patrick.net

indigenous says

And they are. Your graph shows select European countries, not the whole world.

You're changing the subject again. You can't seem to remember what we're arguing about from moment to moment. Allow me to refresh your memory:

Homeboy says:

"The question should be whether the poor in the US are better off than other DEVELOPED countries, and they are not. "

Indigenous says: "Lets see the numbers"

http://patrick.net/?p=1237143&c=1045368#comment-1045368

Yes, we are SELECTING the countries which have the resources that the U.S. has. We're not talking about Mexico, where even the top 20% only make $32,756 in disposable income vs. the U.S.'s $82,666.

You are asking the wrong question. The question should not be, "Are the poor in the USA better off than the poor in some backwater third-world country where the whole country doesn't have two dimes to rub together?" No, the question should be, "Are the poor in the USA better off than in other DEVELOPED countries that actually have some wealth?"

You said, "Show me the numbers", and I did. Then you tried to nitpick the numbers with irrelevant pablum.

First, you said government transfers skewed the numbers. So I showed you that government transfers would skew the numbers in the OPPOSITE direction from that which you thought.

So then you posted a chart that you claimed showed individual income as opposed to household income, and said that showed equality between developed countries. But then you admitted that you were wrong about the source.

So what's your next backpedaling move? Forget all about the fact that we're discussing DEVELOPED countries, not third-world countries. Forget the conversation ever took place, huh?

Pathetic.

Homeboy says

"The question should be whether the poor in the US are better off than other DEVELOPED countries, and they are not.

You still have not explained why this graph is not true?

In addition I stated that you cannot look at just the more advanced countries in Europe because their success has to do with the deficit in the PIGS. The Greeks are not reckless with their finances without the help of Germany lending them money, same goes for the other PIGS

indigenous says

You are projecting

A tired, meaningless cliche that you trot out when you lose an argument.

indigenous says

You ignore the Sowell article

The Sowell article is irrelevant. Your attention deficit disorder does not allow you to focus on a topic. I'm not interested in every stray thought that pops into your head, only those that have to do with what we're discussing: whether the poor in the USA are better off than the poor in other developed countries.

indigenous says

Few people stay in the bottom quintile for long

Irrelevant.

indigenous says

Reality's point that most are retired with a good deal of wealth albeit a fixed low income

I showed you that both income AND wealth are skewed towards the top in the USA, so that argument doesn't wash.

indigenous says

The fact that the socialist countries are borrowing from the future to pay for higher standard of living now

Is this an admission that the poor in other developed countries are better off than the poor in the USA? It would appear I won the argument, then.

indigenous says

The graph I showed that indicated that the middle class in the US were not worse off than the European countries showed in your graph

You posted two graphs. One was a reprint of OECD data that didn't explain which data was used or how. I showed, from the SAME OECD data, that the bottom 20% in the USA ARE worse off.

The other graph you posted was out of date, and the author couldn't even remember the date of the chart or apparently even where he got it from, and you admitted you were wrong about what the chart showed.

indigenous says

Most graphs and probably yours do not show public transfers or after tax income of the rich

Public transfers and tax policy do LESS to help the poor in the USA than in other countries, not more. I proved this, and repeated it to you at least 4 times, yet you bring it up again as though this never occurred.

indigenous says

Reality pointed out that at the very least they do not show public transfers in the form of medicare (which I believe is 7 times more than the recipients pay in) or SS

Let's see the proof.

indigenous says

Due to it's monetary policy Germany's wealth is at the expense of Spain and the other PIGS, so to indicate their success without pointing to all the countries in Europe is misleading.

Germany was only one example. I posted a list containing MANY European countries with more equal income distribution than the USA.

What's misleading is to compare the plight of the poor in the USA to third-world countries where virtually EVERYONE is poor. There is a difference between not being ABLE to help the poor, and deliberately CHOOSING to disenfranchise them.

indigenous says

How much money do they save by not having to have a defense budget?

Non sequitur.

indigenous says

Bottom line is that the free market raises the standard of living better than any form of socialism. The free market gave us cell phones for the poor, air conditioning for the poor, television for the poor, microwave ovens, cheaper dependable cars vs the Travant of the Socialist countries, biological engineering, stem cell applications, indoor plumbing, a huge variety at a low cost in retail stores, the poor today have a better standard of living than a king of yesteryear.

I agree, but that is not the bottom line here. The USA in large part ushered in the modern era. But we are no longer on top with regard to delivering a high quality of life for the middle and lower classes. The uber-rich investor class has influenced our government and taken such a disproportionate amount of the country's wealth that the lower class now fares WORSE than other developed countries - even ones that have less overall wealth than the USA.

indigenous says

A graph showing the poor of some European countries does not trump the reality of the standard of living for the poor.

When you start to claim that cold hard data is not reality, it shows that your "reality" is imagined. Your reality is based on how you WISH things were, rather than how they really are. You so desperately want trickle-down to be a viable concept that you ignore all facts and data, and change the subject whenever it's shown to be unsuccessful.

indigenous says

And most of all the opportunity at any time for the poor to improve their situation. This freedom is being emaciated by socialist policies that have been put in place.

A wholly unsubstantiated theory.

indigenous says

The nanny state seems warm and fuzzy but with even the most superficial inspection it is insidious beyond belief.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean or who it is supposed to apply to. Your position seems more like a religion than a considered opinion. You simply spout cliched generalities.

indigenous says

In addition I stated that you cannot look at just the more advanced countries in Europe because their success has to do with the deficit in the PIGS.

So by your insistence that we now stop examining advanced countries in comparison to the USA, I take it that you have conceded the argument, and admit that the poor are better off in other advanced countries than they are in the USA.?

Homeboy says

indigenous says

Few people stay in the bottom quintile for long

Irrelevant.

If anything that is the point, income mobility.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

Reality's point that most are retired with a good deal of wealth albeit a fixed low income

I showed you that both income AND wealth are skewed towards the top in the USA, so that argument doesn't wash.

Not according to Obama last night?

Homeboy says

indigenous says

Most graphs and probably yours do not show public transfers or after tax income of the rich

Public transfers and tax policy do LESS to help the poor in the USA than in other countries, not more. I proved this, and repeated it to you at least 4 times, yet you bring it up again as though this never occurred.

Really, how is that working out in China where when they went Capitalistic they did away with many of the free public services? Your idea of proof is to show a graph, which I have pointed out at least 4 times does not prove anything.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

Due to it's monetary policy Germany's wealth is at the expense of Spain and the other PIGS, so to indicate their success without pointing to all the countries in Europe is misleading.

Germany was only one example. I posted a list containing MANY European countries with more equal income distribution than the USA.

What's misleading is to compare the plight of the poor in the USA to third-world countries where virtually EVERYONE is poor.

The point is that the northern countries benefit at the expense of the PIGS. A comparison would be that you use Mississippi as an example of public benefits vs California that receives 1/3 of the welfare in the US yet only has 12% of the population. When you say the US you take the avg. Since Europe is bound by the Euro it is the same situation.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

How much money do they save by not having to have a defense budget?

Non sequitur.

It is muy sequitur because 1/3 of the US budget goes or went to defense. If the US did not have to spend this they would have 1/3 more money to spend on the poor.

indigenous says

I agree, but that is not the bottom line here. The USA in large part ushered in the modern era. But we are no longer on top with regard to delivering a high quality of life for the middle and lower classes. The uber-rich investor class has influenced our government and taken such a disproportionate amount of the country's wealth that the lower class now fares WORSE than other developed countries - even ones that have less overall wealth than the USA.

We are on the same page on this. Do you see that the two are connected? That there has been a correlation between the TBTF and the lowering of the standard of living of the middle class and the poor?

Homeboy says

When you start to claim that cold hard data is not reality, it shows that your "reality" is imagined. Your reality is based on how you WISH things were, rather than how they really are. You so desperately want trickle-down to be a viable concept that you ignore all facts and data, and change the subject whenever it's shown to be unsuccessful.

Not hardly, I wade quite deep into this subject. Trickle down was a misinterpretation of the Laffer curve. It was a part of the Reagan meme, it was bullshit. My thinking would be more towards a bottom up approach. Listening to Obama talk about a top down approach to help small business through central planning and the infinite wisdom of Joe Biden is laughable.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

And most of all the opportunity at any time for the poor to improve their situation. This freedom is being emaciated by socialist policies that have been put in place.

A wholly unsubstantiated theory.

Before there was an economy the economy had to be created? There would have been barter which led to the creation of money. At this time a person improved himself or he did not. Then the rule of law came about which started the manipulation of the law by using force to get what you wanted. Now the individual was subject to having to improve himself enough to also pay the government their share. When this gets too onerous the country fails. Not too much theory to that right?

Homeboy says

indigenous says

The nanny state seems warm and fuzzy but with even the most superficial inspection it is insidious beyond belief.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean or who it is supposed to apply to. Your position seems more like a religion than a considered opinion. You simply spout cliched generalities.

See the paragraph above and then add in "we are the government we are going to help you"

control point says

Reality says

Keep dreaming ;-) IQ above 140 is a fairly lonely place, as you can see from the

statistical distribution. I have not yet met a single person with IQ above 140

who would disagree with me on the basic nature of the issues discussed here.

LOL. I am fairly sure Krugman or Keynes had IQ's over 140.

I have no idea what their actual IQ's are, but both are certainly opportunists. Keynes was very flattering to the Nazi totalitarian system and its ability to implement his advocated policies when writing the preface to the German edition of his book. Besides, his quip "in the long run we are all dead" is just a rephrasing of Louise XV's "After me, the deluge." An utter sociopath!

Krugman talked about raising minimum wage causing unemployment among the young and less skilled workers in his published texbook, yet is now advocating raising minimum wage.

Lacking IQ is not their problem; what they lack is ethics and real compassion for fellow human beings, as opposed to the fake compassion that the political operatives are adept at.

Homeboy says

You can only "like" your own post once, dumbshit. If I did them myself, then it would be only one "like",

It's trivial to set up multiple accounts via different ISP's.

Homeboy says

Reality says

Because the numbers are not clear whether they are reference market income vs. income after tax and transfers vs. disposable income after income and transfers. However, regardless which income it is, income does not equate to wealth. The top 1% in income are not the same people as the top 1% in wealth.

So what?

So it means you made of fool of yourself

Homeboy says

Reality says

Wealth and Income are drastically different concepts. Someone, specifically 1% of the population, will always in the top 1% by wealth. Income is a major part of what enables one to move into that 1% and displace someone else who had been in 1% previously. If you are against the top 1% in income, then you are against social mobility.

WTF? What kind of stupid angry rant is that? Again, you don't seem to have the slightest clue what we're discussing here. I would respond to what you wrote, but I have no idea what point, if any, you're trying to make. It's just nonsensical babbling.

What I wrote and you quoted above is not a rant, not angry and not stupid. It's just a simple statement of fact. Top x% in income and top x% in wealth are two different groups of people. Heavily tax income, and you end up forestalling social mobility. The higher the wealth to after-tax income ratio, the more stale the strata of the society become. In a society with 100% income tax, there wouldn't be any social mobility into and out of the top x%.

Homeboy says

If you believe a chart of wealth distribution would show the U.S. as having the most equal distribution in the world, you are sorely mistaken. The U.S. is the fifth worst in the world in that regard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth

Goes to show the utter worthlessness of the data you cite. It's moronic to think India, China, Brazil and South Africa have more equal wealth distribution than the US. Have you been to those countries and witnessed the level of wealth disparity in those countries? There is a reason why the poor in those countries take highly dangerous jobs in order to make a living! The rich in those countries consider the typical rich in the US as mere "middle class"!

Someone putting up some random numbers, and you will cite it like the gospel. No wonder you are easily conned by politicians.

FYI, the real difference between the US vs. much of the rest of the world is data transparency: much of the power and privileges of the rich and powerful in the rest of the world is not transparently accounted or even monetized.

Reality says

Goes to show the utter worthlessness of the data you cite. It's moronic to think India, China, Brazil and South Africa have more equal wealth distribution than the US.

So that's the entirety of your argument? "It's moronic"? Nice job, dude.

Reality says

Have you been to those countries and witnessed the level of wealth disparity in those countries?

Not sure how one can "witness" the exact amount of wealth disparity in a country, simply by stepping foot in that country. Any such superficial analysis would be highly subjective and no match for actual data.

Reality says

There is a reason why the poor in those countries take highly dangerous jobs in order to make a living!

That's rather a meaningless sentence. Without any data to corroborate what you're claiming, it's just wild, useless conjecture.

Reality says

The rich in those countries consider the typical rich in the US as mere "middle class"!

I doubt that's true, and you haven't provided any evidence that it is. And even if it were true, that is not a substitute for actual data.

Reality says

Someone putting up some random numbers, and you will cite it like the gospel.

They are not random; they are the statistics for distribution of wealth in each country. If you have data that shows otherwise, by all means post it. Surely you don't think your sputtering angry diatribe, based on nothing, is valid, do you? What you are saying is, you don't have any facts or data, but somehow you just "know" that the data I post is all wrong. That's just silly.

Reality says

No wonder you are easily conned by politicians.

It's odd that you would say that. I am not easily conned by politicians, but YOU seem to be. You are arguing the Republican platform - that the US is the greatest country on Earth, that giveaways to the rich somehow magically help everyone, that there is no poverty in the US. Sorry, but the facts don't support that view. You've been conned by Reagan, Bush, and the rest of the Republicans who tell you trickle-down works. And now even the democrats are playing along. You put more faith in ideology and jingoism than you do in reason and knowledge.

Reality says

FYI, the real difference between the US vs. much of the rest of the world is data transparency: much of the power and privileges of the rich and powerful in the rest of the world is not transparently accounted or even monetized.

And your proof of this is....?

Reality says

Top x% in income and top x% in wealth are two different groups of people.

I never said income and wealth were the same thing.

Reality says

Heavily tax income, and you end up forestalling social mobility.

This is an irrelevant sidetrack, but the solution is to heavily tax non-payroll income, or at least tax it at the same rate as payroll income. Taxing it at a lower rate is what allows the investor class to control such a large percentage of the country's wealth.

Reality says

The higher the wealth to after-tax income ratio, the more stale the strata of the society become. In a society with 100% income tax, there wouldn't be any social mobility into and out of the top x%.

Actually, the top tax brackets used to be extremely high in the U.S., and the distribution of wealth was MORE equal than it is now. So your theory is bullshit.

Reality says

Homeboy says

Reality says

Because the numbers are not clear whether they are reference market income vs. income after tax and transfers vs. disposable income after income and transfers. However, regardless which income it is, income does not equate to wealth. The top 1% in income are not the same people as the top 1% in wealth.

So what?

So it means you made of fool of yourself

So then you can't explain the significance of your post, right? All you can do is hurl insults. Just as I figured.

Reality says

It's trivial to set up multiple accounts via different ISP's.

Perhaps you have that capability, but I do not. It would not be trivial for me to do that. Sounds like something YOU know how to do, though.

indigenous says

If anything that is the point, income mobility.

Not any point WE were discussing.

indigenous says

Not according to Obama last night?

???

indigenous says

Really, how is that working out in China where when they went Capitalistic they did away with many of the free public services? Your idea of proof is to show a graph, which I have pointed out at least 4 times does not prove anything.

Nonsense. If you are making a claim, you MUST have evidence to support it. Data is evidence. Charts contain data. Your unfounded beliefs are not evidence. You understand that, don't you? The mere fact that you BELIEVE a thing does not render it true. If you don't comprehend the difference between fact and fantasy, I daresay there isn't much point in continuing to converse with you.

indigenous says

It is muy sequitur because 1/3 of the US budget goes or went to defense. If the US did not have to spend this they would have 1/3 more money to spend on the poor.

Now you seem to be making excuses for why the U.S. doesn't help their poor. Does this mean you concede that the poor in the U.S. are worse off than the poor in other developed countries?

indigenous says

We are on the same page on this.

Great.

indigenous says

That there has been a correlation between the TBTF and the lowering of the standard of living of the middle class and the poor?

Please stop using acronyms.

indigenous says

My thinking would be more towards a bottom up approach.

I agree, but nothing you have written thus far would seem to corroborate that.

indigenous says

Then the rule of law came about which started the manipulation of the law by using force to get what you wanted.

You don't believe anyone used force to get what he wanted before there were laws? For that matter, do you believe there was ever a time without any laws? Even animals have rules that are followed and ways to enforce them.

indigenous says

See the paragraph above and then add in "we are the government we are going to help you"

That doesn't shed any light on what your specific point is and how it relates to the subject at hand. In fact it's even MORE vague.

Homeboy says

Reality says

Goes to show the utter worthlessness of the data you cite. It's moronic to think India, China, Brazil and South Africa have more equal wealth distribution than the US.

So that's the entirety of your argument? "It's moronic"? Nice job, dude.

Nope. My argument was presented to you following the quoted statement above. You chose to act stupid; that's your problem.

Homeboy says

Reality says

Have you been to those countries and witnessed the level of wealth disparity in those countries?

Not sure how one can "witness" the exact amount of wealth disparity in a country, simply by stepping foot in that country. Any such superficial analysis would be highly subjective and no match for actual data.

You have way too much faith in "data." Let me tell you what "data" means in those countries lacking transparency: it's whatever the bureaucrats pull out the thin air, usually ordered y their superiors.

Homeboy says

Reality says

There is a reason why the poor in those countries take highly dangerous jobs in order to make a living!

That's rather a meaningless sentence. Without any data to corroborate what you're claiming, it's just wild, useless conjecture.

It is not. The utter poverty in the lower strata of those countries is the reason why they take up those dangerous jobs.

Homeboy says

The rich in those countries consider the typical rich in the US as mere "middle class"!

I doubt that's true, and you haven't provided any evidence that it is. And even if it were true, that is not a substitute for actual data.

There is no "actual data." Nobody knows how much the rich in those countries actually own, except each for him/herself. Book cooking is practiced as fine art in those countries. In fact, when you ask for their accounting books for investment consideration, they ask you which accounting book you'd like to see!

Homeboy says

Someone putting up some random numbers, and you will cite it like the gospel.

They are not random; they are the statistics for distribution of wealth in each country. If you have data that shows otherwise, by all means post it. Surely you don't think your sputtering angry diatribe, based on nothing, is valid, do you? What you are saying is, you don't have any facts or data, but somehow you just "know" that the data I post is all wrong. That's just silly.

It's not silly at all. For example, the most obvious, especially since this is a real estate forum, the numbers go into those official data you cite for the income for their government officials would not be able to account for the high end houses that they are buying in the US and UK. The data you post is wrong, and there is no correct data out there. Nobody has the exact number on how much each of them has embezzled. There is simply no basis to draw truthful income or wealth distribution in those countries.

Homeboy says

Reality says

No wonder you are easily conned by politicians.

It's odd that you would say that. I am not easily conned by politicians, but YOU seem to be. You are arguing the Republican platform - that the US is the greatest country on Earth, that giveaways to the rich somehow magically help everyone, that there is no poverty in the US. Sorry, but the facts don't support that view. You've been conned by Reagan, Bush, and the rest of the Republicans who tell you trickle-down works. And now even the democrats are playing along. You put more faith in ideology and jingoism than you do in reason and knowledge.

Utter nonsense. Unlike yourself, I'm not particularly partisan between the two major parties.

Homeboy says

Reality says

Top x% in income and top x% in wealth are two different groups of people.

I never said income and wealth were the same thing.

You cited income numbers as proof of wealth disparity. The two are not the same.

Homeboy says

Reality says

Heavily tax income, and you end up forestalling social mobility.

This is an irrelevant sidetrack, but the solution is to heavily tax non-payroll income, or at least tax it at the same rate as payroll income. Taxing it at a lower rate is what allows the investor class to control such a large percentage of the country's wealth.

Really? Do you think taxing Buffet at 100% for his $30mil per year income would prevent his wealth from growing faster than yours? He is worth $30billion. Do you think he has been living and making $30mil a year for 1000 years? The reason why the super rich get rich often is not the result of taxable income but because the massive regulatory and policy advantages that the government gives to their companies! Those companies appreciate in market value because of government help without generating any taxable event to the top owners themselves!

Homeboy says

The higher the wealth to after-tax income ratio, the more stale the strata of the society become. In a society with 100% income tax, there wouldn't be any social mobility into and out of the top x%.

Actually, the top tax brackets used to be extremely high in the U.S., and the distribution of wealth was MORE equal than it is now. So your theory is bullshit.

Once again you are conflating theoretical number with reality on the ground. Hardly anyone actually paid those sky high tax rates in the 50's. The wealth distribution was more equal in the 50's because it was before the 70's closing of gold window making the dollar into pure fiat, so the government was restrained by the sound money link from giving large corporations undue help. The disparity started to take off in the 70's, precisely when the money became fiat and the government became capable of intervening in the market more forcefullly.

Homeboy says

Reality says

Homeboy says

Reality says

Because the numbers are not clear whether they are reference market income vs. income after tax and transfers vs. disposable income after income and transfers. However, regardless which income it is, income does not equate to wealth. The top 1% in income are not the same people as the top 1% in wealth.

So what?

So it means you made of fool of yourself

So then you can't explain the significance of your post, right? All you can do is hurl insults. Just as I figured.

I already explained the significance of my post in the original post. You were conflating income with wealth. The two are not the same.

Reality says

You have way too much faith in "data." Let me tell you what "data" means in those countries lacking transparency: it's whatever the bureaucrats pull out the thin air, usually ordered y their superiors.

What, are you an imbecile? Countries don't provide their own wealth distribution info; the data was compiled by a research firm. You think they called the president of each country and just took his word for it? This stuff was independently researched.

Reality says

It is not.

Here's a clue: When I say your statement is conjecture and has no evidence to back it, simply saying "it is not" doesn't change that.

Reality says

The utter poverty in the lower strata of those countries is the reason why they take up those dangerous jobs.

Circular reasoning. Where's your evidence?

Reality says

There is no "actual data." Nobody knows how much the rich in those countries actually own, except each for him/herself. Book cooking is practiced as fine art in those countries. In fact, when you ask for their accounting books for investment consideration, they ask you which accounting book you'd like to see!

That's quite a convenient attitude for you. Nothing can be proven or disproven; therefore everything you say is unquestionable true. The only problem is that's complete bullshit.

Reality says

It's not silly at all. For example, the most obvious, especially since this is a real estate forum, the numbers go into those official data you cite for the income for their government officials would not be able to account for the high end houses that they are buying in the US and UK.

I didn't cite any "official" "government" data. You are bordering on paranoia now.

Please show your evidence that "high end houses" would reverse the data on wealth distribution.

Reality says

The data you post is wrong, and there is no correct data out there. Nobody has the exact number on how much each of them has embezzled. There is simply no basis to draw truthful income or wealth distribution in those countries.

Then how do you know I'm wrong? You can't have it both ways.

Reality says

Utter nonsense. Unlike yourself, I'm not particularly partisan between the two major parties.

I didn't say you were partisan. But I do say that the ideals you espouse are the same ones espoused by the republican party. So whether you self-identify with them or not, they have conned you.

Let's examine what each of us believes:

You believe that the U.S. system is the best in the world. You believe it is better than all other countries. You believe that any fact showing the U.S. to be anything less than the greatest country in the world must of necessity be a lie. You believe that none of this can be ascertained with any facts or data, only by unfounded belief. Not only do you lack any evidence to support your point of view; you believe it isn't even POSSIBLE to have evidence.

I accept only that which is proven. I am of the opinion that belief by itself does not constitute fact. I trust facts and evidence more than I trust emotion and partisan ideology.

So who has been conned?

Reality says

I already explained the significance of my post in the original post. You were conflating income with wealth. The two are not the same.

You're just repeating that income and wealth are not the same. And I repeat: so what?

Homeboy says

What, are you an imbecile? Countries don't provide their own wealth distribution info; the data was compiled by a research firm. You think they called the president of each country and just took his word for it? This stuff was independently researched.

What do you think the research firm does? Magic? They have to rely on the countrys' tax data, the equivalent of our IRS and BLS data. Except in those countries, their government bureau data such even worse than ours, much worse.

Homeboy says

The utter poverty in the lower strata of those countries is the reason why they take up those dangerous jobs.

Where's your evidence?

Have you seen rich people taking on dangerous and low paying jobs that have no political "honor" value?

Homeboy says

Reality says

There is no "actual data." Nobody knows how much the rich in those countries actually own, except each for him/herself. Book cooking is practiced as fine art in those countries. In fact, when you ask for their accounting books for investment consideration, they ask you which accounting book you'd like to see!

That's quite a convenient attitude for you. Nothing can be proven or disproven; therefore everything you say is unquestionable true. The only problem is that's complete bullshit.

Your so-called "data" is bullshit. There is no reliable "data" coming out of those countries. In fact, I don't even trust their census data on population count.

Homeboy says

It's not silly at all. For example, the most obvious, especially since this is a real estate forum, the numbers go into those official data you cite for the income for their government officials would not be able to account for the high end houses that they are buying in the US and UK.

I didn't cite any "official" "government" data. You are bordering on paranoia now.

Please show your evidence that "high end houses" would reverse the data on wealth distribution.

The data you cited had to rely on government bureau tax data, for there is no other realistic way for a research firm to get the income data from so many countries and billions of people all around the world. In many of those countries reported income among high income individuals, especially government officials and relatives, are a tiny fraction of their real income. In many of the recent corruption cases in those countries, the accused are found to have several multi-million dollar estates all over the world; those simply could not have been paid for by their reported income measured in mere few thousands of dollars a year.

Homeboy says

Reality says

The data you post is wrong, and there is no correct data out there. Nobody has the exact number on how much each of them has embezzled. There is simply no basis to draw truthful income or wealth distribution in those countries.

Then how do you know I'm wrong? You can't have it both ways.

Because there is no way of getting the "correct" data. Also because the low inequality number presented for those countries are laughable for anyone who is familiar with the investment environment in those countries.

Homeboy says

But I do say that the ideals you espouse are the same ones espoused by the republican party. So whether you self-identify with them or not, they have conned you.

Nonsense. I disagree with the Republican party on many key points.

Homeboy says

Let's examine what each of us believes:

You believe that the U.S. system is the best in the world.

No, I don't. I just don't believe those of India, China, Brazil and South Africa are better; nor do I believe the typical eurosocialist countries have it better.

You believe it is better than all other countries.

Not true. Some smaller countries do have it better than the US.

You believe that any fact showing the U.S. to be anything less than the greatest country in the world must of necessity be a lie.

Nonsense. The title of "the greatest country" is of no concern to me

You believe that none of this can be ascertained with any facts or data, only by unfounded belief.

Some smaller countries and regions do factually have higher living standards than the US, such as Switzerland.

Not only do you lack any evidence to support your point of view; you it isn't even POSSIBLE to have evidence.

It is not possible to collect precise numerical economic data in some countries. They are just very corrupt and non-transparent countries.

I accept only that which is proven. I am of the opinion that belief by itself does not constitute fact. I trust facts and evidence more than I trust emotion and partisan ideology.

Except the data you trust are very much put together by partisan ideologues with strong emotional motives.

Homeboy says

Reality says

I already explained the significance of my post in the original post. You were conflating income with wealth. The two are not the same.

You're just repeating that income and wealth are not the same. And I repeat: so what?

Then you were just making a fool of yourself by citing (purported) income inequality as evidence of wealth inequality.

Reality says

Except the data you trust are very much put together by partisan ideologues
with strong emotional motives.

Can you not see that your opinion on the quality of that data is based solely on your own idealogy and emotional motive?

What if the data is accurate, or at least accurate enough to be directionally correct? Do you believe this possibility does not exist?

Homeboy says

indigenous says

If anything that is the point, income mobility.

Not any point WE were discussing.

Sure we are

Homeboy says

indigenous says

Really, how is that working out in China where when they went Capitalistic they did away with many of the free public services? Your idea of proof is to show a graph, which I have pointed out at least 4 times does not prove anything.

Nonsense. If you are making a claim, you MUST have evidence to support it. Data is evidence. Charts contain data. Your unfounded beliefs are not evidence. You understand that, don't you? The mere fact that you BELIEVE a thing does not render it true. If you don't comprehend the difference between fact and fantasy, I daresay there isn't much point in continuing to converse with you.

The data is easily found

Homeboy says

indigenous says

It is muy sequitur because 1/3 of the US budget goes or went to defense. If the US did not have to spend this they would have 1/3 more money to spend on the poor.

Now you seem to be making excuses for why the U.S. doesn't help their poor. Does this mean you concede that the poor in the U.S. are worse off than the poor in other developed countries?

I'm thinking the poor would be worse off if their country was occupied or defeated by a better financed army. Most of Europe does not have any military.

Homeboy says

ndigenous says

That there has been a correlation between the TBTF and the lowering of the standard of living of the middle class and the poor?

Please stop using acronyms.

Do you see the correlation?

Homeboy says

indigenous says

My thinking would be more towards a bottom up approach.

I agree, but nothing you have written thus far would seem to corroborate that.

The individual prospers in small groups he is crushed by a centralized authority. Change is effected at the bottom.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

Then the rule of law came about which started the manipulation of the law by using force to get what you wanted.

You don't believe anyone used force to get what he wanted before there were laws? For that matter, do you believe there was ever a time without any laws? Even animals have rules that are followed and ways to enforce them.

L

The rule of law is to facilitate trade. When it is abused, like it has been for the past 6 or so years (big fucking time), it is corrupt and unjust which is why people are so upset. You mention Warren Buffet above he would have lost a HUGE portion of his wealth if not for TARP, it is funny he looks like a grandpa out of central casting, clever disguise.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

See the paragraph above and then add in "we are the government we are going to help you"

That doesn't shed any light on what your specific point is and how it relates to the subject at hand. In fact it's even MORE vague.

The way that government co-opts especially in the beltway is with the carrot and the stick.

You give up your choice of healthcare and we will subsidize your insurance.

You stay unemployed and we well give you a 99 week vacation. You vote for this legislation and we will give you a campaign contribution.

You vote for this war and we will protect you from this enemy (straw enemy).

We will protect you from yourself by making sure you wear a seat belt, don't drink more than one beer and drive, don't use your cell phone while driving, make sure you don't have anything remotely dangerous on an airplane by onerous methods and not profile because it offends too many of our voters. Of course those expensive scanners are sold to the taxpayer by Michael Chertoff (former homeland security secretary)
All the while the real crimes solved is in the single digit percentages. But we will catch the drug impaired ones like nobodies business, more people in the US are locked up for drug abuse than any country in the world, by quantity.

You send your kids to this school and it is free of course but will drug them feed the pablum we call an education. He will be very "orientated" but incompetent at real skills. Of course the unions will see to it that system will not change at an expense that is literally bankrupting the country,

You trade in your guns and freedom and we will give you a nice gift certificate. Because they should only be used for hunting, not self defense.

You get to vote for the guy who is going to help you the most. Of course most congressman become millionaires after they are elected They legally profit from insider trading. 60 minutes did a story on this.

Close to half of jobs are government jobs, so the government can help you. At the federal level they make twice as much as their private sector equivalents. This script is something that permeates tv shows where the public servant is always always portrayed as noble and selfless and ethical beyond measure, or course a character in the private sector is portrayed as a derelict.

indigenous says

Close to half of jobs are government jobs, so the government can help you. At
the federal level they make twice as much as their private sector equivalents.

If you were a free market guy you would realize this is impossible. If the price of Public Labor was held artificially higher than private labor (for equivalent work) then we would have an increase demand from job seekers for public sector work and decreased demand from job seekers for private work.

Therefore - there would be a leftward shift of the supply of labor curve of private employees. Provided demand for private work is held constant - the price of that labor would increase to equal public cost.

The oversupply of public workers would drive wages down in the public sector.

In short, in a free labor market prices would equalize.

What would Hayek say?

He would probably say that there must not be an equality of work in the public vs private sector. That is, even though a bachelor's degreed public worker makes more on average than a public bachelor's degreed private worker, there must be another factor that makes the guy in the public job more desirable - otherwise there would be a private worker that would readily take his job for lower wage.

Or do we not see wage arbitrage across borders? No reason this would not happen in the US between public and private if wages we held higher for either artifically.

control point says

The oversupply of public workers would drive wages down in the public sector.

Eventually it will but for now Bernanke/Yellen are able to artificially keep the public employee wages high but that is temporary.

But that is by force. You are describing a free market which this certainly is not.

indigenous says

But that is by force. You are describing a free market which this certainly
is not.

So you are saying that the seller of labor (the worker) in the market (which is open to all, btw - there is no barrier to cross from the private sector to the public sector) is offering his labor at price X, but the buyer of the labor, the government, is saying, "No thanks, but I will take it at 1.16X?"

What you see in the CBO report tells you what is happening. That reports shows higher compensation for all level of education in the public sector EXCEPT doctorate's of professional degrees. What the CBO does not accomplish is showing the difference in compensation between job titles or descriptions, public vs. private.

The PPA study does this. What it finds it that salaries are ~26% lower for public sector workers doing the same work as private sector employees. It does not include benefits, however. As we all know public benefits are more rich than private benefits.

If it did include benefits in its analysis - total compensation for doing the same work would be equal, public vs. private because we have a free labor market.

This is what Hayek would tell you.

What this means is public workers are given more responsibilities, on the average, for a given educational level than their private counterparts. That is, the government does a better job of training its staff to accomplish work responsibilities. The private sector outsources that training to another party (University).

Compensation is higher for private workers at the top level of educational attainment because the supply of this expertise is low - it cannot be outsourced. The trend of public vs. private is downward sloping - the harder it is to outsource training for specific skills - the less likely it is that someone who does not have that outsourced training could do the job.

A mall security guard does not equal a border patrol agent, as far as job responsibilities. In the CBO comparison, they would be compared.

In America, the complaints about public worker compensation are thinly disquised jealosy and envy but more importantly the gripes are a distraction from asking the real question - why the pay is lower in the private sector. And the answer is paltry unionization, globalization/offshoring/outsourcing, lack of willingess to invest in training, etc.

indigenous says

Sure we are

Nope.

indigenous says

The data is easily found

Then find it.

indigenous says

Homeboy says

indigenous says

It is muy sequitur because 1/3 of the US budget goes or went to defense. If the US did not have to spend this they would have 1/3 more money to spend on the poor.

Now you seem to be making excuses for why the U.S. doesn't help their poor. Does this mean you concede that the poor in the U.S. are worse off than the poor in other developed countries?

I'm thinking the poor would be worse off if their country was occupied or defeated by a better financed army. Most of Europe does not have any military.

Non sequitur.

indigenous says

The individual prospers in small groups he is crushed by a centralized authority. Change is effected at the bottom.

You are a fountain of meaningless platitudes.

Reality says

Then you were just making a fool of yourself by citing (purported) income inequality as evidence of wealth inequality.

I didn't do that. I posted data showing BOTH. Now, would you kindly stop saying over and over that income and wealth are different, because we already know that. Thanks.

control point says

indigenous says

But that is by force. You are describing a free market which this certainly

is not.

So you are saying that the seller of labor (the worker) in the market (which is open to all, btw - there is no barrier to cross from the private sector to the public sector) is offering his labor at price X, but the buyer of the labor, the government, is saying, "No thanks, but I will take it at 1.16X?"

I'm going to answer that Anecdotaly, that you will ignore, but it has been my empirical understanding.

The government wants a construction job done it will use prevailing wages as per Davis Bacon. This is usually at least 1.5 times on the salary, they do not audit for benefits.

I have a relative who makes 80,000 a year as a grade school teacher here in Calif now consider that she works 9 mo her salary is actually by the time spent working around 107,000 plus benefits that are much higher than a private sector worker would get for both retirement and health care. I think she teaches 2nd grade. Imo this jobs is not worth that kind of compensation. She does have a masters degree but in all honesty you don't need a higher level education to teach 2nd graders.

Much of this comes from collective bargaining for public employees in Calif of which they are all in the union.

I don't think public jobs are as promoted or as available as private sector jobs otherwise there would be no labor left in the private sector.

I know of a retired college professor who is retired on 250 k a year it is quite common for cops in Calif to retire on 200k a year

control point says

The PPA study does this. What it finds it that salaries are ~26% lower for public sector workers doing the same work as private sector employees. It does not include benefits, however. As we all know public benefits are more rich than private benefits.

If it did include benefits in its analysis - total compensation for doing the same work would be equal, public vs. private because we have a free labor market.

As indicated above I don't see that as being true.

Another factor in this may well be that the worker in some areas of the private sector does pay much more so the private sector attracts the talent. Since the worker know his comparative advantage he may say that he can get more money in a public sector job because of his sub par skills.

control point says

What this means is public workers are given more responsibilities, on the average, for a given educational level than their private counterparts. That is, the government does a better job of training its staff to accomplish work responsibilities. The private sector outsources that training to another party (University).

Compensation is higher for private workers at the top level of educational attainment because the supply of this expertise is low - it cannot be outsourced. The trend of public vs. private is downward sloping - the harder it is to outsource training for specific skills - the less likely it is that someone who does not have that outsourced training could do the job.

I have not seen this as true. Certainly at the lower levels. Are you saying a TSA worker is well trained? Perhaps on the specific task of groping passengers but no matter how you slice it that is not a high skill level. If left to the private sector the scanners would be dumped and replaced with highly trained profilers using facial recognition software who would be paid 10 times what a TSA worker is paid and the luggage would be passed through a vacuum chamber. And we would have more security at a lower cost employing far fewer people. So an individual caring a gun into the LA airport would be dropped before he fired one shot.

The overarching issue on this is that the public sector worker does not have answer to the market. Because of the unions it is very difficult to fire him. So the name of the game is to do less with more i.e. build empires that make you appear irreplaceable. In the private sector it is the opposite.

In your studies does it show productivity per worker? By definition a product is something that someone would pay money for. In the private sector if the organization fails to do this it goes bankrupt. In the public sector their is no feed back on what productivity is because all government services could be done by the private sector at a better value meaning lower cost and higher quality because the private sector has to find out what really is the product and produce better than the competition, of which even if the government knew what the product was they have no competition.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

The data is easily found

Then find it.

Fuck you, find it yourself

Homeboy says

indigenous says

Homeboy says

indigenous says

It is muy sequitur because 1/3 of the US budget goes or went to defense. If the US did not have to spend this they would have 1/3 more money to spend on the poor.

Now you seem to be making excuses for why the U.S. doesn't help their poor. Does this mean you concede that the poor in the U.S. are worse off than the poor in other developed countries?

I'm thinking the poor would be worse off if their country was occupied or defeated by a better financed army. Most of Europe does not have any military.

Non sequitur.

Sure it is, if I have to explain that to you then I can't explain that to you.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

The individual prospers in small groups he is crushed by a centralized authority. Change is effected at the bottom.

You are a fountain of meaningless platitudes.

No it isn't. Do you think an individual does better raised by a family or by a centralized orphanage? Does he learn more from a school with half a dozen students per class room or in an auditorium with 100s of students?

Does he do better in a local church or learning that their is no god from the tv?

indigenous says

Homeboy says

indigenous says

The data is easily found

Then find it.

Fuck you, find it yourself

Uh huh - getting a little frustrated because you can't back up anything you say?

indigenous says

Now you seem to be making excuses for why the U.S. doesn't help their poor. Does this mean you concede that the poor in the U.S. are worse off than the poor in other developed countries?

I'm thinking the poor would be worse off if their country was occupied or defeated by a better financed army. Most of Europe does not have any military.

Non sequitur.

Sure it is, if I have to explain that to you then I can't explain that to you.

Sure it is a non sequitur. Glad you agree.indigenous says

You are a fountain of meaningless platitudes.

No it isn't. Do you think an individual does better raised by a family or by a centralized orphanage? Does he learn more from a school with half a dozen students per class room or in an auditorium with 100s of students?

Does he do better in a local church or learning that their is no god from the tv?

LOL - glad you proved you're not a fountain of meaningless platitudes.

Homeboy says

Uh huh - getting a little frustrated because you can't back up anything you say?

no you are a dumb ass and I'm tired of wasting my time showing you stuff that you refuse to look at.

indigenous says

no you are a dumb ass and I'm tired of wasting my time showing you stuff that you refuse to look at.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

I blame Regan for two things.
Bastardizing two great words.

First "Socialized Medicine" that was a kill shot to destroy any future argument for an efficient government based healthcare system.
Even Obama and Loony Sanders are too chicken shit to say Government ran Healthcare.

Second was conflate classic economics save, invest, earn interest on your money. With "Trickle Down Economics".
What in the fuck is an economy but money that trickles its way through the system in and out of yours or my pockets?

And where in the Fuck is your Tsunami Economics counter suggestion?

Ronald Reagan just appeared to me in my delusion.
He said my trickle down check is in the mail.