-->
@TheRealNihilist
No, I'm not ignoring you. I just haven't been at a computer.
Liberalism In Action
Posts
Total:
82
-->
@SirAnonymous
Here's a link.This article explains data from the Census Bureau. From 1967 to 2018, the real, inflation-adjusted income of the bottom 20% has increased by 28.8%.
Do you accept that the increase has been much higher for the rich so much so the divide is much higher than earlier years?
No, I'm not ignoring you. I just haven't been at a computer.
How about the logic thread you created where you didn't reply back?
-->
@SirAnonymous
I am going to give you a question in your thread. Be sure to reply if you want too.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yes, but so long as the poor are getting richer too, it really doesn't matter. Jeff Bezos getting richer doesn't make anyone else poorer. Wealth is not a zero-sum game.Do you accept that the increase has been much higher for the rich so much so the divide is much higher than earlier years?
How about the logic thread you created where you didn't reply back?
Sorry about that. I forgot about it.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Yes, but so long as the poor are getting richer too, it really doesn't matter.
Okay.
Before 21st Century
Rich people 8
Poor people 2
Currently
Rich people 32
Poor people 10
'Numbers are not supposed to be accurate'
Even though the poor are getting richer don't you see the divide between the rich and poor is increasing?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yes. It just doesn't really matter. Quite frankly, I don't care how much richer the rich are than everyone else, just so long as everyone else is getting richer too.
-->
@SirAnonymous
So you are okay with lets say a recession and the rich are billionaires and there is no millionaires just people with a dollar to their name. Lets say every year they make another dollar. Would you be okay with that?I don't care how much richer the rich are than everyone else, just so long as everyone else is getting richer too.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
No, I wouldn't be okay with that, but that's because the poor would get poorer in that situation in absolute terms, and I do have a problem with that. I would also have a problem with how slowly the poor would be getting richer. I'm fine with income inequality. I'm not fine with recession and poverty, but that's not what we see in America (at least not to that extreme).
To illustrate my point, would you be okay with an economy where everyone's income was equal at $1 a week? Of course not. There are all sorts of economic factors other than income inequality. Your question is akin to asking someone who says that an increasing GDB is good if he would be okay with a growth rate of 0.000001 percent.
-->
@SirAnonymous
No, I wouldn't be okay with that, but that's because the poor would get poorer in that situation in absolute terms
Please clarify. My example was 100% close to reality excluding the numbers of course. Even with the link provided if you look at the graph the poor have stagnated/steadily increasing while also the rich increasing drastically.
I would also have a problem with how slowly the poor would be getting richer
With the link provided that is true. Look at the graph.
As you can see:
The bottom quintile barely moved.
4th quintile are moving more than the bottom but not by much.
Middle quintile more then 4th.
2nd quintile most so far.
Top Quintile much more than 2nd.
Top 5% on par give or take with 2nd.
To illustrate my point, would you be okay with an economy where everyone's income was equal at $1 a week?
No and I wouldn't be okay with barely any progression between the bottom, 4th and middle.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Please clarify. My example was 100% close to reality excluding the numbers of course.
Which example are you referring to?
1.
Before 21st CenturyRich people 8Poor people 2CurrentlyRich people 32Poor people 10
or 2.
So you are okay with lets say a recession and the rich are billionaires and there is no millionaires just people with a dollar to their name. Lets say every year they make another dollar. Would you be okay with that?
Even though I'm not sure which you're referring to, I will try to clarify as best I can. I'm saying that increasing income inequality is not a bad thing, so long as the poor are getting richer. However, that is not an absolute statement (which I think is the point of confusion). I'm not fine with situations where the poor make only a few dollars and their income improves only by a dollar each year. However, the problem in that scenario isn't that the rich are richer than the poor; the problem is that the poor are in extreme poverty and their incomes are increasing very slowly. (I'm ignoring the fact that such a scenario would almost certainly be a result of the rich controlling an oppressive government, in which case the oppression is the main problem) To use an analogy, an increasing GDP is a good thing; however, that does not mean every country with an increasing GDP is in a good economic condition. A country can have an increasing GDP, but only have a $1 GDP. In other words, simply because a country has an economic quality that is either good or at least not bad does not mean that the country is in a good economic state. I hope this rambling makes sense. Economics is complicated.
With the link provided that is true. Look at the graph.As you can see:The bottom quintile barely moved.4th quintile are moving more than the bottom but not by much.Middle quintile more then 4th.2nd quintile most so far.Top Quintile much more than 2nd.Top 5% on par give or take with 2nd.
The bottom quintile (why does the spellchecker think that isn't a word?) doesn't "barely move." It increased 28.8%. The reason it looks like it barely moved is because the graph is so zoomed out. That is an improvement, and it's improving from an already excellent position (on a worldwide scale).
No and I wouldn't be okay with barely any progression between the bottom, 4th and middle.
28.8% is better than barely any. However, this doesn't have much to do with why income inequality is bad. Yes, it exists; but what's wrong with it? How does the 1% getting richer hurt me? It's not like the just lock their money in a safe and let it rot. They invest it in their businesses or in the bank, which invests it. Those investments help the economy. They can be used to start more businesses, lower prices, and hire employees. What's bad about that?
-->
@SirAnonymous
1Which example are you referring to?
Economics is complicated.
I think people can get by simply understanding supply and demand but with this topic I guess there is more.
That is an improvement, and it's improving from an already excellent position (on a worldwide scale).
Are you actually comparing this to 3rd world countries? This is not a fair comparison. Of course the number would be high but would it as high compared to European countries?
but what's wrong with it? How does the 1% getting richer hurt me?
Too much will lead to a revolution. A far right one or a far left one. It is just a matter of which side is displaced more. Maybe they will come together. Link
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you actually comparing this to 3rd world countries? This is not a fair comparison.
Depends on how you look at. To some degree it's unfair, but it also illustrates just how well America is doing.
Of course the number would be high but would it as high compared to European countries?
Pretty well, actually.
Too much will lead to a revolution.
That's a political problem, not an economic problem. Also, nearly every country has income inequality, but most don't have revolutions. I think it would take a lot more than that to incite a revolution.
Maybe they will come together.
I know I shouldn't find this funny, but the idea of Alex Jones teaming up with Ocasio-Cortez to overthrow the 1% is a ridiculous image.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Depends on how you look at. To some degree it's unfair, but it also illustrates just how well America is doing.
If you don't it is unfair please see this. All of them are actually making the bare increase that much greater because you are not comparing the US last year household income but you are comparing this year US to other countries. This is what I consider a bad way of finding out if the US is improving by comparing barely even comparable countries to the US.
I don't know why you posted the dailycaller because I find them to be spreading misinformation. If you want I will talk about the very link you gave me but if not I will just talk about forbes. If it wasn't clear my claim wasn't America wasn't better then in 2013 compared to 2012 but my claim was to say America can't do better would be a lie. This even makes this claim "The poor in the US are richer than around 70% of all the people extant." Using unfair places to compare a developed country like the US. Of course a places that don't even have drinking water would be worse than the poor in the US. Don't you want to do better than that?
That's a political problem, not an economic problem. Also, nearly every country has income inequality, but most don't have revolutions. I think it would take a lot more than that to incite a revolution.
Politics and economics do mix together. Whenever a revolution does occur it will impact the economy. Yes it would take a lot to incite the economy and enough income inequality can do just that.
I know I shouldn't find this funny, but the idea of Alex Jones teaming up with Ocasio-Cortez to overthrow the 1% is a ridiculous image.
Funny but can happen.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If you don't it is unfair please see this. All of them are actually making the bare increase that much greater because you are not comparing the US last year household income but you are comparing this year US to other countries. This is what I consider a bad way of finding out if the US is improving by comparing barely even comparable countries to the US.
I sort of see your point, given that there are far more developing countries than developed countries, which would skew the numbers.
I don't know why you posted the dailycaller because I find them to be spreading misinformation.
I know they have an obvious bias, but I haven't known them to spread misinformation. In any case, it doesn't matter so far as that article is concerned, because the stats are from other, non-Daily-Caller organizations. They're just citing statistics.
Don't you want to do better than that?
I probably should have been more clear in how I was using that article. Reread the Forbes article and pay attention to the European countries it mentions. Out of the 5-6 it mentions, the only one with a bottom 10% that's doing better than America's is Sweden. America's bottom 10% does better than the bottom 10% in France and Germany and is comparable to the bottom 10% in Finland and Denmark.
Politics and economics do mix together. Whenever a revolution does occur it will impact the economy. Yes it would take a lot to incite the economy and enough income inequality can do just that.
It would take a lot more than what's in the US. Also, I think that revolutions based on income inequality are sparked in large part because the income inequality is due to an oppressive government (the French revolution for instance), which we don't really have in the US.
Funny but can happen.
Maybe, but I doubt it. The far right has the guns to try it but isn't so concerned with income inequality. If they revolted, it wouldn't be because of that. The far left is opposed to guns and doesn't really have any, so I don't know how they would revolt.
TRN tends to think in absolute terms.However, that is not an absolute statement (which I think is the point of confusion).
-->
@SirAnonymous
See Paul's post above. He calls them suckers.
Just because he's using insults doesn't mean anyone else should.
I didn't think it was an insult, and I doubt Paul did either. Anyway, it was not justification for my comment. I just wanted you to see that others do not share your view.
Counterproductive to what?
Changing people's minds.
That has not been my experience. But as I have no interest in changing minds, it isn't counterproductive to me.
Those were not insults
"Poor voting slave" is an insult.
Then we disagree. I value truth over tolerance.
I am uninterested in changing people's minds. Changed minds are just a happy serendipity of my good arguments.
Why would people join the conservative movement if we don't change their minds?
I am not campaigning for any "movement". People will become conservative when they see the stupidity of the liberal position. Calling it anything other than stupid is both dishonest and incorrect.
But please, you do you.
-->
@SirAnonymous
I sort of see your point, given that there are far more developing countries than developed countries, which would skew the numbers.
Any developing country would just make the US better. It is only fair to target countries that are comparable not places that barely have governance.
They're just citing statistics.
First link goes to another article. CBSnews to be exact.
Second Link is to wikipedia.
Third Link to another article instead of OECD directly.
To say they are citing statistics wouldn't be correct. If they did the only link they need is to the OECD.
Reread the Forbes article and pay attention to the European countries it mentions.
He didn't cite a single source because it was an opinion so he didn't need to do it.
I think that revolutions based on income inequality are sparked in large part because the income inequality is due to an oppressive government
It would be also the ability to revolutionize. That is key given Kim is a dictator yet no one can oppose him. I think oppression can be occurring but income inequality I think would be the main reason for a revolt. What if there was a dictatorship that allowed you to keep guns and income not that unequal while also having their basic needs met. I don't think people are going to revolt because it is a dictatorship.
The far right has the guns to try it but isn't so concerned with income inequality.
I am guessing the "white replacement". This is going to take a long time to happen but given the more people like Nick Fuentes are popular the more likely it could turn revolutionary.
The far left is opposed to guns and doesn't really have any, so I don't know how they would revolt.
Even if someone is opposed to something, doesn't mean they won't use it to get their intent goal then ditch what they oppose or use it to make themselves secure.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
To say they are citing statistics wouldn't be correct. If they did the only link they need is to the OECD.
Well, if you don't trust the Daily Caller, you can always look up the OECD report yourself. CBS news is pretty reliable too.
He didn't cite a single source because it was an opinion so he didn't need to do it.
Actually, he did in the first sentence of the third paragraph.
It would be also the ability to revolutionize. That is key given Kim is a dictator yet no one can oppose him. I think oppression can be occurring but income inequality I think would be the main reason for a revolt. What if there was a dictatorship that allowed you to keep guns and income not that unequal while also having their basic needs met. I don't think people are going to revolt because it is a dictatorship.
The ability to revolutionize is important, and North Korea is a good example of a place where the motive exists but the ability doesn't. I just don't see how income inequality could cause a revolt in the US without some other extenuating circumstance. Even though people may rant and vote against the 1%, it's hard to motivate people to get off their couches and away from their televisions to revolt over Jeff Bezos being too rich when they actually have couches and televisions in the first place.
I am guessing the "white replacement".
Possible, but I think that's more of a highly vocal minority than a serious threat - so far. That could change.
This is going to take a long time to happen but given the more people like Nick Fuentes are popular the more likely it could turn revolutionary.
That sort of thing is very troubling. However, there has been plenty of pushback on the right against people like him.
Here's one example of a prominent conservative organization firing a member for backing Fuentes. The backlash from many different conservatives against her for supporting him is rather telling. The alt-right is the "alternative" right for a reason: they are rejected completely by the mainstream right.
Even if someone is opposed to something, doesn't mean they won't use it to get their intent goal then ditch what they oppose or use it to make themselves secure.
True.
-->
@SirAnonymous
you can always look up the OECD report yourself.
I don't know what is going on but OECD seems like it is underfunded. The look of it so old-fashioned. I find it difficult to read it.
Actually, he did in the first sentence of the third paragraph.
I have to pay to read the entire thing.
I just don't see how income inequality could cause a revolt in the US without some other extenuating circumstance.
If your feelings out of touch with society people like Trump, Bernie can revolutionize you into doing something about it. When people were being displaced because jobs were being moved to other countries Trump had the best time to lie to them that he will get your jobs back. The thing is he can't unless he is a dictator. From what I heard nothing in the constitution allows him to do this and he hasn't brought jobs back. If Trump was able to vote for on that basis Bernie, Spencer etc can lie to people to get what they want.
it's hard to motivate people to get off their couches and away from their televisions to revolt over Jeff Bezos being too rich when they actually have couches and televisions in the first place.
Don't think that is true. Eventually with enough time people sitting watching TV will eventually find something to motivate them. This can be FOX news which can lead them to a path of extremer views.
Possible, but I think that's more of a highly vocal minority than a serious threat - so far. That could change.
Minority from a majority white country is still a lot of people.
However, there has been plenty of pushback on the right against people like him.
Steve king comes to mind. Link: " but after a January 2019 interview in which he questioned the negative connotations of the terms "white nationalist" and "white supremacy",[13] he was widely condemned by both parties, the media and public figures, and the Republican Steering Committee removed him from all House committee assignments.[14]"
Here's one example of a prominent conservative organization firing a member for backing Fuentes
I am sure there was other people backing Fuentes who weren't rejected on the right given I think they used free speech as a defense. Mainly right wing media.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Whoops. Next time I cite an article citing another source, I'll check the original source to make sure it's available.I have to pay to read the entire thing
If your feelings out of touch with society people like Trump, Bernie can revolutionize you into doing something about it.
I doubt Bernie would lead a revolution, but I see your point.
Don't think that is true. Eventually with enough time people sitting watching TV will eventually find something to motivate them.
Possible. I'm not saying a revolution couldn't happen. It's just highly unlikely.
Minority from a majority white country is still a lot of people.
Depends what you mean by a lot. While it's far higher than you and I would like, it's just a tiny fraction of the U.S. population.
Steve king comes to mind. Link: " but after a January 2019 interview in which he questioned the negative connotations of the terms "white nationalist" and "white supremacy",[13] he was widely condemned by both parties, the media and public figures, and the Republican Steering Committee removed him from all House committee assignments.[14]"
That's an excellent example.
I am sure there was other people backing Fuentes who weren't rejected on the right given I think they used free speech as a defense. Mainly right wing media.
Such as?
-->
@SirAnonymous
I doubt Bernie would lead a revolution, but I see your point.
Well yeah but with people like Trump and Bernie, can lead to much worse political outcomes. If people think it is the norm to be well not-professional during their presidency then the next Republican might very well joke about white supremacy. If Trump was allowed to say what he did without meaningful consequences then that can lead to a revolutionary democrat spouting faleshoods about communism which can lead to normalization of it.
It's just highly unlikely.
Well yeah. I doubt even a recession can make that happen.
Such as?
I am finding this on Nick Fuentes's twitter. I remember seeing other people defend him but don't remember their names.
https://twitter.com/ScottMGreer/status/1197006607110021120 (Basically supporting him on free speech grounds while not acknowledging his ideas)
https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1196928151881805825 (Thinks the problem with him is that he is way too offensive)
https://twitter.com/michellemalkin/status/1196849391564312576 (Even though she has been fired she still has 2.9 million followers)
https://twitter.com/ZoomerClips/status/1196671999252127745 (I think on the left they support his free speech. On the right they don't)
I think that should be enough. The last counts for a lot of people but no links to the tweets or videos but I guess it wouldn't be too difficult to find.
Have any of you ever noticed how the lefts problems are always what "might" happen? What a conservative "might" do. What a law "might" mean?
Right now dems are actually trying to impeach the president on what he "might" have meant.
They will propose changing laws (a 12 year old can have an abortion without parental approval) because the pregnancy "might" be due to her father.
Kavenaugh should not become Supreme court judge because he "might" rescind Row vs Wade.
This is the logical end of a morality based on pleasure. What liberal democrats like, becomes what is moral.