patrick.net

Homeboy says

Reality says

You are conflating wealth vs. income.

Bullshit. I am conflating nothing.

You cited (disposable) income numbers then talked about wealth and wealth distribution. Income is not the same as wealth. I already explained the difference between the two in the previous post. You will do better by reading it instead of emitting knee-jerk "bullshit."

Homeboy says

The German disposable income number is not at all comparable to the US disposable income number.

You are missing the point. If you can present DATA that show the bottom 20% in Germany are better off than the bottom 20% in the U.S., please do so. Otherwise, your contribution to this discussion is not relevant. Simply pointing out the obvious fact that there are different ways to measure wealth and income doesn't prove anything.

hmm, I thought you were trying to prove that the bottom 20% in Germany are better off than the bottom 20% in the US. In any case, I already explained in the previous post why the disposable income numbers are not the full picture. Medicine is much more expensive in the US, and for the bottom 20% in the US, medicine is provided essentially free of charge by taxpayers, yet not reflected in your numbers.

Homeboy says

It's not clear whether the numbers are adjusted for taxes and cash transfers . . . but it certainly does not include massive in-kind transfers such as Medicare and Medicaid. The bottom quintile in income in the US are mostly unemployed people on social security or SSDI.

You obviously missed our previous discussion about transfers. Please scroll back up the page and re-read the thread before you make stupid assumptions that have already been refuted.

Before calling people stupid, you can do better by paying attention to what I wrote: I made a specific distinction between in-kind transfer for medicine vs. cash transfer. The numbers you cited did not include in-kind transfer for medicine.

Reality says

Homeboy says

Why would I need a counter-argument to ad hominem, baiting, and lies? If you ever decide to make a cogent argument, I will counter it.

Ask yourself, and tell that to yourself.

Nope, I'm talking about you.

Saying that other forum members take "feel good meds" is ad hominem, and it's childish baiting. Saying that other countries don't cover medication is a lie. That's nothing more than trolling, and doesn't merit any kind of response other than to correctly point out that you're an asshole. The fact that I got 3 "likes" on that proves it. If you act like an asshole, you will be treated as such.

Reality says

You cited (disposable) income numbers then talked about wealth and wealth distribution.

Why do you put disposable in parentheses? I cited income, not disposable income. The reason I did so was to counter Indigenous' post in which he attempted to prove his point using INCOME charts. I showed that his charts were either manipulated or out of date, and used the same data source his INCOME chart supposedly came from to show that the bottom 20% in many developed countries are better off than in the U.S. If you have a beef with that, please bring it up with Indigenous.

Again, you need to scroll up and actually read the thread. Then you could avoid showing your ignorance as to what we are discussing.

Both wealth AND income are distributed unequally in the U.S. Your nitpick about wealth vs. income is simply not relevant. The point, that continues to elude you, is that in Germany (and that is only one country which happens to be the example we were discussing), the bottom 20% have a greater share of the country's money than do the bottom 20% in the U.S. You seem to have trouble seeing the forest for the trees.

Reality says

You will do better by reading it instead of emitting knee-jerk "bullshit."

No, I have read and participated in the thread. YOU are the one who doesn't know what's going on, and as a result are getting on really stupid sidetracks that aren't relevant to the discussion.

Reality says

hmm, I thought you were trying to prove that the bottom 20% in Germany are better off than the bottom 20% in the US. In any case, I already explained in the previous post why the disposable income numbers are not the full picture. Medicine is much more expensive in the US, and for the bottom 20% in the US, medicine is provided essentially free of charge by taxpayers, yet not reflected in your numbers.

This is merely a supposition on your part, and a weak one at that. Unless you have some DATA to contradict the data that I already posted, your contention that the poor in the U.S. are better off than the poor in other developed countries remains an unproven assertion, and everything you write here remains an irrelevant sidetrack. You might want to start by reviewing the discussion we already had about transfers before you make wild assertions about what you THINK you know about them.

You aren't providing any information here. You're merely selectively choosing OTHER people's contributions and picking away at them with stale criticisms. "Blah, blah, blah, your chart doesn't show x, y, z..." Great, post a chart that DOES show xyz and prove that it makes a difference. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

Reality says

Before calling people stupid, you can do better by paying attention to what I wrote: I made a specific distinction between in-kind transfer for medicine vs. cash transfer. The numbers you cited did not include in-kind transfer for medicine.

Nope, you just babbled about irrelevant nonsense. Please review the info on transfers. I won't waste my time re-posting things that you couldn't be bothered to read the first time.

Reality says

The bottom quintile in income in the US are mostly unemployed people on social security or SSDI. In many of these cases, the taxpayer paid medical bills alone can easily bankrupt a person making only the median of the top 20%; $80k can be burned up in a US hospital in a matter of a month (if not a week), not a year. The cash value of in-kind medical transfer is much lower in Germany.

Simple solution, prove it. We'll be waiting. and waiting and waiting and waiting.

BTW people collecting social security are called retired not unemployed. Perhaps you are not aware of it, but there are actually retired people in Germany also. They collect Germany's version of social security. Why don't they count?

Reality says

Dating cost more only because I make substantially more than median income or
what the girl does so I'm expected to pay for the dates; whatever I pay, she
doesn't have to, so it should not be included in the budget of a person at or
below median income.

I was talking about you, you said less than $1000 per month consistently for last 20 years. I said bullshit. It is still bullshit.

You proceeded to look up the cheapest stuff you could at Costco and post the prices for same. As if that has anything to do with what you have been doing consistently for the past 20 years.

If you buy only the cheapest meats available; changing from chicken breast to pork chops to chicken drumsticks; and you buy the cheapest fruits and vegetables regardless if you like them or not, and get some crazy deal on milk and car insurance. Not to mention depending on climate - either have your house extremely hot or extremely cold - and you don't have cable TV (but obviously an internet connection, one of the many monthly expenses I did not bring up and you didn't offer either.) You also apparently take your trash to the dump yourself.

And you dont go to the gym, or take vacations, or drink anything except water, never go out, or take someone on a date. You also never buy a snack or take a lunch break with coworkers.

Your car has lasted 14 years (probably 10 years after the warranty has expired) without any major repairs needed (or new tires, brakes, or even an oil change) and you never wash it apparently.

Then yes, I submit - you have lived the past 20 years on the equivalent of less than $1000 per month.

What a sorry 20 years they have been. No dating, no drinking, no vacations, driving around in a filthy beater car and living in a studio or 1 bedroom apartment that is always too hot or too cold, with no TV (or other forms of entertainment, apparently - Netflix?) except maybe a library card - where you read up on the German version of "General Theory."

Or you could be full of shit, and I am tired of talking to you. You are a sociopath whose lies come so fast and furious that I am not sure how you keep them straight. I guess that is your true talent.

Since your are incapable of being honest; you are incapable of actually learning anything. Your internet persona of a freedom seeking, Austrian liberatarian does not allow you to show that you have any understanding of the real world with real experience - otherwise - your ideology shows fault.

I am done arguing with a lying idealogue. Good job convincing exactly no one with an IQ over 105 of anything, ever.

Homeboy says

Nope, I'm talking about you.

Saying that other forum members take "feel good meds" is ad hominem, and it's childish baiting.

You volunteered such information yourself earlier.

Saying that other countries don't cover medication is a lie.

Not for the meds that you are taking.

That's nothing more than trolling, and doesn't merit any kind of response other than to correctly point out that you're an asshole. The fact that I got 3 "likes" on that proves it. If you act like an asshole, you will be treated as such.

Everyone has an asshole. If 3 "likes" by yourself means you don't have an asshole, you need more help from the doctors.

Homeboy says

Why do you put disposable in parentheses? I cited income, not disposable income.

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.

Homeboy says

Both wealth AND income are distributed unequally in the U.S. Your nitpick about wealth vs. income is simply not relevant.

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.

The point, that continues to elude you, is that in Germany (and that is only one country which happens to be the example we were discussing), the bottom 20% have a greater share of the country's money than do the bottom 20% in the U.S. You seem to have trouble seeing the forest for the trees.

Your numbers do not show that at all. Your numbers do not refer to the bottom 20% in wealth at all. Many of the people in the bottom 20% in income are retired homeowners, who can have far greater net worth than the typical 20-somthing 30-something making median wage at $50k, simply because the former owns his house whereas the latter not only doesn't own house but have a huge student debt.

On top of that, your numbers do not include the medical benefits that the bottom 20% by income in the US receive. The bottom 20% by income receive significant medical benefits, which are far more expensive in the US than in Germany. Many in the bottom 20% by income choose to be there precisely because they have medical needs.

Homeboy says

This is merely a supposition on your part, and a weak one at that. Unless you have some DATA to contradict the data that I already posted, your contention that the poor in the U.S. are better off than the poor in other developed countries remains an unproven assertion, and everything you write here remains an irrelevant sidetrack.

Indigenous already posted previously that the poor in the US has much bigger homes and far higher car ownership rate than other developed countries.

Homeboy says

You aren't providing any information here. You're merely selectively choosing OTHER people's contributions and picking away at them with stale criticisms. "Blah, blah, blah, your chart doesn't show x, y, z..." Great, post a chart that DOES show xyz and prove that it makes a difference. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

Actually picking apart your citation is a much more logically correct way of refuting you than if I had actually cited something else. You cited some numbers and charts to prove your point. My pointing out the breakdown in logic between your citation and your thesis is the correct refutation. If I had cited something else, then we'd be in a pointless my data vs. your data argument.

bob2356 says

Simple solution, prove it. We'll be waiting. and waiting and waiting and waiting.

Prove what? That the bottom 20% in income after tax and transfers consists mostly of people relying on government transfers? That data is freely provided by IRS. Or do you want proof that a hospital stay can burn up more than $80k/mo? Do you want a proof that the sun rises in the east every day to go with them?

bob2356 says

BTW people collecting social security are called retired not unemployed. Perhaps you are not aware of it, but there are actually retired people in Germany also. They collect Germany's version of social security. Why don't they count?

German retirement age is 65. In the US, for those in the bottom 20% quintile in income, eligibility is at 62. In case you did not notice, an even more important point that I made regarding SSI (Supplemental Security Income) which is funded by general fund not Social Security and SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance). There are currently over 14 million people on Supplemental under the age 65 and nearly 9 million people on SSDI, total 23 million compared to about 40 million people on Social Security at age over 65. It should be fairly obvious that those 63 million people comprise the bulk of the bottom 20% in income. The entire 23 million under 65 are probably in the bottom 20% by government statistics as illegal income and payment under the table wouldn't be counted, and their legal income have to be under a threshold to qualify SSI and SSDI.

control point says

I was talking about you, you said less than $1000 per month consistently for last 20 years. I said bullshit. It is still bullshit.

I said personal expenses not including housing expense, and the average over 20+ years was consistently under $1000. And that statement was truthful.

You proceeded to look up the cheapest stuff you could at Costco and post the prices for same. As if that has anything to do with what you have been doing consistently for the past 20 years.

I did not have to look up, simply because those were the things that I bought. I don't think anyone would consider fresh whole salmon as the cheapest stuff. In fact, by the pound, it is probably more expensive than 80% the food sold at Costco. The cheapest animal source food is probably egg. I did not include any egg in my list because I don't like eggs.

control point says

If you buy only the cheapest meats available; changing from chicken breast to pork chops to chicken drumsticks;

Not drumsticks yet, but I do switch between chicken breasts and pork loins depending on whichever is less expensive. In case it is not obvious, chicken breast is the leanest and most expensive cut on a chicken. Pork loins are also the leanest and most expensive cut on a pig (aside from specialty items or the same pork loin sliced the other way with the T bone still on for aesthetic reasons). Drumsticks, thighs and eggs are much less expensive than boneless chicken breast, and whole ham can be had for less than $1.50/lb at grocery store sales.

and you buy the cheapest fruits and vegetables regardless if you like them or not,

No I do not. When watermelon is available for $0.25 a pound or even $0.15 a pound, there's plenty room for cherries at $4/lb fitting into the $1.50/lb average. I had a quite a lot of cherries this past summer, and lobsters (half a dozen of them this past fall season at around $4-6/lb)

and get some crazy deal on milk and car insurance.

Nothing crazy. You can buy those everyday at Costco. Even the gas stations and the convenient store near my house are selling milk at $2.99/gallon. Car insurance is low thanks to not having a new car.

Not to mention depending on climate - either have your house extremely hot or extremely cold

The house is designed and insulated very well.

- and you don't have cable TV (but obviously an internet connection, one of the many monthly expenses I did not bring up and you didn't offer either.)

I don't watch TV, so no cable expense for me. Internet is covered in the phone bill or via work internet.

You also apparently take your trash to the dump yourself.

I did when I lived in different towns previously. Nowadays, the city picks it up at the curb side, covered by the housing expense that I pay in property taxes.

Reality says

I said personal expenses not including housing expense, and the average over
20+ years was consistently under $1000. And that statement was truthful.

I don't argue with liars bro. Discussion with you is pointless. Anyone who is curious about this - in order to believe Reality, go here:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ap

You must believe that he is able to consistently buy some this stuff stuff 25-40% under the national average.

control point says

And you dont go to the gym, or take vacations, or drink anything except water, never go out, or take someone on a date. You also never buy a snack or take a lunch break with coworkers.

I have my own gym equipment at home. Milk was an explicit item in my list. Canned frozen OJ is an even less expensive substitute in winter months than the fresh fruits cited in my list. I already said dating expense is not in the personal expense list because what I pay on dates is a result of my income being substantially above median. When I was at median income or below, I did not go on extravagant dates or vacations.

Your car has lasted 14 years (probably 10 years after the warranty has expired) without any major repairs needed (or new tires, brakes, or even an oil change) and you never wash it apparently.

I change oil myself, and wash the car with garden hose. Repairs have been running at about $500-1000 every 3 years or so; i.e. $15-30/mo on average. Frankly, if not for my business needs, I don't even need a car. The car actually makes money for me on usage due to mileage method tax deduction being higher than the actual expense on the car. The actual cost of running the car is about 10cents to 15cents per mile right now on an ongoing basis; even factoring in the initial cost of acquisition adding another 25 cents per mile so far (and declining) . . . that's 35cents to 40cents per mile, whereas the mileage rate is over 50cents per mile. So every mile I drive for business I actually earn money. Too bad I don't have the time to drive a shitload of miles.

Then yes, I submit - you have lived the past 20 years on the equivalent of less than $1000 per month.

What a sorry 20 years they have been. No dating, no drinking, no vacations, driving around in a filthy beater car and living in a studio or 1 bedroom apartment that is always too hot or too cold, with no TV (or other forms of entertainment, apparently - Netflix?) except maybe a library card - where you read up on the German version of "General Theory."

Most people do not live alone. So the per head expense would be even lower than 1BR living. BTW, I live in a 2BR in a building owned by myself. When I was married, it was a 4BR single-family for me, my wife, my kid and a live-in nanny; so utilities should be split 3 or 4 ways for the analysis that we are doing here, my share was even lower than what I have now by myself. Dating expense is excluded from the list for the reason I cited: every cent I spent on dating was something my GF at or below median income didn't have to spend. I didn't spend much on dating when I was at or below median income myself. Dating for young people don't have to be expensive. If you choose to rack up a huge credit card debt on expensive dates, it's your own problem, by choice!

BTW, what I have is not a "filthy beater car" either. It still shines when rinsed or after rain, and no visible body rust anywhere.

control point says

Or you could be full of shit, and I am tired of talking to you. You are a sociopath whose lies come so fast and furious that I am not sure how you keep them straight. I guess that is your true talent.

No lies are necessary. What I presented were truths. If you choose to eat hotdogs and raman then waste your money on expensive dates while not having a commeasurate income, that's your own problem, not mine. Just don't expect taxpayers to subsidize your wasteful living.

Since your are incapable of being honest; you are incapable of actually learning anything. Your internet persona of a freedom seeking, Austrian liberatarian does not allow you to show that you have any understanding of the real world with real experience - otherwise - your ideology shows fault.

What fault? That I can manage my life more efficiently than you do? A healthier diet and healthier life style at a lower cost than you can manage? Somehow that's my fault?

I am done arguing with a lying idealogue. Good job convincing exactly no one with an IQ over 105 of anything, ever.

It's actually easier for me to convince people with IQ over 105 than doing the same with people having sub-90 IQ.

control point says

Reality says

I said personal expenses not including housing expense, and the average over

20+ years was consistently under $1000. And that statement was truthful.

I don't argue with liars bro. Discussion with you is pointless. Anyone who is curious about this - in order to believe Reality, go here:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ap

You must believe that he is able to consistently buy some this stuff stuff 25-40% under the national average.

You can go to the Costco nearest you to find confirmation of my prices. If you choose not to shop around for your money, that's your own problem.

I'm no bro of fools who thinks the least expensive and most cost-effective foods are hot dogs and raman.

Reality says

What fault? That I can manage my life more efficiently than you do? A
healthier diet and healthier life style at a lower cost than you can manage?
Somehow that's my fault?

I love dick swinging contests. I have done 8 lifetime full IMs including 2 in the past 8 months and was a conference champion swimmer in college. My weight is within 5 pounds of when I was 22.

Reality says

It's actually easier for me to convince people with IQ over 105 than doing
the same with people having sub-90 IQ.

Not on this site.

control point says

What fault? That I can manage my life more efficiently than you do? A

healthier diet and healthier life style at a lower cost than you can manage?

Somehow that's my fault?

I love dick swinging contests. I have done 8 lifetime full IMs including 2 in the past 8 months and was a conference champion swimmer in college. My weight is within 5 pounds of when I was 22.

Talk about dick swinging contests here, or should I just accuse you of lying without any basis like you are prone to do? I'm actually at the same weight as when I was 22.

control point says

Reality says

It's actually easier for me to convince people with IQ over 105 than doing

the same with people having sub-90 IQ.

Not on this site.

How would you even know? I'd peg you at sub-90 just for suggesting the way to save money on food is eating hot dogs and raman. Perhaps all the years of holding your breath in swimming did some damage to your brain.

Reality says

How would you even know?

Aptitude observation of both your followers and your antagonists.

control point says

Reality says

How would you even know?

Aptitude observation of both your followers and your antagonists.

In case you didn't notice, my followers actually have the intellect to read and absorb real books on economics. . . whereas my antagonists are pompous fools who don't even know the most basic concepts in economics while pretending to be market gurus, those on psychotropic drugs, and those whose brain is damaged by under water sports :-)

Reality says

I'd peg you at sub-90 just for suggesting the way to save money on food is
eating hot dogs and raman. Perhaps all the years of holding your breath in
swimming did some damage to your brain.

Good one. If true, it actually reflects poorly on you that you decide to engage those beneath you.

I learned long ago that debate with morons is unavailing.

control point says

Reality says

I'd peg you at sub-90 just for suggesting the way to save money on food is

eating hot dogs and raman. Perhaps all the years of holding your breath in

swimming did some damage to your brain.

Good one. If true, it actually reflects poorly on you that you decide to engage those beneath you.

I learned long ago that debate with morons is unavailing.

I have an IQ over 140. If I stop engage all those beneath me in IQ, I wouldn't have many people to talk to. I have learned long time ago how to put up with and put down people with lower IQ . . . a necessary skill in life for people with exceptionally high IQ.

Reality says

I have an IQ over 140. If I stop engage all those beneath me in IQ, I wouldn't
have many people to talk to.

I suggest you move to Pasadena or Cambridge, you'll find a whole world of people to talk to.

Stop wasting your gift trolling internet forums.

control point says

Reality says

I have an IQ over 140. If I stop engage all those beneath me in IQ, I wouldn't

have many people to talk to.

I suggest you move to Pasadena or Cambridge, you'll find a whole world of people to talk to.

Stop wasting your gift trolling internet forums.

I did live in Cambridge, for over a decade. I keep running into "emigres" from Cambridge as my new neighbors even as I move from place to place in the past decade.

Reality says

I did live in Cambridge, for over a decade. I keep running into "emigres"
from Cambridge as my new neighbors even as I move from place to place in the
past decade.

Well then, it would seem your previous comment about having few to talk to would be hyperbole.

And by the way - the internet is vast. The expected value with no selection bias of the number of daily visitors to patrick.net with IQ above 140 would be 22. (Based on ~15k daily visitors) Including yourself, that leaves 21 others.

Maybe your opportunity for debate aren't as few and far between as you thought. Maybe I am one of the 21.

control point says

Reality says

I did live in Cambridge, for over a decade. I keep running into "emigres"

from Cambridge as my new neighbors even as I move from place to place in the

past decade.

Well then, it would seem your previous comment about having few to talk to would be hyperbole.

Not a hyperbole. Even in my current neighborhood, the overwhelming majority of the population do not have IQ over 140. I do miss some of the Cambridge years.

And by the way - the internet is vast. The expected value with no selection bias of the number of daily visitors to patrick.net with IQ above 140 would be 22. (Based on ~15k daily visitors)

I do not have time to read 15,000 posts daily on pnet; nor do I think there are 15,000 posts or even 15,000 unique visitors to pnet every day.

Including yourself, that leaves 21 others.

Maybe your opportunity for debate aren't as few and far between as you thought. Maybe I am one of the 21.

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. The only point of occasional disagreement is whether it is profitable to use the government to exploit "the fools" and for how long. There isn't much a debate when two parties agree . . . and the topic of how to exploit "the fools" is somewhat distasteful for me.

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.

As for me, don't know what my IQ is, though I would guess it is below 140. Have never taken a formal IQ test - though I have taken tests that are accepted as substitutes for IQ tests by various high IQ societies. Have never been in the top .15% of those, though they have a high amount of selection bias in their score distributions.

The chart in the link below has me pretty close - unsure of its validity.

http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-SATchart.htm

And by the way, I think p.net advertises 15k unique daily visitors.

Reality says

Homeboy says

Nope, I'm talking about you.

Saying that other forum members take "feel good meds" is ad hominem, and it's childish baiting.

You volunteered such information yourself earlier.

I did not, you lying troll.

Reality says

Not for the meds that you are taking.

No proof, just more trolling.

Reality says

Everyone has an asshole. If 3 "likes" by yourself means you don't have an asshole, you need more help from the doctors.

You can only "like" your own post once, dumbshit. If I did them myself, then it would be only one "like", such as YOUR posts have. LOL.

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?

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.

Reality says

Your numbers do not show that at all. Your numbers do not refer to the bottom 20% in wealth at all. Many of the people in the bottom 20% in income are retired homeowners, who can have far greater net worth than the typical 20-somthing 30-something making median wage at $50k, simply because the former owns his house whereas the latter not only doesn't own house but have a huge student debt.

On top of that, your numbers do not include the medical benefits that the bottom 20% by income in the US receive. The bottom 20% by income receive significant medical benefits, which are far more expensive in the US than in Germany. Many in the bottom 20% by income choose to be there precisely because they have medical needs.

Again, Indigenous attempted to prove his point by submitting charts of INCOME, so I refuted him with data on income. If you have a problem with that, bring it up with Indigenous. What part of that didn't you understand?

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

I'm no longer going to listen to you nitpick away at other people's data unless you have a point to make. As I said, if you believe the data that has been presented here is missing something crucial, and if taking that crucial element into account would show that the U.S. has the most equal wealth distribution in the world, then PROVE it, or else shut the fuck up.

Reality says

Actually picking apart your citation is a much more logically correct way of refuting you than if I had actually cited something else. You cited some numbers and charts to prove your point. My pointing out the breakdown in logic between your citation and your thesis is the correct refutation. If I had cited something else, then we'd be in a pointless my data vs. your data argument.

Translation: You can't prove anything you're saying because you're making it up as you go along.

Reality says

I have an IQ over 140.

And I'm the queen of England.

Reality says

Perhaps all the years of holding your breath in swimming did some damage to your brain.

Stay classy, Reality. I wish I had a 140 IQ like you so I could come up with great intellectual arguments like that one.

Homeboy says

Again, Indigenous attempted to prove his point by submitting charts of INCOME, so I refuted him with data on income. If you have a problem with that, bring it up with Indigenous.

No you didn't. CP demonstrated that the graph was based on household income and not individual income and I conceded that point. The graph was mislabeled.

The graph does show that the lowest quintile was as well off as most European countries on the graph. Neither you nor CP refuted this.

But as I indicated these graphs are notorious for being misleading and difficult to attribute to one input.

Here is an article about inequality by the Sowell man:

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/01/28/the-inequality-bogeyman-n1785593

In it he speaks of the importance of the division of labor and comparative advantage. This is why we have a higher standard of living.

Comparative advantage works because of the exchange of ideas. No one really is the sole owner of an idea, Steve Jobs did not think up his ideas in an ivory tower, he got them from others and then added to them, and most importantly brought them to fruition in the market place. Same as Rockfelllar, or the much hated Koch brothers or Bill gates.

The idea of IQ really is not that important, I'm pretty smart as far as I know, which is what I hear from the dumbest people I meet.

What is important is the willingness to communicate. This is the Mason Dixon line on the subject. If one wants to stay sequestered, a slave to his own ideas then that is what I call stupidity. Especially when knowledge is so easily obtained with the internet.

The idea of Austrian ecomomics and Libertarianism places a premium on freedom. The key to freedom is knowing the rules of the game. This is not arrived at through math as math is an analogy (for economic purposes) but not the logic required to follow Austrian economics.

indigenous says

No you didn't. CP demonstrated that the graph was based on household income and not individual income and I conceded that point. The graph was mislabeled.

The graph does show that the lowest quintile was as well off as most European countries on the graph. Neither you nor CP refuted this.

But as I indicated these graphs are notorious for being misleading and difficult to attribute to one input.

I have to admit it takes a lot of balls to be as wrong as you are and still stick to your argument - to base your entire argument on a particular premise, have that premise proven wrong, ADMIT that the premise is wrong, yet still insist you are right. The captain always goes down with the ship, I guess - LOL.

indigenous says

Here is an article about inequality by the Sowell man:

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/01/28/the-inequality-bogeyman-n1785593

Snore....

Homeboy says

to base your entire argument on a particular premise,

The premise that I'm arguing against, is that inequality/equality is important, it is not.

Homeboy says

Snore....

Willful ignorance...

indigenous says

The premise that I'm arguing against, is that inequality/equality is important, it is not.

Glad you told us that. Your premise seems to change from moment to moment, depending what's convenient for you, I guess.

indigenous says

Willful ignorance...

Denial...

Homeboy says

Glad you told us that. Your premise seems to change from moment to moment, depending what's convenient for you, I guess.

It was the premise of the OP.

It is Reich's, Warren's, Obama's very tiresome tautology.

indigenous says

Homeboy says

Glad you told us that. Your premise seems to change from moment to moment, depending what's convenient for you, I guess.

It was the premise of the OP.

Originally, you wrote:

"disparity does not matter i.e. the poor in the US are way better off than the middle class in most of the world."

So no, you didn't just say wealth equality is unimportant, you said it was unimportant BECAUSE the poor in the US are "way better off than the middle class in most of the world." Then when I showed that the poor in the U.S. are NOT better off than the poor in other developed countries, you claimed I was in error due to the difference between median income and median household income.

Now you seem to have entirely abandoned that line of reasoning.

You seem to change the point you're supposedly making at will. I'm not sure if you're being deceitful or if you suffer from ADD. I wouldn't think you would do very well on an IQ test, as your mind seems to wander a lot.

Homeboy says

disparity does not matter i.e. the poor in the US are way better off than the middle class in most of the world.

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

Homeboy says

You seem to change the point you're supposedly making at will. I'm not sure if you're being deceitful or if you suffer from ADD. I wouldn't think you would do very well on an IQ test, as your mind seems to wander a lot.

You are projecting

You ignore the Sowell article

Few people stay in the bottom quintile for long

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The European countries are small and have a homogeneous culture which is easier to handle.

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

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.

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

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.

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

indigenous says

Few people stay in the bottom quintile for long

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

These points are counter to one another. If most of the low income are retired - they aren't going to suddenly increase income and move out of the low income quintile - their income is fixed for the most part. Either the poor are retired and will stay poor, or they are not retired and will move up. One or the other, pick a side.

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

Most other first world developed nations have single payer. This is at best a wash when comparing the US to them. You cannot say "Our poor aren't that poor because of the transfer of health care payments" - unless those who you are comparing them to do not have a transfer of health care payments.

Same thing applies to SS. SS-similar plans in Europe are better than SS here.

control point says

These points are counter to one another. If most of the low income are retired - they aren't going to suddenly increase income and move out of the low income quintile - their income is fixed for the most part. Either the poor are retired and will stay poor, or they are not retired and will move up. One or the other, pick a side.

You are right but in either case the bottom quintile is not as it is made out to be.

control point says

This is at best a wash when comparing the US to them.

A wash works for me.

That overarching point that I look at is economic mobility. Which has taken a huge hit in the past decade. The core cause of this is socialism.

BTW this socialism will be the cause of a world wide depression as once the US falls or stagnates so goes the world.

sbh says

indigenous says

You are projecting

This only said when you're losing the argument.

Ad Hominem

sbh says

control poin says

What a sorry 20 years they have been. No dating, no drinking, no vacations, driving around in a filthy beater car and living in a studio or 1 bedroom apartment that is always too hot or too cold, with no TV (or other forms of entertainment, apparently - Netflix?) except maybe a library card - where you read up on the German version of "General Theory."

Or you could be full of shit, and I am tired of talking to you. You are a sociopath whose lies come so fast and furious that I am not sure how you keep them straight. I guess that is your true talent.

Since your are incapable of being honest; you are incapable of actually learning anything. Your internet persona of a freedom seeking, Austrian liberatarian does not allow you to show that you have any understanding of the real world with real experience - otherwise - your ideology shows fault.

As I said: an artificial person; homeless in the truest sense.

You managed to quote 3 paragraphs of complete falsehood then add your agreement to it. No wonder you have a sense of belonging to someone else, as in being a dutiful slave belonging to the slave masters and puppeteers!

In case you did not read my follow up to the quote above, there is not a shred of truth in those 3 paragraphs:

In those 20 years, I dated (even married and had a child), I drank (though very light on alcohol myself but served plenty alcohol to GF's); my car is not a filthy beater but full leather and real wood without any blemish to either after 12+ years ("the 14th year," as the car having been put in service in the Spring of 2001); I now live in a 2BR apt by myself in a building that I own and the interior temperature is very well controlled at low cost thanks to good insulation (for most of the previous 20+ years, I lived in single family homes while being married and the few years living together before marriage); I do have TV's, but I don't watch them; I had plenty entertainment in those 20+ years: half a dozen pretty girlfriends in their early to mid-20's in the half decade after my separation and divorce from a decade long marriage! With pretty and entertaining girlfriends, amicable ex-wife and worshipful kid, why would I need to watch TV at home? When I have my model-grade sex partner in front of me, why do I need to live vicariously through TV characters? BTW, when time together with a GF has to be filled in by a TV, I know it's time to get a new one. Library card is actually something I don't have.

I did not make a single lie in my budget list to control point, and he is apparently not tired of talking to me even after writing that post claiming to be tired from it. LOL.

sbh says

Reality says

a sense of belonging to someone else, as in being a dutiful slave belonging to the slave masters and puppeteers!

This is how you define everyone save yourself. You married a racist fascist and raised a racist fascist and now date racist fascists.

Nope. I only date open-minded people. Ironic what you wrote, I was actually in an inter-racial marriage, with both partners having come from diverse ancestry.

sbh says

The second one is my favorite. "Model-grade sex partner" Really? Hyphenated, no less! And, not to be outdone: love doesn't warrant an honorable mention, no, the "offspring" "worships" you

Those were meant to be intermediate-term relationships after my decade-long marriage. Fun and entertainment were the goals not marriage, and it was made clear to each of my GF's and accepted as such. I was not in a position to fall in love again so soon after the end of my decade-long marriage; besides, I fully intend to keep my original vows of "love, cherish and support" to my ex-wife despite the divorce, albeit no longer in the sexual context, so I have to be selective about signing up new long term partners that can become new liability. Yes, sometimes dramas did rise despite best of intentions to avoid them.

sbh says

You're a sociopath, an automaton. You're indescribably creepy. What did your childhood neighbors think when all the local pets started disappearing?

Once again rather ironic, considering that I'm actually taking care of the cats of an ex-girlfriend because she got herself knocked up by someone else in a one-night stand and she and her partner can't afford a place that allow pets after she had to give up her own apartment due to complications and extended hospital stay during the pregnancy. Yes, dating pretty girls does have a downside: they have too many "options" standing by, and most of those brokes can be quite catastrophic as she is finding out now. OTOH, for the relationships that I'm looking for, their ready ability to find a new partner also assuages my sense of guilt for taking up their time without pursuing marriage with them.