US Politics - Breaking the Seal

[Spockydog]

4 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

Spockydog, et al. -- it's estimated that nearly 15 billion USD of Jeff's wealth has been redistributed philanthropically, either directly by him; or, indirectly through his ex-wife, MacKenzie. And I suspect he'll eventually sign the Giving Pledge (or alternative) once he's approaching end of life (unless he finds the cure to aging).

Good for him. I'd much rather his company paid its fair share of tax around the world.

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

The whole point of the Trump wealth and taxes post isnt income inequality.

Moreso it shows a man compromised and vulnerable to foreign influence. The epitome of a security risk to the nation and quite possibly the least qualified person to hold the office or take the oath to uphold the laws of the U.S.

If your that underwater in your business dealings you are totally at mercy to your financial backers. Absolutely at risk from the Putins and Sheiks that bankroll you, an enormous security risk that shouldnt have any position of power or access to sensitive national security information...........lest one be tempted to sell such state secrets........

[Wade1865]

Just now, Spockydog said:

Good for him. I'd much rather his company paid their fair share of tax around the world.

 

Spockydog -- I'm surprised you didn't mention the Amazon working conditions, which would be much more helpful. The taxes don't bother me (I minimize, too) so long as I get my tendies without shipping costs, hahaha.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Wade1865 said:

James Arryn -- phenomenal post (that is, the wisdom, intensity, and emotion really shine through), thank you. It does inform, and reinforce, my thoughts on what the greatest threat to the US really is: wealth inequality and subsequent social fracture. And I do wonder what historical examples, as a consequence of current conditions, will be realized (e.g. ropes, guillotines, or stakes) as the situation continues to degrade.

In the early 2000s, I studied the Ancient Greeks in terms of warfare, but less of politics. I recall the wealthy were required to play central roles during battle, and were often punished if outcomes proved unsuccessful. It doesn't surprise me they were also required to provide financial support. To your point, with few exceptions, US politicians (including both Uncle Joe and the God Emperor) provided neither risk to body nor to wealth (beyond taxes, which they minimize). I risked both, often recklessly; ironically, I'm apolitical and enjoy the peace it facilitates.

I don't agree the US isn't a meritocracy. It really is, though I believe meritocracy itself is the prime reason why there's such wealth inequality. Not everyone has the will or capacity to acquire (by way of exploiting the system) status, power, wealth. I also don't agree birth is the prime reason for wealth. Most familial wealth is lost by the third generation (e.g. the Vanderbilts). Moreover, the majority of millionaires today are self-made.

Despite our disagreement on the role of meritocracy, and how most wealth is earned -- within the US -- I do agree the end-state is the same; both the left wing and right wing masses see themselves as being screwed by the other side, and are thus radicalizing (e.g., BLM and ANTIFA; Proud Boys and militias; et al.).

James Arryn -- I'm not sure, but I'm curious who, and why. As a guess, I'm assuming Jews, because of wealth inequality?

What's radical about being against facism [and] thinking that black lives matter?  

-------------------

I'd say claiming most millionaires are "self-made" requires some serious mental gymnastics, do you have a source for this?  I am fairly confident that if you look at the financial history of millionaires in the US you'd find their parents had more wealth than someone earning the median US income.  

This system is designed to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few.  Wealth doesn't signify talent or intelligence or hard work.  The only way your "meritocracy" works is if merit is a combination of luck and exploitation.  That's not any definition of merit I've ever heard used.  

[James Arryn]

2 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

 

James Arryn -- I'm not sure, but I'm curious who, and why. As a guess, I'm assuming Jews, because of wealth inequality?

Babies are keeping me busy, so won’t address the bigger part now, but not to leave you hanging:

The Lying Liberal Press*. As Goebbles stated on many occasions, if you get people to think the news is actively biased against you, you turn off their access to any information that can be harmful to you. This is why intel organizations of authoritarian regimes have spent far more time, money and manpower on controlling the information the public gets than in things like science secrets or w/e. What was the bulk of the FBI’s resource allocation from the late 60’s to 9-11…organized crime? Human trafficking? Even the drug trade? Nope, the hippies and their offshoots, feminists, civil rights groups, anti-war groups, unions, etc. COINTELPRO, etc. During the 70’s and 80’s about 80% of undercover federal agents were assigned to infiltrate ‘leftist’ groups rather than organized crime, for example, and on several occasions worked WITH organized crime in these endeavours. 

These were what the ‘establishment’ feared the most. And what product or crime or agenda did they fear those groups spreading? Ideas. Information. Change. This is how you get a population to not just allow their ~ enslavement, but fight for it. Journalism isn’t anymore perfect than any other human endeavour, but if you want to know it’s importance to actual freedom, look at how much of a priority authoritarian regimes from the Nazis to tin pot despots place upon attacking, discrediting and eventually controlling/silencing it. That’s kind of a low-information test for authoritarianism…how much time and energy does ____ spend attacking the media. All leaders of every kind have contentious relationships with the media, but the ones who go to war with it are the ones to really fear. And America is kindof a perfect storm for this because Americans are uniquely uninterested in non-American thoughts/opinions/ideas**, so you kinda voluntarily get what places like the Soviets or NK work so hard to achieve. 

 

*Not a Trump revisionist swipe, either, that was a Goebbles/Hitler special. Also to be fair the Nazis thought the Jews were involved in the press like in everything else, though to be totally clear the number one enemy of fascism was not Jews, but communism, though there again, often seen as Jewish. 

**though some recent studies suggest Trump has unintentionally served to change this somewhat, or at least stratified it, with his supporters doubling down on groupthink and his detractors opening up to alternatives (other than hand waving a Hungary most can’t even locate or tell you anything about other than Orban) more than previously. 

[Zorral]

More often than not, when you really look into the great fortunes, generational wealth truly persists.

I personally have friends who have never had a job in their lives, and live very well, including 5-star constant travel, 5-star wine cellars, etc., though by their standards they are NOT wealthy, from inherited trusts set up by family in the 19th century. Among them is a charming a descendant of the Morse family -Magnetic Telegraph Co.  "Many of my relatives are actually rich," he says, "but my branch is such an ancillary to the first families, my share from the trust is quite small."

[Wade1865]

58 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

What's radical about being against facism [and] thinking that black lives matter?  

-------------------

I'd say claiming most millionaires are "self-made" requires some serious mental gymnastics, do you have a source for this?  I am fairly confident that if you look at the financial history of millionaires in the US you'd find their parents had more wealth than someone earning the median US income.  

This system is designed to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few.  Wealth doesn't signify talent or intelligence or hard work.  The only way your "meritocracy" works is if merit is a combination of luck and exploitation.  That's not any definition of merit I've ever heard used.  

Larry of the Lake -- you're projecting morality into the word, radical. I used it amorally (and applied it equally to both left and right wings) as, "a person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform." BLM actors fit the definition, and without moral judgement.

On being self-made, via US News and World Report, Fidelity Investments found 88% were self-made while 12% inherited significant amounts of money from their parents; via CNBC, Wealth-X found 68% of people with 30 million USD or more were self-made, 24% combination self-made and inherited, and 9% inherited; and, via Ramsey Solutions, the National Study of Millionaires  found 79% were self-made, 21% combination of self-made and inherited (as reflected in a Federal Reserve report), and only 3% inherited 1 million USD or more. Statistics, not gymnastics.

On the US system, I agree that it does facilitate wealth concentration amongst those with the will and capacity to exploit it. Adjust the factors of success, and the elite subpopulation will adjust to reflect it; it's Darwinian. Merit is a condition where an individual is "worthy, or deserves" his rewards; moreover, a meritocracy comprises, "an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class, privilege, or wealth."

Although meritocracy (as an ideal) implies everyone can achieve success via talent, intelligence, and hard work; it's rarely enough to become wealthy, much less a wealthy elite. In reality, however, some degree of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy increases the chance of success. Thus, as I said, meritocracy (as an ideal coupled with reality) is the prime reason for wealth inequality.

You're thinking of some other form of social stratification, though I'm not sure it exists outside of pure idealism.

[Wade1865]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Babies are keeping me busy, so won’t address the bigger part now, but not to leave you hanging:

James Arryn -- no worries; if you revist this sooner, or later, I wouldn't be offended. I'm not actively looking for debate, just to be informed and develop my own thoughts.

[Wade1865]

52 minutes ago, Zorral said:

More often than not, when you really look into the great fortunes, generational wealth truly persists.

Zorral -- you quoted me without quoting me; I appreciated that, as you have a lot of insight  

The great fortunes of old money is a fascinating subject, isn't it? Although I don't doubt your anecdotes (mine are limited to new money, and darker mindsets..), we have to consider the breadth of humanity (nearing 8 billion individuals, over 6 millenia) to gain real perspective. Hence, few families can achieve such a degree of wealth transfer for such a long period of time in any considerable numbers. Most families who achieve generational wealth lose it by the third generation; though, those who keep it beyond that (as you pointed out), are exceedingly exceptional in their rarity.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Trump is opposing the warrant and search of Mar-a-lago… “Pro Se”.  Meaning he has no attorney representing him.  He’s doing it himself:

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I guess BDE really means Big Doll Energy, making the other BDE kind of hard if this model doesn't come anatomically correct. 

[Ormond]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It is pathetic that we don’t see more of this:

https://twitter.com/rpsagainsttrump/status/1561765922909700099?s=21&t=5eGO9rSDoA-Et7zEyD6VXw

On the one hand I agree, and I hope this state senator represents a district which is likely to re-elect him in his new party status.

On the other hand, it gives an immediate example of Starkess's point that having one of the parties become crazy is bound to make internal conflicts within the other party more pronounced as moderates and the more rational conservatives become Democrats. "Progressives" are going to soon be way more frustrated with the Democrats than they are now if many more politicians follow this person's lead. And even though I don't label myself as a "Progressive", I don't necessarily see that as being a good thing or positive for the long-term. 

[Zorral]

I did not point out that keeping generational wealth is exceptional at all.  It's quite normal.  Look at it over the ages.  Who owns the most of the arable land of England, etc.? 

Families that achieve generational wealth have many a linear ancillary line.  Even the Vanderbilts.  There are many a Vanderbilt line right here who are more than wealthy right now.  That the direct scions of the wealth establishers lost theirs does not mean those others alongside via marriages did not carefully invest and guard their interests.  

Check out how that wealth in England for instance how consolidated into ancillary lines that wealth got during the Great Mortality.

The fantasy that those who screw us out of our meager monies now will lose it three gens down the line is yet another way of gaslighting what really goes one, which is the constant consolidation of wealth into the lines of the fewest, while the rest of us consistently have less and less.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Ormond said:

On the one hand I agree, and I hope this state senator represents a district which is likely to re-elect him in his new party status.

On the other hand, it gives an immediate example of Starkess's point that having one of the parties become crazy is bound to make internal conflicts within the other party more pronounced as moderates and the more rational conservatives become Democrats. "Progressives" are going to soon be way more frustrated with the Democrats than they are now if many more politicians follow this person's lead. And even though I don't label myself as a "Progressive", I don't necessarily see that as being a good thing or positive for the long-term. 

A friend pointed out that if moderate Republicans, anti-fascist Republicans, and others toward the center leave and join the Democratic Party that weakens the Progressive hold on the Democratic Party… what effect would that have?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

A friend pointed out that if moderate Republicans, anti-fascist Republicans, and others toward the center leave and join the Democratic Party that weakens the Progressive hold on the Democratic Party… what effect would that have?

The direction of the Democratic Party, which has mostly been to the left for some time now, won't change much because of a handful of new moderates unless they find themselves in the exact position Manchin is in right now. And if you want to be optimistic, there's a better chance progressives can try to persuade them now that they're on the same team. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

The direction of the Democratic Party, which has mostly been to the left for some time now, won't change much because of a handful of new moderates unless they find themselves in the exact position Manchin is in right now. And if you want to be optimistic, there's a better chance progressives can try to persuade them now that they're on the same team. 

Maybe.

[Spockydog]

59 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I guess BDE really means Big Doll Energy, making the other BDE kind of hard if this model doesn't come anatomically correct. 

He looks like someone put a bad suit on Stretch Armstrong.

[Wade1865]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

I did not point out that keeping generational wealth is exceptional at all.  It's quite normal.  Look at it over the ages.  Who owns the most of the arable land of England, etc.? 

Families that achieve generational wealth have many a linear ancillary line.  Even the Vanderbilts.  There are many a Vanderbilt line right here who are more than wealthy right now.  That the direct scions of the wealth establishers lost theirs does not mean those others alongside via marriages did not carefully invest and guard their interests.  

Check out how that wealth in England for instance how consolidated into ancillary lines that wealth got during the Great Mortality.

The fantasy that those who screw us out of our meager monies now will lose it three gens down the line is yet another way of gaslighting what really goes one, which is the constant consolidation of wealth into the lines of the fewest, while the rest of us consistently have less and less.

Zorral -- yes, I understand you argued generational wealth is a common occurrence in the world; but, it's an anecdotally-based exaggeration.

Today, there are approximately 56 million individual USD millionaires worldwide. Assuming each inherited all their wealth; and, assuming each heads a 2nd / 3rd generation family or older, that would represent 0.007 percent of the total world population. This translates into 6 millionaires per 800 non-millionaires.

If you consider the approximately 2700 billionaires (i.e., the truly wealthy), and apply the same assumptions of inherited wealth and generation, they represent an even smaller fraction at 0.00000033 percent. Obviously, these fractions do not represent a "quite normal," or common, occurrence throughout the world; but, an exceptional rarity in terms of generational wealth.

We agree on the consolidation of generational wealth and consequent inequality worldwide, but we disagree on frequency. Interestingly, my position cuts more deeply given the true degree of consolidation. And, if you take away the assumptions I granted in your favor, and account only for inherited in lieu of other forms of wealth production, the frequency becomes even smaller, and that much more unequal. In other words, world wealth inequality is worse than most people realize. Hence, I consider wealth inequality to be the greatest threat against the USG.

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I guess BDE really means Big Doll Energy, making the other BDE kind of hard if this model doesn't come anatomically correct. 

My first thought: mannequins?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Maybe.

Yeah, maybe, but it helps to see progressives as a member of your group instead of evil people who want to destroy the country. Republicans suck at empathizing with people out aren't in their in group.