1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

How is everything not collapsing in the US?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Narz, Aug 2, 2020.

  1. Commodore

    Commodore Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,059
    I was just heading off anyone that would have made that connection on their own.

    I'm not familiar with the situation in question here, but just from what you described, the police may have been focusing on the group they felt was a bigger threat to themselves. I mean, if one side of a protest is anti-police and the other is pro-police, it could be seen as reasonable for police to expect violence against them to come from the anti-police side and treat them accordingly. That doesn't necessarily mean they are showing support for the pro-police protestors, just that they don't see them as a threat and thus don't police them as heavily as they do the anti-police side.

    Of course I must reiterate that the above is just based on what you described without any further knowledge of the particulars of the incident. There may be additional details that do, in fact, indicate that the police were using their authority to bully political opponents.
     
  2. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    13,505
    On the racial discrimination discussions in the US, specifically the 'anti-racism' initiatives:

    It's collapsing and this one percent has been successful at keeping the course...

    Also worth quoting:

     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2020
    cardgame, Socrates99 and Lexicus like this.
  3. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    25,747
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    The numbers in that piece really validate what I've been trying to say all along, which is that materially benefitting 90% of black people means redistributing a lot of wealth from rich people to poor people.

    Thanks for sharing @innonimatu
     
  4. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Super Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    42,828
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    For the bottom 50% of the nation the problem is an income problem (not enough to get by let alone build any wealth). For the top 5% the inequity is a wealth problem. They own more assets than they should. Each problem has to solved differently.
     
  5. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    25,747
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    corporate wants you to find the difference between these solutions
    (it's the same solution)
     
    cardgame likes this.
  6. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Super Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    42,828
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    They are different. How one takes away or limits assets is a very different process than how one distributes income.

    EDIT: If assets are distributed rather than income, then that is a very different problem from distributing income.
     
  7. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    46,737
    Every time I see the title of this thread the only answer I can think of is "who says they aren't?"
     
  8. Denkt

    Denkt Left Forever

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,944
    Keep in mind that wealth inequallity before ww1 was much higher than today but living standard before ww1 was maybe higher than anything before 1950. So high wealth inequallity don't mean low living standard and and low wealth inequallity don't mean high living standard.

    In fact many of the countries with highest wealth inequallity also have the highest living standard: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/wealth-inequality-by-country

    Like the scandinavia countries are some of the most wealth unequal countries in the world but at the same time have some of the lowest income inequallity.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2020
    Birdjaguar likes this.
  9. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    13,505
    Where exactly was that, which specific statistics are you using to come up with that statement?

    The table and the text in the page you linked to contradict each other. Have you looked at the primary sources?
     
  10. Denkt

    Denkt Left Forever

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,944
    Because they switch between wealth and income inequallity which are two different things. Countries like Sweden have extreamly high wealth inequallity but low income inequallity and the same apply to Denmark and Norway.

    Wealth inequallity is not automatically bad because there are many factors that cause it. Material inequallity is much worse but is going down. For example the difference between a society in which the rich own a car and the poor don't own a car and a society in which the rich own 10 cars and the poor own one car is quite big in terms of material inequallity, the society in which the poor also own a car is far more material equal since the difference between having and not having is far greater than having and having alot of an item. So even if the society in which the rich own 10 car score alot worse on wealth inequallity, it is probably still the better society to live in.

    Well we can start with saying that the time period of 1914 to 1945 or 31 years had two world wars + great depression, in comparison the decades before atleast in western europe had been relative peaceful.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2020
    Birdjaguar likes this.
  11. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,306
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    I'm with Innonimatu here, where and when are we talking about here? In the US the early 1900s saw some pretty gross inequality and I dont think the living conditions for the bulk of the population were any better before WWI than they were in the period leading up to the Depression. Most people lived in multigenerational homes they didn't own. Labor laws were almost nonexistent. Men 16 and up worked an avg of 55hrs a week. Workplace mortality was quite high. People's diets consisted of as much lard as they did meat.

    Funny part is your example of a car was really the only thing that wasn't a problem before WWI. We had much better public transport back then in the streetcar system. You didnt need to own a car to easily commute.

    I mean you could say two wars and a depression made things more rough but that has about squat to do with inequality.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2020
    yung.carl.jung and cardgame like this.
  12. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    13,505
    And they make that switch without properly labeling things. Which was the point I was trying to draw attention to. The piece does not strike me as trustworthy, at least regarding the competence of the author.

    That is another vague statement.

    On the cars comparison, having seen places where indeed one in 10 had cars, and times where everyone had (past times) I will say that inequality is higher now. When just a few had cars most people still owned the basics, indeed were nearly self-sufficient. Mules or hoses or oxes did the transportation before cars and trucks, at least as far as the places where trucks or train picked up the goods and people, and did so effectively. The car was a luxury that the big local landowner or local priest used more to impress in a few trips than in daily use. Now we have people too poor to own a car, and a horse or mule does not cut it, nor does walking, as it did back then, for today's needs require car transportation.

    Having see the loss of that near self-sufficiency, and what it did to people's self-regard, I say without the slightest doubt that today we're worse of as a society. It wasn't necessarily so, that we are worse today is due to the fact that the "needs" multiplied but these needs became businesses and many people can't afford them all. For one example apart from cars, good luck trying to deal with today's bureaucracy without a computer and internet connection, the second of which puts you paying a monthly rent to some "provider".
    And here in Europe we don't have it nearly as bad as people on the other side of the Atlantic, because some are still socialized.

    Speaking of bureaucracy: plenty of old people here built their own homes. With hired or free help, they could do it. Family and friends provided informal loans that were quickly repaid. And bureaucracy was minimal.

    Today before even starting to build a home their grandchildren have to:
    - hire an architect to do the design
    - hire an engineer to design the structure
    - hire a certified electrician or an electrical engineer (it depends) to do the electrical project
    - hire an engineers to do the plumbing project
    - hire an environment engineer or someone with a certification to to an "energy use" calculation (entirely and utterly useless in practice, it's a tax)
    - buy some kind o renewable energy system (heat exchange, solar or photovoltaic panels) from an approved installer
    - pay the municipal fees and wait for approval, which may or may not come.
    - own the necessary land in an area zoned for urban construction, which is heavily inflated in price compared to other land, due to managed artificial scarcity.
    - hire a licensed construction company to do the building.
    And I'm sure I forgot plenty of other imposition.

    You will argue that all this means is necessary and makes a house built today much "better" that a house built 50 years ago before all this crap was necessary. Thing is, more than half the people around here live in those 50+ years houses, modified as necessary over time. The "value" added by all these modern impositions does not seem that important, does it? But the practical effect is creating more "business": good for GDP I'm sure... not good for the people who would have built their own houses 50 years ago and now have no chance of ever owning one.

    This is another way in which inequality increased: the importance of money to pay for all the authorizations and needs of modern life, which increased hugely, means that the poor are more excluded from society, or more precariously desperately clinging to a lawful life, than their fathers and grandfathers were.
    Excessive complexity kills societies.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2020
    Kaitzilla likes this.
  13. ExtraCrispy

    ExtraCrispy Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    279
    Location:
    Iceland
    (I'm avoiding the political angle of this as much as I can, but I can't avoid it 100%.)

    The USA is collapsing, it has not collapsed yet.

    Why hasn't it taken longer to collapsed sooner; as in why the Americans still have electricity at this very moment? The USA used to be rich. Remember, folks owned houses back in the 90's.

    Imagine if you threw an ice-cube into the hot-sun. Now imagine if that ice-cube (USA's economy) were to be very, very big; it would take longer for it to melt. Some parts would melt quicker, such as the top part that is exposed to the sun.

    Also, Trump, while undeniably extremely horrible and is truly doing an extraordinary level-of-damage, tends to make a lot of noise.

    That's basically it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2020
    El_Machinae likes this.
  14. Manfred Belheim

    Manfred Belheim Moaner Lisa

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,281
    That sentence works just as well with one word removed.
     
  15. Manfred Belheim

    Manfred Belheim Moaner Lisa

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,281
    "who says it isn't?" surely.
     
  16. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    46,737
    I refuse to have my English corrected by someone who can't spell color.
     
    cardgame likes this.
  17. ExtraCrispy

    ExtraCrispy Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    279
    Location:
    Iceland
    The difference between the collapse/collapsing of the USA and the Roman Empire (perhaps the Cold War) is that we have a combination of [1] Trump, [2] nuclear-weaponry, and [3] climate change.

    We didn't have this combination in history before.

    -----

    Try to focus on the present moment. I don't mean in a sense of getting drunk or anything like that. I literally mean focus on the actual three seconds ahead of you.
     
    El_Machinae likes this.
  18. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,306
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    Well, Rome had plenty of loony emperors to parallel your number 1 but 2 and 3 are unique.
     
  19. red_elk

    red_elk Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    14,041
    Nuclear weaponry doesn't have much effect on the process of collapse of your country.
    Trust me.
     
  20. ExtraCrispy

    ExtraCrispy Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    279
    Location:
    Iceland
    I've stated my thoughts. I'm happy that you have different views(s) from me. GL HF with your games.
     

Share This Page