Posts by Beridhren the Wise

Re: Once again

According to the IRS personal wealth estimates of top wealth holders had a combined net worth of $9.4 trillion, which was 10.7 percent of America's wealth total of $87.7T, in 2016 dollars. Of course they are a small percentage of the total population (0.32%), but to say that most of the money is at the top is simply incorrect. For details see here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5536.pdf

For me the main problem with your assertion that most money is at the top is that it assumes that the total amount of wealth is fixed, and it is not. Wealth is created by capitalism, so yes the rich get richer, but that does not require the poor to get poorer. As a matter of fact the poor are are doing better then even the richest person who lived a century ago.

You assert that the "system" is designed to keep the poor from achieving any kind of wealth, what is your source for that? What benefit is there to the rich to keep the poor down? I truly don't understand that way of thinking. And if you look at the richest people in the US, none of them inherited it. Musk, Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg etc, all started with nothing.

I did look at the Pew articles you referenced, and what I find most curious is that they never really go into the why of it, yes the gap is widening between the richest and the poorest, but is that by design? If so, as you seem to think, whose design?

Re: @ Beridhren -- Trump is great for Europe

"false whataboutism that makes all you autocrat lickspittles"

Now, I don't normally allow myself to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man as it is usually a waste of my time, but your reply amused me so I thought I would make an exception.

You are unable to refute my position using logic, facts, or history but cannot admit (heaven forbid!) that I am right so you resort to a personal attack in an emotional and fact free rant. That''s how I know I am right and that your position is indefensible, because if you could defend it using facts, reason and history, you would have.

So I will keep my handle, thank you very much.

P.S. Your emotional and fact free rant proves beyond all doubt that you are a eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay, and at least four of your ulcers are working overtime. I highly suggest you go to your doctor forthwith and get some much needed medication before your condition worsens.

Re: I wonder how many people have actually solved the cube?

Back in 1981 I was actually in competition with my father to solve the cube, and he beat me by 2 weeks, and even then once he figured it out he refused to show me, I love my father, but sometimes he is a real pain! (yes he is still alive at 91)

So I figured I would get even with him, when they came out with a 4x4 cube I got a couple of them and we re-started the competition, and he beat me again! Ugggg! But I did solve the 4x4 eventually, it took my father about 4 months to figure it out, and it took me 6 months.

Two years ago my adult daughter got me a 7x7 cube for Christmas and I have yet to figure it out. It is devilishly hard, or maybe my brain is getting worn out, but I refuse to give up. Getting old sucks, but I guess it beats the alternative!

Re: Its a small change!

It's Marvin the Martian, not Martin....

Sorry to be pedantic but that is one of my favorite cartoon characters from childhood and I simply had to fix it for you.

Re: Generalizing 'market'

Tim, here in the USA there is a political party that wants to do away with all regulation for the reasons you state, i.e. they stymie innovation and reduce freedom. However reducing regulation increases risk for everyone, for example if you reduce regulation on how homes should be built then after buying a new house your roof might fall in and kill you, which I think we all can agree would be a "bad thing".

The way the Libertarians answer this concern is that if your roof falls in you (or more accurately your heirs) can sue the manufacturer of your home, and the cost of losing a lawsuit will motivate the manufacturer of your home to do it right. The problem is that while your heirs would get a nice sum of money, you are still dead, so the thought is that prevention is better than cure, hence regulation and inspection of new homes before they are granted occupancy permits.

And the same is true of all industries that face regulation, it is government following a policy that prevention is better than cure, something I personally agree with, but it is also the nature of governments to reach for ever more power so if we are not careful we end up with regulation that protects incumbents (the financial sector is a prime example) because as you state the regulation creates high barriers to entry, which is also a “bad thing”.

So regulation is a balancing act, too little and real people get hurt, too much and freedom is unnecessarily curtailed. So as with other aspects of a government that rules with the consent of the governed, we must be ever watchful of overreach, and curtail government power when it occurs.

Re: Useful!

My bad, it was 40 years ago and the old brain bucket leaks more then it used to.... smile....