|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 21 2018 02:38 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 06:54 Big J wrote: because for some reason our beloved democratically elected leaders know better what the people need then the people themselves. It's not. You sound like a child who slept through history class. It's precisely under Marxism that the government ("the people", lol) tells you what you need, what you can own, what you can do with your time, what you are allowed to think, what you are or aren't allowed to say. It's not a very pink place to be, but hey, at least you get to own an infinitesimal slice of the means of production. Incidentally, these (totalitarian) are the single conditions under which communism can work in relation to the human race, since people vary so obscenely in their productivity and intelligence any semblance of equity collapses in a single free generation - unless of course you keep the population in check with the secret police and the Gulag. Especially the intellectuals. This has been proven time and again throughout the 20th century but I'm sure your version of marxist utopia is way more efficient and liberating. Not to mention the massive error in failing to predict capitalism will, in a matter of a century, make the working class richer than feudal nobility. Apart from being a decent critique of the most glaring weaknesses of capitalism (alienation of labor is one, let's concede) the entire philosophy is a pre-digital-era relic and a certified dump. 'precisely under marxism' good god the standard of political understanding on this forum
|
Norway28256 Posts
I dunno if it's fair to say that is the standard? Or honestly more precisely I think it's still better than the population at large. :p
|
On January 23 2018 01:35 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2018 01:04 KlaCkoN wrote:On January 23 2018 00:51 Big J wrote:On January 22 2018 20:04 TheDwf wrote:According to Oxfam, the 1% richest got 82% of the wealth created in 2017. Long live capitalism! + Show Spoiler + Given we have property rights that allow them to take almost 100% if they feel like it, we should be grateful that they leave 18% to the rest. I guess one of the bright sides of feudalism is that the idiots who rule based on inherited wealth need a good amount of people to rule for them which has a nice distribution effect for those who have acquired the necessary skills. Someone already pointed this out, but "them"? The median (the average is presumably even higher) income for Austrian men puts you in the top 1% comfortably. For sure. By income I am definitely 1%. By wealth I am far away (and I suspect most on the forum are nowhere near the 1% in wealth). Most likely most on this forum are very low on the wealth scale. Since it's a gamer forum ( and relatively young) a lot of us will have student debt + mortgages which means you have a net negative wealth. It's one of the huge flaws of studies like this. A farmer with €2 in his bank account in Zimbabwe has more wealth than a Harvard educated millennial with a mortgage and an income of 100k.
|
If anything that example shows the over-emphasis people put on wealth inequality because I'd rather be a Harvard educated indebted millennial than a farmer in Zimbabwe.
On January 22 2018 16:42 sc-darkness wrote: What do you think of TTIP? I know Merkel was in favour of it. Do you agree with her?
afaik the opinion ranged from small gains to small losses in employment depending on which economist you asked. It was politically toxic but I don't think the results would have been dramatic either way.
|
It's more of the problem of the indications used to measuring wealth as standard of living. Reminds me of the time when some guy tried to argue that the average American have a higher standard of living than Denmark because their GDP growth was higher.
|
Of course the methodology can always be discussed, especially as the NGO needs to put forward a striking figure to be everywhere in the news.
Meanwhile our dear president is playing France's sales representative, inviting 140 multinationals at Versailles (again...) to convince them that flexible, fresh salary meat is ready to be exploited to further increase this 82% figure.
Funnily, the chosen hashtag was #ChooseFrance, after #MakeOurEconomyGreatAgain this morning. Why even use your own language when you can speak the One Language of the Holy Investors...
|
On January 23 2018 04:09 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2018 01:35 Acrofales wrote:On January 23 2018 01:04 KlaCkoN wrote:On January 23 2018 00:51 Big J wrote:On January 22 2018 20:04 TheDwf wrote:According to Oxfam, the 1% richest got 82% of the wealth created in 2017. Long live capitalism! + Show Spoiler + Given we have property rights that allow them to take almost 100% if they feel like it, we should be grateful that they leave 18% to the rest. I guess one of the bright sides of feudalism is that the idiots who rule based on inherited wealth need a good amount of people to rule for them which has a nice distribution effect for those who have acquired the necessary skills. Someone already pointed this out, but "them"? The median (the average is presumably even higher) income for Austrian men puts you in the top 1% comfortably. For sure. By income I am definitely 1%. By wealth I am far away (and I suspect most on the forum are nowhere near the 1% in wealth). Most likely most on this forum are very low on the wealth scale. Since it's a gamer forum ( and relatively young) a lot of us will have student debt + mortgages which means you have a net negative wealth. It's one of the huge flaws of studies like this. A farmer with €2 in his bank account in Zimbabwe has more wealth than a Harvard educated millennial with a mortgage and an income of 100k.
Money and property are ultimately given out by your state/society (0), without the state there is no property or money. Wealth is a measure for how much of the overall property a person holds. Your personal income is derived from your (1) and your properties (2) market value.
(1) is an inherent quality of yourself and completely independent from society. There are very few reasons for someone else to take an interest in it, besides for reasons of information/education. If you don't want to pay someone else for his/her skills, you can always choose not to. (2) is ultimately linked to your state's property/money system (0). That's only a question of changing (0).
A Harvard student without property will only lead a better live than then Zimbabwean farmer for as long as he/she constantly shares their skills. If the Harvard student stops and doesn't have wealth to fall back on, they are just as badly off as the farmer is. Hence, I don't see the flaw in measuring wealth the way it is measured.
If you want to fight income equality the way to do it is to fight property inequality plus education, education, education.
|
The goal of this "study" is more to point out the insane and increasing concentration of power and wealth at the top of the richest countries. That is the real problem. "Outliers" or statistical artefacts matter little in the end.
|
Unbelievable!
The remains of second world war sailors who died on British and Dutch warships in the Java sea were secretly dumped in an anonymous mass grave by modern-day metal scavengers as they rifled through wrecks illegally lifted from the sea bed, it has been claimed.
The reports from Indonesian and Dutch media prompted the Ministry of Defence to condemn those who had disturbed the graves of the dead, and speak of their “distress” at the news.
In recent years a series of huge wrecks have been all but removed from the waters off Indonesia by operators seeking to cash in on the valuable metals on board.
The ships that have been dismantled or vanished included the Royal Navy destroyer HMS Electra, on which 119 men perished, HMS Exeter, a 175-metre heavy cruiser on which 54 died, and HMS Encounter, which was scuttled to avoid capture by the Japanese.
It has now been claimed that those employed by the illegal scavengers to cut up the ships on Indonesian soil had also found skulls, jawbones, feet and hand bones, hips and ribs during their work.
It was claimed that the remains were dumped in a mass grave near the port of Brondong, in east Java.
According to an Indonesian journalist, Aqwam Hanifan, reporting on the Indonesian website, Tirto.id, British and Dutch remains were bagged and buried to a depth of one metre.
One contractor, Haji Ghoni, responsible for processing the ships, was quoted as saying of the remains: “Sometimes they are there and sometimes not.”
A ministry of defence spokesman said: “The British Government condemns the unauthorised disturbance of any wreck containing human remains. Under International Law naval warships and associated artefacts enjoy protection through Sovereign Immunity.
“International law also provides for protection for war graves. Desecration of wrecks of war and merchant vessels causes distress to loved ones of those lost on board and is against international law.
“A military wreck should remain undisturbed and those who lost their lives onboard should be allowed to rest in peace.”
The development has also caused outrage in the Dutch parliament as it comes in the wake of a report on war wrecks from the country’s defence ministry which suggested there were no leads as to the identity of the metal scavengers, let alone information to be gleaned about the fate of sailors’ remains.
André Bosman, a Dutch MP, told the daily newspaper De Telegraaf: “These publications in Indonesia and now in De Telegraaf raise new questions and a feeling of great indignation.”
Around 900 Dutch sailors died in the Battle of the Java sea on HNLMS De Ruyter, HNLMS Java, and HNLMS Kortenaer. They were sunk, along with UK, Australian and US vessels, in 1942, during one of the costliest sea battles for the allies, only to be the target of the illegal metal traders in a particularly frenetic period of activity between 2014 and 2016.
Dutch divers, planning to put plaques on the vessels, found they had vanished in 2016.
The wrecks are regarded as treasure troves by the salvagers and it is thought that up to 40 second world war-era vessels in the Java sea have already been partially or completely destroyed. Even poor quality steel can bring in about £1m ($1.3m) a ship, according to estimates cited by the Guardian in a special report last year. Other metals valued from the wrecks including copper cables and phosphor bronze propellors.
The Indonesian government has insisted it is not to blame as there was no formal request for them to be protected.
This month the National Museum of the Royal Navy and the Maritime Archaeology Sea Trust, which have charted every Royal Navy vessel ever lost around the globe, said they were linking up in an effort to deter those planning to rob sites in UK seas.
They will use satellites, radar and sensors to monitor suspicious activity near wreck sites, the Royal Navy said.
Source
|
On January 23 2018 04:42 TheDwf wrote: The goal of this "study" is more to point out the insane and increasing concentration of power and wealth at the top of the richest countries. That is the real problem. "Outliers" or statistical artefacts matter little in the end.
I'm not sure that's true. I remember a few years ago when our president was kicked out of the office because someone donated him an expensive bottle of champaign and got him a cheaper house loan or something along those lines. The media is pretty rabid these days and I'd argue it's the wrong focus of political attention. There's a lot of low-key mismanagement going on in regional politics and at the state level where people could tackle issues. The very top is getting a lot of attention already.
If you want to attack one group try the upper middle class, the kind of people that zone their city districts to the point where nobody can build a house. That's something that hurts mobility of the lower classes.
|
To be honest that "corruption" scandal in germany was downright ridiculous. The amount of money involved was so tiny, it probably just happened by accident and pretty much everyone with a brain saw this... But the media was hungry for a scandal so this didn't matter.
Something similar happened to the former ceo of the swiss national bank. His wife somehow "won" like 50'000$ with something that looks like insidertrading. Now this would be a big deal, if 50'000$ would be an amount of money that would actually matter for guys like that and it was never proven and there were no criminal charges. He was the best paid national bank ceo in the world and now works as a top manager at some other huge bank (or something) making even more... But justice has been served!
|
If I remember, wasn't it because he tried to supress a newspaper from reporting the donation? Or was it becuase it wasn't declared? Or was he the one with the false degree? I don't remember. Either way, it's probably a good thing that your corruption aren't anything on the level of Italy, Russia, China and USA. A slight shame it isn't as exciting as claiming expenses for a porn video.
|
Macron in Davos, discussing fire with an assembly of arsonists: "We made people believe that everyone would be concerned by growth. It isn't true, this growth is structurally less and less fair. There is a concentration on the 1% richest."
Macron in France:
+ Show Spoiler +According to the OFCE, foreseen impact on Macron's social and fiscal measures on the standard of living. For the richest 5%, you can see in grey the consequences of the tax cuts...
Our lovely president defended in English his reforms to "adapt France to globalization," then switched to French to denounce the "excesses" of the same globalization, and its "race to the bottom".
Cynical? Hypocrite? Pyromaniac firefighter? All of this?
"In my country, if I don't manage to restore a meaning to globalization, in 5, 10 or 15 years, the nationalists or extremes will win, and the same holds true for every country." — At least they know the countdown has begun.
|
Probably just recognition of the fact that both globalisation and fairness at home are issues that somehow need to be dealt with, because equality is no good if you don't have an economy and any jobs, and a booming economy is no good if you have a too high degree of inequality.
no such thing as a system free of contradictions
|
On January 26 2018 04:03 Nyxisto wrote: Probably just recognition of the fact that both globalisation and fairness at home are issues that somehow need to be dealt with, because equality is no good if you don't have an economy and any jobs, and a booming economy is no good if you have a too high degree of inequality.
no such thing as a system free of contradictions
Liberal systems with high degrees of equality have historically always been the most booming, fastest growing systems. Whether we talk about post-war periods (30-year war, post WW2), the abolishment of inequal property systems like medivial feudalism, the rise of Western states like the USA or Australia built up by immigrants without property, the abolishment of slavery in the US and the founding of unions in Europe, which led to wage growths for the people without property.
A society that only allows the restriction of the individual if it hurts the freedom of others is the system without contradiction.
|
I'm very much in favour of egalitarian liberalism, but I don't know where you're getting the idea from that the United States or Western Europe grew without property rights. Strong property rights are the foundation of any functional economy.
|
On January 26 2018 07:03 Nyxisto wrote: I'm very much in favour of egalitarian liberalism, but I don't know where you're getting the idea from that the United States or Western Europe grew without property rights. Strong property rights are the foundation of any functional economy.
Property rights are always there, since a state is a construct of people, rights and land. The moment your society claims land, it has a property system. The owners are those who actually rule parts of the land, regardless of what the propaganda says who holds the land. (E.g. in the case of state socialism you have an elite party that gives the orders and no access from anyone else. it is the most anti-liberal, anti-egalitarian form of property. But those people would claim it is "the people" who rule) So the core question is always by which mechanisms are those rights distributed.
In early America these were claimed and distributed between equally poor people. Which means the capital prices were low, everyone needed each other for trade and lots of innovation and growth happened. In feudal europe this wasnt the case, the land was in the hand of very few people and the capital prices were high and access to being economically active was limited, because those who controlled the wealth didn't need the others but prevented them from becoming active. An example of what changed this for some time: the French Revolution redistributed the property rights between many people, growth and innovation happened and subsequently Napoleon could conquer europe based on a rather free and therefore strong society.
The question is whether you want to go on forever waiting for war, crisis or revolution to open a small window of violent redistribution or whether you want a system in which property gets thrown back on the market under certain circumstances (like death) and we actively recognize bad distributions as part of an illiberal system.
|
On January 26 2018 08:05 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 07:03 Nyxisto wrote: I'm very much in favour of egalitarian liberalism, but I don't know where you're getting the idea from that the United States or Western Europe grew without property rights. Strong property rights are the foundation of any functional economy. Property rights are always there, since a state is a construct of people, rights and land. The moment your society claims land, it has a property system. The owners are those who actually rule parts of the land, regardless of what the propaganda says who holds the land. (E.g. in the case of state socialism you have an elite party that gives the orders and no access from anyone else. it is the most anti-liberal, anti-egalitarian form of property. But those people would claim it is "the people" who rule) So the core question is always by which mechanisms are those rights distributed. In early America these were claimed and distributed between equally poor people. Which means the capital prices were low, everyone needed each other for trade and lots of innovation and growth happened. In feudal europe this wasnt the case, the land was in the hand of very few people and the capital prices were high and access to being economically active was limited, because those who controlled the wealth didn't need the others but prevented them from becoming active. An example of what changed this for some time: the French Revolution redistributed the property rights between many people, growth and innovation happened and subsequently Napoleon could conquer europe based on a rather free and therefore strong society. The question is whether you want to go on forever waiting for war, crisis or revolution to open a small window of violent redistribution or whether you want a system in which property gets thrown back on the market under certain circumstances (like death) and we actively recognize bad distributions as part of an illiberal system. Is there any precedent for the second system?
|
On January 26 2018 08:19 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 08:05 Big J wrote:On January 26 2018 07:03 Nyxisto wrote: I'm very much in favour of egalitarian liberalism, but I don't know where you're getting the idea from that the United States or Western Europe grew without property rights. Strong property rights are the foundation of any functional economy. Property rights are always there, since a state is a construct of people, rights and land. The moment your society claims land, it has a property system. The owners are those who actually rule parts of the land, regardless of what the propaganda says who holds the land. (E.g. in the case of state socialism you have an elite party that gives the orders and no access from anyone else. it is the most anti-liberal, anti-egalitarian form of property. But those people would claim it is "the people" who rule) So the core question is always by which mechanisms are those rights distributed. In early America these were claimed and distributed between equally poor people. Which means the capital prices were low, everyone needed each other for trade and lots of innovation and growth happened. In feudal europe this wasnt the case, the land was in the hand of very few people and the capital prices were high and access to being economically active was limited, because those who controlled the wealth didn't need the others but prevented them from becoming active. An example of what changed this for some time: the French Revolution redistributed the property rights between many people, growth and innovation happened and subsequently Napoleon could conquer europe based on a rather free and therefore strong society. The question is whether you want to go on forever waiting for war, crisis or revolution to open a small window of violent redistribution or whether you want a system in which property gets thrown back on the market under certain circumstances (like death) and we actively recognize bad distributions as part of an illiberal system. Is there any precedent for the second system?
"New Deal" politics by FDR. High taxation on super high incomes (up to 90%) but low taxation for middle/low incomes which catches the "property based" part of income, but keeps the workbased parts undertaxed (obviously it does catch a lot of high earners without property too which is why I prefer a direct high wealth taxation and no/less wage taxation, but since there is no market for things not traded you need a central planner that gets the tax rates right, which might be worse than fucking over a few high earners that do so by work) and 77% inheritance taxes. The only peaceful redistribution program that ever happened without destroying the economy first and one of the biggest economic wealth programs ever. Sadly its image has been distorted from the left (positively seen) and from the right (negatively seen) for its big state economy, when the actual achievment was liberal redistribution, not state economy.
|
On January 26 2018 16:58 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 08:19 kollin wrote:On January 26 2018 08:05 Big J wrote:On January 26 2018 07:03 Nyxisto wrote: I'm very much in favour of egalitarian liberalism, but I don't know where you're getting the idea from that the United States or Western Europe grew without property rights. Strong property rights are the foundation of any functional economy. Property rights are always there, since a state is a construct of people, rights and land. The moment your society claims land, it has a property system. The owners are those who actually rule parts of the land, regardless of what the propaganda says who holds the land. (E.g. in the case of state socialism you have an elite party that gives the orders and no access from anyone else. it is the most anti-liberal, anti-egalitarian form of property. But those people would claim it is "the people" who rule) So the core question is always by which mechanisms are those rights distributed. In early America these were claimed and distributed between equally poor people. Which means the capital prices were low, everyone needed each other for trade and lots of innovation and growth happened. In feudal europe this wasnt the case, the land was in the hand of very few people and the capital prices were high and access to being economically active was limited, because those who controlled the wealth didn't need the others but prevented them from becoming active. An example of what changed this for some time: the French Revolution redistributed the property rights between many people, growth and innovation happened and subsequently Napoleon could conquer europe based on a rather free and therefore strong society. The question is whether you want to go on forever waiting for war, crisis or revolution to open a small window of violent redistribution or whether you want a system in which property gets thrown back on the market under certain circumstances (like death) and we actively recognize bad distributions as part of an illiberal system. Is there any precedent for the second system? "New Deal" politics by FDR. High taxation on super high incomes (up to 90%) but low taxation for middle/low incomes which catches the "property based" part of income, but keeps the workbased parts undertaxed (obviously it does catch a lot of high earners without property too which is why I prefer a direct high wealth taxation and no/less wage taxation, but since there is no market for things not traded you need a central planner that gets the tax rates right, which might be worse than fucking over a few high earners that do so by work) and 77% inheritance taxes. The only peaceful redistribution program that ever happened without destroying the economy first and one of the biggest economic wealth programs ever. Sadly its image has been distorted from the left (positively seen) and from the right (negatively seen) for its big state economy, when the actual achievment was liberal redistribution, not state economy. Try to tax someone with 90% now, and he is gone from your country the next day. People are no longer bound to one location. Taxes are just numbers and are not that important. The most important thing is how you spend the money from them. From what I've seen usually these money go for ineffective policies and for the circle of companies that supports the ruling party. So it's not a surprise that so many people are not willing to pay taxes.
|
|
|
|