And this is why Obama want's to neuter the 2nd Amendment. Remove the pitchfork and the 99% are helpless.
It's a little unclear whether you're advocating pistols and shotguns against jet fighters, or a preemptive strike against the rich. Could you clarify? Because Obama and the second amendment have nothing to do with arming yourself in case the Rockefellers come for you with clubs and switchblades, I wouldn't think.
Wha?

 
A letter from a top 0.01% to his fellow ultra-rich.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U6_9uJEpCTk

When is the looming civil war part 2 going to happen?

Are the ultra-rich FBG's safe?
Fun fact: once the top 0.01% are eliminated.... there will still be a 0.01%.
I think you missed the point. It's not that there is a 0.01%, but rather that their share of the economy has grown disproportionate to the rest of society.
The fact that you think point is that the top .01% wealth wouldn't/shouldn't grow faster that the lower tiers is pretty foolish. To think that the people who are the best at acquiring wealth would continue to separate from people investing in Nascar commemorative plates is not shocking at all and almost a given.Unless everyone is equally terrible at managing money to Saints point there will always be someone to be jealous of.
Its a rigged game for them

 
This would be possible to solve. Analyze the optimal logarithmic curve for income distribution across the population. Enforce policies that maintain it within +\-, rooting the policies in healthy incentives that reward higher education, accomplishment and career advancement. On the high end if the scale, most of the hoarded wealth could be redistributed with reform of inheritance and trust laws. This could all be done without it being socialist. If I'm the son of a billionaire, do something crazy like cap my inheritance at a quarter billion. The precise mechanisms are not the point. The point is that that curve matters to preserve an equitable economy and the means of distribution should to an extend recognize the luck of massive success, dissuade laziness and mediocrity and motivate trying.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A letter from a top 0.01% to his fellow ultra-rich.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U6_9uJEpCTk

When is the looming civil war part 2 going to happen?

Are the ultra-rich FBG's safe?
Fun fact: once the top 0.01% are eliminated.... there will still be a 0.01%.
I think you missed the point. It's not that there is a 0.01%, but rather that their share of the economy has grown disproportionate to the rest of society.
The fact that you think point is that the top .01% wealth wouldn't/shouldn't grow faster that the lower tiers is pretty foolish. To think that the people who are the best at acquiring wealth would continue to separate from people investing in Nascar commemorative plates is not shocking at all and almost a given.Unless everyone is equally terrible at managing money to Saints point there will always be someone to be jealous of.
Its a rigged game for them
??? I assume you are referring to the game of life, and that life in America is rigged against the poor. If you believe that a intelligent hard working individual can not raise his standing in today's America because of tax codes, business environment and some how an elected congress stacking the deck against a class you are a really cynical person.

 
This would be possible to solve. Analyze the optimal logarithmic curve for income distribution across the population. Enforce policies that maintain it within +\-, rooting the policies in healthy incentives that reward higher education, accomplishment and career advancement. On the high end if the scale, most of the hoarded wealth could be redistributed with reform of inheritance and trust laws. This could all be done without it being socialist. If I'm the son of a billionaire, do something crazy like cap my inheritance at a quarter billion. The precise mechanisms are not the point. The point is that that curve matters to preserve an equitable economy and the means of distribution should to an extend recognize the luck of massive success, dissuade laziness and mediocrity and motivate trying.
Good plan, nothing dissuades my laziness like killing my drive to collect as much wealth as possible to take care of my children by not letting me take care of them financially.

And as far as punishing the lucky can we just not pay out lottery winnings?

I am giving you some buy in for the attempt to motivate people to try, but will their be some incentive to actually succeed or is it everyone gets a trophy day? you know cause they tried.

 
A letter from a top 0.01% to his fellow ultra-rich.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U6_9uJEpCTk

When is the looming civil war part 2 going to happen?

Are the ultra-rich FBG's safe?
Fun fact: once the top 0.01% are eliminated.... there will still be a 0.01%.
I think you missed the point. It's not that there is a 0.01%, but rather that their share of the economy has grown disproportionate to the rest of society.
The fact that you think point is that the top .01% wealth wouldn't/shouldn't grow faster that the lower tiers is pretty foolish. To think that the people who are the best at acquiring wealth would continue to separate from people investing in Nascar commemorative plates is not shocking at all and almost a given.Unless everyone is equally terrible at managing money to Saints point there will always be someone to be jealous of.
Its a rigged game for them
??? I assume you are referring to the game of life, and that life in America is rigged against the poor. If you believe that a intelligent hard working individual can not raise his standing in today's America because of tax codes, business environment and some how an elected congress stacking the deck against a class you are a really cynical person.
Its been like that since the dawn of civilization. Sure maybe some people get rich but good luck breaking in to any of the industries run by the good ole boy cabals.

Money=power and the ones with all the money run rampart over the lower classes unregulated. This is power that goes back generations. Monarchies never died, they just changed their names.

 
This would be possible to solve. Analyze the optimal logarithmic curve for income distribution across the population. Enforce policies that maintain it within +\-, rooting the policies in healthy incentives that reward higher education, accomplishment and career advancement. On the high end if the scale, most of the hoarded wealth could be redistributed with reform of inheritance and trust laws. This could all be done without it being socialist. If I'm the son of a billionaire, do something crazy like cap my inheritance at a quarter billion. The precise mechanisms are not the point. The point is that that curve matters to preserve an equitable economy and the means of distribution should to an extend recognize the luck of massive success, dissuade laziness and mediocrity and motivate trying.
Good plan, nothing dissuades my laziness like killing my drive to collect as much wealth as possible to take care of my children by not letting me take care of them financially.And as far as punishing the lucky can we just not pay out lottery winnings?

I am giving you some buy in for the attempt to motivate people to try, but will their be some

incentive to actually succeed or is it everyone gets a trophy day? you know cause they tried.
You make a reasoned point. No one would get out of bed anymore if they could only leave a quarter billion per kid.And to speak to the luck of business, let's take Michael Dell. Smart guy. Was in the right place at the right time, historically. Creates a company with a business model that ensures, partially anyway, that there can be no other Michael Dells in that space. (Dell exerted economic pressure that killed the market inefficiency he exploited). He's worth 16 billion. Well earned. But his success was all about timing. I have little doubt he'd have been successful regardless, but the fact he made more than 10 million in his life is a total outlier.

 
Last edited:
At some point, the top 1% are going to cut a check to the bottom 99% to make everyone happy. It will have virtually no effect on the disproportionate distribution of wealth but this will happen before war does.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Loan Sharks said:
Mr. Ham said:
This would be possible to solve. Analyze the optimal logarithmic curve for income distribution across the population. Enforce policies that maintain it within +\-, rooting the policies in healthy incentives that reward higher education, accomplishment and career advancement. On the high end if the scale, most of the hoarded wealth could be redistributed with reform of inheritance and trust laws. This could all be done without it being socialist. If I'm the son of a billionaire, do something crazy like cap my inheritance at a quarter billion. The precise mechanisms are not the point. The point is that that curve matters to preserve an equitable economy and the means of distribution should to an extend recognize the luck of massive success, dissuade laziness and mediocrity and motivate trying.
Good plan, nothing dissuades my laziness like killing my drive to collect as much wealth as possible to take care of my children by not letting me take care of them financially.And as far as punishing the lucky can we just not pay out lottery winnings?

I am giving you some buy in for the attempt to motivate people to try, but will their be some

incentive to actually succeed or is it everyone gets a trophy day? you know cause they tried.
You make a reasoned point. No one would get out of bed anymore if they could only leave a quarter billion per kid.And to speak to the luck of business, let's take Michael Dell. Smart guy. Was in the right place at the right time, historically. Creates a company with a business model that ensures, partially anyway, that there can be no other Michael Dells in that space. (Dell exerted economic pressure that killed the market inefficiency he exploited). He's worth 16 billion. Well earned. But his success was all about timing. I have little doubt he'd have been successful regardless, but the fact he made more than 10 million in his life is a total outlier.
Meh...that's the attitude of nouvea riche and first generation higher upper class people just looking for enough money to retire comfortably early. They're less driven than the actual movers and shakers. Real money gets out of bed just to make the money...be it their first dollar or their fifth billion. Don't matter that they can only leave 250M to each kid.

 
A letter from a top 0.01% to his fellow ultra-rich.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U6_9uJEpCTk

When is the looming civil war part 2 going to happen?

Are the ultra-rich FBG's safe?
Fun fact: once the top 0.01% are eliminated.... there will still be a 0.01%.
I think you missed the point. It's not that there is a 0.01%, but rather that their share of the economy has grown disproportionate to the rest of society.
The fact that you think point is that the top .01% wealth wouldn't/shouldn't grow faster that the lower tiers is pretty foolish. To think that the people who are the best at acquiring wealth would continue to separate from people investing in Nascar commemorative plates is not shocking at all and almost a given.Unless everyone is equally terrible at managing money to Saints point there will always be someone to be jealous of.
Its a rigged game for them
??? I assume you are referring to the game of life, and that life in America is rigged against the poor. If you believe that a intelligent hard working individual can not raise his standing in today's America because of tax codes, business environment and some how an elected congress stacking the deck against a class you are a really cynical person.
Its been like that since the dawn of civilization. Sure maybe some people get rich but good luck breaking in to any of the industries run by the good ole boy cabals.

Money=power and the ones with all the money run rampart over the lower classes unregulated. This is power that goes back generations. Monarchies never died, they just changed their names.
So how did Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerberg, or Mark Cuban or on and on and on......do it?

 
Mr. Ham said:
Loan Sharks said:
Mr. Ham said:
This would be possible to solve. Analyze the optimal logarithmic curve for income distribution across the population. Enforce policies that maintain it within +\-, rooting the policies in healthy incentives that reward higher education, accomplishment and career advancement. On the high end if the scale, most of the hoarded wealth could be redistributed with reform of inheritance and trust laws. This could all be done without it being socialist. If I'm the son of a billionaire, do something crazy like cap my inheritance at a quarter billion. The precise mechanisms are not the point. The point is that that curve matters to preserve an equitable economy and the means of distribution should to an extend recognize the luck of massive success, dissuade laziness and mediocrity and motivate trying.
Good plan, nothing dissuades my laziness like killing my drive to collect as much wealth as possible to take care of my children by not letting me take care of them financially.And as far as punishing the lucky can we just not pay out lottery winnings?

I am giving you some buy in for the attempt to motivate people to try, but will their be some

incentive to actually succeed or is it everyone gets a trophy day? you know cause they tried.
You make a reasoned point. No one would get out of bed anymore if they could only leave a quarter billion per kid.And to speak to the luck of business, let's take Michael Dell. Smart guy. Was in the right place at the right time, historically. Creates a company with a business model that ensures, partially anyway, that there can be no other Michael Dells in that space. (Dell exerted economic pressure that killed the market inefficiency he exploited). He's worth 16 billion. Well earned. But his success was all about timing. I have little doubt he'd have been successful regardless, but the fact he made more than 10 million in his life is a total outlier.
Meh...that's the attitude of nouvea riche and first generation higher upper class people just looking for enough money to retire comfortably early. They're less driven than the actual movers and shakers. Real money gets out of bed just to make the money...be it their first dollar or their fifth billion. Don't matter that they can only leave 250M to each kid.
Behind the sarcasm, that's my point. If we were to limit the amount that the uber rich could bequeath to future generations to an enormous, but not obsene amount, the remainder could be redistributed. The key in my way of thinking is not to merely redistribute, but to tie how the money is distributed to functional, healthy incentives - like holding that second job, getting an advanced degree with a high GPA, starting a profitable business, getting certification in a trade. Essentially, you incent behavior that advances the nation, while refusing steadfastly to rewarding the 20% that will always refuse to contribute much.

The insight is that you have to work the problem from both ends, addressing both the tilted playing field and the incentives for contributing (or not) to the economy. Our polarized two party system has gridlocked into a false idea that it's either or.

In the middle, there needs to be math. There is an empirical model for how wealth should be distributed in a healthy system. I don't pretend to know what the ideal logarithmic curve looks like, but I believe that identifying it and maintaining controls on it would have a positive effect on the entire economy, while baking fairness into the system.

 
Last edited:
A letter from a top 0.01% to his fellow ultra-rich.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U6_9uJEpCTk

When is the looming civil war part 2 going to happen?

Are the ultra-rich FBG's safe?
Fun fact: once the top 0.01% are eliminated.... there will still be a 0.01%.
I think you missed the point. It's not that there is a 0.01%, but rather that their share of the economy has grown disproportionate to the rest of society.
The fact that you think point is that the top .01% wealth wouldn't/shouldn't grow faster that the lower tiers is pretty foolish. To think that the people who are the best at acquiring wealth would continue to separate from people investing in Nascar commemorative plates is not shocking at all and almost a given.Unless everyone is equally terrible at managing money to Saints point there will always be someone to be jealous of.
Its a rigged game for them
??? I assume you are referring to the game of life, and that life in America is rigged against the poor. If you believe that a intelligent hard working individual can not raise his standing in today's America because of tax codes, business environment and some how an elected congress stacking the deck against a class you are a really cynical person.
Its been like that since the dawn of civilization. Sure maybe some people get rich but good luck breaking in to any of the industries run by the good ole boy cabals.

Money=power and the ones with all the money run rampart over the lower classes unregulated. This is power that goes back generations. Monarchies never died, they just changed their names.
So how did Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerberg, or Mark Cuban or on and on and on......do it?
Success stories like those keep the lower classes believing in the system because they hope. Without hope, this system implodes.

It's no different than state lottery systems. People play because they see people win, and it gives them hope they could win too. Without hope, no one plays the lottery.

I see hope dying at a dramatic rate in the country.

As MT pointed out, parts of the system are still working well. In fact, unless someone invents real artificial intelligence, knowledge based workers will continue to specialize even more.

But task based workers are continuing to despecialize. And they make up a bigger percentage of the population than the knowledge based workers. They are giving up hope. Their task based specialties that used to earn them middle class salaries are no longer needed. They can't find work, or they settle for generalized work where they need to know a little about a lot, and make a lot less than they used to knowing a lot about a little. They are experiencing the opposite of the benefits presented in MT's video.

Hope is dying. And with it, so is the system.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A letter from a top 0.01% to his fellow ultra-rich.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U6_9uJEpCTk

When is the looming civil war part 2 going to happen?

Are the ultra-rich FBG's safe?
Fun fact: once the top 0.01% are eliminated.... there will still be a 0.01%.
I think you missed the point. It's not that there is a 0.01%, but rather that their share of the economy has grown disproportionate to the rest of society.
The fact that you think point is that the top .01% wealth wouldn't/shouldn't grow faster that the lower tiers is pretty foolish. To think that the people who are the best at acquiring wealth would continue to separate from people investing in Nascar commemorative plates is not shocking at all and almost a given.

Unless everyone is equally terrible at managing money to Saints point there will always be someone to be jealous of.
I am stating that the original premise was that the % of wealth in the hands of the .01% has grown, not the amount of wealth. The two are not equal.

 
A letter from a top 0.01% to his fellow ultra-rich.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U6_9uJEpCTk

When is the looming civil war part 2 going to happen?

Are the ultra-rich FBG's safe?
Fun fact: once the top 0.01% are eliminated.... there will still be a 0.01%.
I think you missed the point. It's not that there is a 0.01%, but rather that their share of the economy has grown disproportionate to the rest of society.
The fact that you think point is that the top .01% wealth wouldn't/shouldn't grow faster that the lower tiers is pretty foolish. To think that the people who are the best at acquiring wealth would continue to separate from people investing in Nascar commemorative plates is not shocking at all and almost a given.Unless everyone is equally terrible at managing money to Saints point there will always be someone to be jealous of.
Its a rigged game for them
??? I assume you are referring to the game of life, and that life in America is rigged against the poor. If you believe that a intelligent hard working individual can not raise his standing in today's America because of tax codes, business environment and some how an elected congress stacking the deck against a class you are a really cynical person.
Its been like that since the dawn of civilization. Sure maybe some people get rich but good luck breaking in to any of the industries run by the good ole boy cabals.Money=power and the ones with all the money run rampart over the lower classes unregulated. This is power that goes back generations. Monarchies never died, they just changed their names.
So how did Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerberg, or Mark Cuban or on and on and on......do it?
Success stories like those keep the lower classes believing in the system because they hope. Without hope, this system implodes.

It's no different than state lottery systems. People play because they see people win, and it gives them hope they could win too. Without hope, no one plays the lottery.

I see hope dying at a dramatic rate in the country.

As MT pointed out, parts of the system are still working well. In fact, unless someone invents real artificial intelligence, knowledge based workers will continue to specialize even more.

But task based workers are continuing to despecialize. And they make up a bigger percentage of the population than the knowledge based workers. They are giving up hope. Their task based specialties that used to earn them middle class salaries are no longer needed. They can't find work, or they settle for generalized work where they need to know a little about a lot, and make a lot less than they used to knowing a lot about a little. They are experiencing the opposite of the benefits presented in MT's video.

Hope is dying. And with it, so is the system.
You took the words right out of my mouth

The gates, cubans and zuckerbergs of the world are ants to the real world players who's true wealth and power is unknown. In fact none of them actually use money........they create and control the money the rest of us use.

Now that is wealth

 
Hope is dying. And with it, so is the system.
By hope, you do mean the American Dream - correct?
No. Many hopes are dying. I'm speaking of hope in general.
To me, it sounded like MC Gas Money was talking about the American dream dying (if he ever believe it existed) - then you responded that hope is dying so I guess I tied the two together. Isn't the hope of socio/economic success based on personal achievement and hard work, regardless of social class or circumstances of birth what the American dream is? If the hope of that is dying, then the American dream must be dying, too?

 
Hope is dying. And with it, so is the system.
By hope, you do mean the American Dream - correct?
No. Many hopes are dying. I'm speaking of hope in general.
To me, it sounded like MC Gas Money was talking about the American dream dying (if he ever believe it existed) - then you responded that hope is dying so I guess I tied the two together. Isn't the hope of socio/economic success based on personal achievement and hard work, regardless of social class or circumstances of birth what the American dream is? If the hope of that is dying, then the American dream must be dying, too?
Yep. As I said, many hopes are dying. With the knowledge based work force in denial of it, it creates a division. Historically speaking, such a division rarely ends well. That's what I gather from the author of the article in the OP.

 
"Be assured young friend, that there is a lot of ruin in a nation" (Adam Smith).

The Romans had it right. Bread and Circus. Today it's food stamps, TV entertainment, and rock concerts.. The vast majority will not get their pitchforks, no matter how much the envious, covetous, hand wringing elite, complain about those who have accumulated more wealth than they have.

 
Mr. Ham said:
This would be possible to solve. Analyze the optimal logarithmic curve for income distribution across the population. Enforce policies that maintain it within +\-, rooting the policies in healthy incentives that reward higher education, accomplishment and career advancement. On the high end if the scale, most of the hoarded wealth could be redistributed with reform of inheritance and trust laws. This could all be done without it being socialist. If I'm the son of a billionaire, do something crazy like cap my inheritance at a quarter billion. The precise mechanisms are not the point. The point is that that curve matters to preserve an equitable economy and the means of distribution should to an extend recognize the luck of massive success, dissuade laziness and mediocrity and motivate trying.
TL;DR

 
Hope is dying. And with it, so is the system.
By hope, you do mean the American Dream - correct?
No. Many hopes are dying. I'm speaking of hope in general.
To me, it sounded like MC Gas Money was talking about the American dream dying (if he ever believe it existed) - then you responded that hope is dying so I guess I tied the two together. Isn't the hope of socio/economic success based on personal achievement and hard work, regardless of social class or circumstances of birth what the American dream is? If the hope of that is dying, then the American dream must be dying, too?
I dont believe is existed as anything more than a gross exxageration is not a complete lie.

 
I will say that I've noticed a marked increase in reference to 'revolution' and 'uprising' on politically charged web forums, most notably from left leaning commenters. 8 years ago, practically non-existent. 5-6 years ago, you might get one guy mentioning it in some manner, probably jokingly. 2 years ago you have a handful of people talking about it somewhat seriously in concept. Now, it is probably a top comment, with dozens of replies and lots of hate thrown around.

Yeah yeah, "Internet toughguys" and what have you, "the people are too lazy" blah blah. All revolutions start as tough talk, and few countries believe a revolution could happen before it does. I think we're treading on dangerous ground over the next decade, and whether or not Progressives and the radical right are allowed the influence they're seeking in the coming years will determine whether we have a rough future in store.

EDIT: Also, when people dismiss the possiblity of violent political upheaval in our country or the developed world in general, I rarely see them acknowledge the rapidly growing masses of disillusioned youth, long a key piece in revolution.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A letter from a top 0.01% to his fellow ultra-rich.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U6_9uJEpCTk

When is the looming civil war part 2 going to happen?

Are the ultra-rich FBG's safe?
Fun fact: once the top 0.01% are eliminated.... there will still be a 0.01%.
I think you missed the point. It's not that there is a 0.01%, but rather that their share of the economy has grown disproportionate to the rest of society.
The fact that you think point is that the top .01% wealth wouldn't/shouldn't grow faster that the lower tiers is pretty foolish. To think that the people who are the best at acquiring wealth would continue to separate from people investing in Nascar commemorative plates is not shocking at all and almost a given.Unless everyone is equally terrible at managing money to Saints point there will always be someone to be jealous of.
Its a rigged game for them
??? I assume you are referring to the game of life, and that life in America is rigged against the poor. If you believe that a intelligent hard working individual can not raise his standing in today's America because of tax codes, business environment and some how an elected congress stacking the deck against a class you are a really cynical person.
Its been like that since the dawn of civilization. Sure maybe some people get rich but good luck breaking in to any of the industries run by the good ole boy cabals.

Money=power and the ones with all the money run rampart over the lower classes unregulated. This is power that goes back generations. Monarchies never died, they just changed their names.
So how did Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerberg, or Mark Cuban or on and on and on......do it?
To be fair, were/are those guys in industries run by good ole boys?

 
A letter from a top 0.01% to his fellow ultra-rich.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U6_9uJEpCTk

When is the looming civil war part 2 going to happen?

Are the ultra-rich FBG's safe?
Fun fact: once the top 0.01% are eliminated.... there will still be a 0.01%.
I think you missed the point. It's not that there is a 0.01%, but rather that their share of the economy has grown disproportionate to the rest of society.
The fact that you think point is that the top .01% wealth wouldn't/shouldn't grow faster that the lower tiers is pretty foolish. To think that the people who are the best at acquiring wealth would continue to separate from people investing in Nascar commemorative plates is not shocking at all and almost a given.Unless everyone is equally terrible at managing money to Saints point there will always be someone to be jealous of.
Its a rigged game for them
??? I assume you are referring to the game of life, and that life in America is rigged against the poor. If you believe that a intelligent hard working individual can not raise his standing in today's America because of tax codes, business environment and some how an elected congress stacking the deck against a class you are a really cynical person.
Its been like that since the dawn of civilization. Sure maybe some people get rich but good luck breaking in to any of the industries run by the good ole boy cabals.Money=power and the ones with all the money run rampart over the lower classes unregulated. This is power that goes back generations. Monarchies never died, they just changed their names.
So how did Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerberg, or Mark Cuban or on and on and on......do it?
To be fair, were/are those guys in industries run by good ole boys?
No. Computers were one of the few new industries to pop up since the industrial revolution. The good ole boys still run the major industries like energy, banking and defense whos wealth and power dwarfs the likes of gates, cuban and zuckerberg

 
What do most Americans want? To live in clean safe neighborhoods, to send their kids to good schools and hopefully college, to be able to pay medical bills without fear of bankruptcy, and to manage all of this by working hard and honestly, but with enough time off to pursue entertainment (like sports) go on vacations, and retire with confidence at old age.

Is this still attainable for most people? If its not, there's going to be trouble ahead.

 
What do most Americans want? To live in clean safe neighborhoods, to send their kids to good schools and hopefully college, to be able to pay medical bills without fear of bankruptcy, and to manage all of this by working hard and honestly, but with enough time off to pursue entertainment (like sports) go on vacations, and retire with confidence at old age.

Is this still attainable for most people? If its not, there's going to be trouble ahead.
It clearly isnt for a majority of the country

 
Interestingly enough, most revolutions have been made by middle class intellectuals, who felt shut out of the power circles, and lusted after power. To the extent that they have been able to energize the mass of the people, who joined them out of desperation at their circumstances, they have tended to be successful. That was only partially true of the American Revolution, but absolutely true of the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution.

However, I do not see that kind of mass movement today, mainly because the mass of the underclass have their bread and circuses. But there is not doubt that the intellectual class absolutely despises the successful entrepreneurs who have become immensely wealthy, and the ones who have become immensely wealthy by rising to the top of the corporate world. They view that world as undeserving of being so immensely above them in means, even though they have carved out a very lucrative niche for themselves.

 
Interestingly enough, most revolutions have been made by middle class intellectuals, who felt shut out of the power circles, and lusted after power. To the extent that they have been able to energize the mass of the people, who joined them out of desperation at their circumstances, they have tended to be successful. That was only partially true of the American Revolution, but absolutely true of the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution.

However, I do not see that kind of mass movement today, mainly because the mass of the underclass have their bread and circuses. But there is not doubt that the intellectual class absolutely despises the successful entrepreneurs who have become immensely wealthy, and the ones who have become immensely wealthy by rising to the top of the corporate world. They view that world as undeserving of being so immensely above them in means, even though they have carved out a very lucrative niche for themselves.
Bread and circuses doesnt work forever. Eventually the downtrodden will want their fair piece of the pie and the upper crust will not give them that.

Funny thing too, if you collect excessive amounts of objects you are considered a hoarder. If you horde money you are considered smart.

 
Interestingly enough, most revolutions have been made by middle class intellectuals, who felt shut out of the power circles, and lusted after power. To the extent that they have been able to energize the mass of the people, who joined them out of desperation at their circumstances, they have tended to be successful. That was only partially true of the American Revolution, but absolutely true of the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution.

However, I do not see that kind of mass movement today, mainly because the mass of the underclass have their bread and circuses. But there is not doubt that the intellectual class absolutely despises the successful entrepreneurs who have become immensely wealthy, and the ones who have become immensely wealthy by rising to the top of the corporate world. They view that world as undeserving of being so immensely above them in means, even though they have carved out a very lucrative niche for themselves.
Bread and circuses doesnt work forever. Eventually the downtrodden will want their fair piece of the pie and the upper crust will not give them that.

Funny thing too, if you collect excessive amounts of objects you are considered a hoarder. If you horde money you are considered smart.
It worked for Rome for 400 years. It was their loss of patriotic fervor, the increasing level of corruption, the inability to keep providing the bread and circuses, and the barbarian invasions which did them in.

 
Mr. Ham said:
This would be possible to solve. Analyze the optimal logarithmic curve for income distribution across the population. Enforce policies that maintain it within +\-, rooting the policies in healthy incentives that reward higher education, accomplishment and career advancement. On the high end if the scale, most of the hoarded wealth could be redistributed with reform of inheritance and trust laws. This could all be done without it being socialist. If I'm the son of a billionaire, do something crazy like cap my inheritance at a quarter billion. The precise mechanisms are not the point. The point is that that curve matters to preserve an equitable economy and the means of distribution should to an extend recognize the luck of massive success, dissuade laziness and mediocrity and motivate trying.
Yeah, not socialism at all. More like full fledged communism. :thumbup:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hope is dying. And with it, so is the system.
By hope, you do mean the American Dream - correct?
No. Many hopes are dying. I'm speaking of hope in general.
I think you should change your name to Politician Borg. Spock was an optimist.
McCoy: Dear Lord. You think we're intelligent enough to... suppose... what if this thing were used where life already exists?

Spock: It would destroy such life in favor of its new matrix.

McCoy: Its "new matrix"? Do you have any idea what you're saying?

Spock: I was not attempting to evaluate its moral implications, Doctor. As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create.

I'm just calling it like I see it... just like Spock.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top