Here I want to provide a logical argument against equality. Equality being the forced redistribution of wealth to promote equity and the general coercion of the population by the government to promote equity. This is not about equal opportunity which I do not have a problem with. It is also not about the voluntary redistribution of wealth to promote equity. People can voluntarily do what they want.
The problem: Equality promotes stability and stability promotes crashes.
Kindly look at the following equation:
Crash = Time + Stability
This obviously makes no sense and is counter intuitive. Let me give you an example:
There is a pot of water boiling and the lid is rattling. You then put a weight on the lid to promote stability. Now the lid is stable and there is no more noise. As the pressure builds up the lid starts making noise again. So you put on more weight in order to promote stability. And you keep doing this. But at some point the whole thing blows up.
In the above example the promotion of stability causes an explosion. The pot of water just needed enough TIME and STABILITY before it blew up. Releasing steam would be allowing for instability but would have prevented the explosion.
Another example would be putting out all the fires in a forest. Eventually, after a long time, an unstoppable fire will come along and burn down everything.
But does society work like a forest? How does a forest work?
Researchers have plotted the distribution of fire size in forests: Size of fire vs frequency. The log-plot looks like a straight line and follows the power law distribution.
So what!
"The maths underlying the 80/20 rule, known as the power law distribution, is found in many natural systems over which no single human has much influence." - https://is.gd/K4Eupa
In the power law distribution, the future is heavily dependent on the past and follows a feedback loop process. A feedback loop process will always blow up (think microphone next to a speaker) unless negative feedback is introduced. Putting out the little fires (suppressing negative feedback) just means bigger ones are coming. Put out the big ones and the mother of all fires is coming. Put out that one and the forest sits on edge of catastrophe forever, or until it gets wiped out.
Let us take a look at a few other things that follow the power law distribution:
1. Wealth distribution - https://is.gd/K4Eupa
2. Stock market crashes - https://is.gd/rTJX3o
3. War - https://is.gd/jgwSpl
4. Terrorism - https://is.gd/zH9XXy
5 Forest fires - https://is.gd/C8lIHz
6. Snow avalanches - https://is.gd/5AF6o4
7. Sand pile collapses - https://is.gd/QYnO5u
8. Earthquakes - https://is.gd/1BNHf4
Sand Pile Model of the Mind Grows in Popularity - Scientific American - https://is.gd/BoY7rl
General source: Ubiquity: Why Catastrophes Happen: Mark Buchanan: 9780609809983: Amazon.com: Books - https://is.gd/pZ0beJ
Yes, societies work a lot like forests in the sense that both are feedback loop systems where the future is heavily dependent on the past. Hence, a similar crash distribution - the power law distribution.
The promotion of equity (and stability) in a society effectively puts out many of the fires. It stops many of the little avalanches or the little earthquakes. In other words, it makes a society more stable. Meanwhile, big (more hidden) problems are slowly growing that otherwise might be eliminated. Some examples of big problems: 9/11, 2008 financial crash, talk of civil war and talk of great-power war.
Equality promotes stability and stability promotes crashes.
"Stability is destabilizing" - Hyman Minsky
Did Hyman Minsky find the secret behind financial crashes? - BBC News - https://is.gd/wlq2j1
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Great strawman article here Matt
@Matt-4
I have never read such bullshit in all my 59 years of life! What a bunch of bullshit!
FIRST "Crash = Time + Stability" is NOT an equation. It isn't even correct. An economic crash follows excessive volatility stupid!
So your whole argument is based on a false premise.
I checked out every one of your sources and they are nothing more than NAZI hyperbole, the justification for racism.
The wealth "redistribution" in the last 37 plus years has come from giant corporations taking advantage of the exploitation of workers in poorer nations. Essentially slave labor. American manufacturers have moved production to nations with no environmental laws (so they can get away with polluting) and nations that have no labor laws (so they can abuse and exploit the labor in those nations). Also because they record those profits in foreign nations they don't have to pay their fair share of income tax in the United States. This strategy has driven down wages in what few jobs are left in the USA, but the executives have had significant increases and outrageous bonuses based on the profit margins of their respective companies. Meaning that the rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer. That is the wealth redistribution and the inequity that exist. Not some "forest fire" economic THEORY!
You can't justify the disparity of wealth that has happened and exists today. The average CEO makes more than 2000 times the average wage earner in his/her company, and that doesn't even account for the bonuses they receive...THAT AREN'T EVEN TAXED! Also, that is just the differential of American companies/American workers. When you look at the CEO income versus the foreign laborer's income the disparity is even larger.
You are also under the delusion that when people speak of "Equality" that they are speaking in terms of some idea that came from the Communist Manifesto. The "wealth redistribution" that you refer to is in the Manifesto. That is not what people that talk about these days when referring to "equality." What people are actually talking about is fair and equitable practices, where labor makes a fair wage, a living wage. Also "Equality" is referenced in fairness and equality under the law. But you claim that it is "dangerous information" a statement that SMACKS of a forthcoming prejudice to justify racism or some other discrimination. information.
You also said "The promotion of equity (and stability) in a society effectively puts out many of the fires. It stops many of the little avalanches or the little earthquakes. In other words, it makes a society more stable. Meanwhile, big (more hidden) problems are slowly growing that otherwise might be eliminated. Some examples of big problems: 9/11, 2008 financial crash, talk of civil war and talk of great-power war.'
Now that is just BATSHIT CRAZY. You think that 9/11, the great recession, and talks of a civil war and a great war are due to stability?
9/11 happened because terrorists wanted to attract attention to their cause.
The great recession happened because "W" Bush didn't enforce financial laws which lead to predatory lending causing an economic bubble that burst.
The talk of civil war and a great war only comes from the crazy far right wing nuts like yourself, that want to relive Antebellum, bring back slavery, and have no grasp on REALITY!
Economic crashes are normally caused by fluctuations in the money supply. Massive inflation leads to bubbles forming, whilst deflation pops bubbles and crashes the economy. This used to happen systematically through the Fractional Reserve System, but now the Federal Reserve causes them.
"The wealth "redistribution" in the last 37 plus years has come from giant corporations taking advantage of the exploitation of workers in poorer nations."
Actually, according to the World Bank:
"Nearly 1.1 billion people have moved out of extreme poverty since 1990. In 2013, 767 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day, down from 1.85 billion in 1990."
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview
Apparently these 'sweat shops' actually pay better than the other jobs available in those countries. It does open up the issue of paying some Indian 2$ a hour, whilst his labor is worth 10$ a hour, just because the average wage is 0.20$ a hour, but its definitely an improvement- everyone wins, except for American workers. They may have cheaper goods available to them, but that doesn't help much if you don't have any money to spend.
"American manufacturers have moved production to nations with no environmental laws (so they can get away with polluting) and nations that have no labor laws (so they can abuse and exploit the labor in those nations)."
Of course- you act as if they are doing some strange and questionable business scam. They are acting just as you would expect, of course it is more advantageous to produce things in countries where it is cheaper, and where you don't have to deal with labor unions. Of course this is dissasterous to the American Economy, but whose fault is that? We the consumers- we want the goods produced by these companies, but we don't want the pollution in our country, so they move elsewhere. What are you going to do? You cant stop them from producing things abroad, and you won't reduce environmental regulations here, so, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
"Also because they record those profits in foreign nations they don't have to pay their fair share of income tax in the United States."
Money made abroad is money made abroad. If a company moves elsewhere, you can't tax them. Just like if a tenant moves out, he doesn't have to pay rent anymore. The government ran business out of the country, and now their calling them greedy for leaving.
"You can't justify the disparity of wealth that has happened and exists today. The average CEO makes more than 2000 times the average wage earner in his/her company, and that doesn't even account for the bonuses they receive."
Sure I can, we have more regulations now than ever before- this makes it hard for smaller companies to compete with larger ones, who can afford regulations, thus consolidating industries into fewer and fewer hands. A greater portion of a given industry going to a smaller number of CEO's means those CEOs will be paid more. Especially in the meat industry:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/2285523-wheres-the-beef-consolidation-i...
"What people are actually talking about is fair and equitable practices, where labor makes a fair wage, a living wage."
It used to mean equal justice under law- the entire idea of a living wage seems arbitrary. Obviously they do not mean what you need to live, because that would be something like 10¢ a hour. Instead they mean a wage which can afford all the luxuries we arbitrarily decided everyone should have. Not even minimum wage nuts can agree on what that is. Hillary thinks its 12$, Bernie thinks its 15$, and Richard Wolf thinks it should be 28$, I think the minimum wage should be 0$, but that's just my opinion.
"The great recession happened because "W" Bush didn't enforce financial laws which lead to predatory lending causing an economic bubble that burst."
Really? Because last time you people said it was because Glass Steagal was repealed. I wonder who did that? Either way, its still wrong. Alan Greenspan eve later admitted himself that he did cause the Housing Bubble.
Correct, but we are talking about inequality not the related, but different, subject of: the rise of people out of extreme poverty to just poverty. Also we mostly been talking about the US, that has seen a huge rise in inequality over the last 3-4 decades or so, that has yes, seen part of that rise of inequality attributed to the loss of jobs overseas. But again we are talking US not the global picture of how many people moved out of extreme inequality.
It is not great to be sure, but not disastrous, disastrous to the people that worked in the industry that had jobs go overseas, but we as a country also moved on from being a manufacturing country, to being more services, media and high technology country. Economics 101 trade ultimately benefits all trade partners, just the people in the industries that have to deal with the sudden shift in trade lose out, but overall both countries gain. If the US were to cut all trade, yes millions of manufacturing jobs would need to be created and filled over night, but the economic loss of stopping trade would be stupendous and result in millions more jobs lost.
Uh no we don't. Especially now. I agree small business need a helping hand, a helping hand against the large and powerful corporations with their lobbying group that gives them a stupendous advantage over the small business. I am all for less regulation on small business but much more on large business. Or at the very least getting money out of politics, and undoing all the damage money has done.
.
Minimum wage is an interesting argument to me. I feel people should get paid what they are worth. But, large and powerful corporations like WalMart and McDonalds that employ millions of people at or near minimum wage, have way too much power to decide what people's work is worth. They can skew the numbers of what people are worth by using their enormous resources to set the rules. Often times a walmart and chain stores/restaurants are the only employers in town for low skill workers. People do not have another option, If all the powerful chain stores get together and lobby politicians to leave minimum wage at 5$ an hour, only hire part time people to work less then 32 hours on the clock a week, with sometimes dozens of hours off clock, the unskilled worker cannot go hey, this sucks I am working my ass off for the equivalent of less than 5 dollars an hour, and I cannot even feed my kids or keep the lights on, (let alone own a car,) on these wages! I am going to go work somewhere else. Where meanwhile the Walton family rakes in another 6-12 billion dollars for themselves because they used their enormous resources to lobby politicians to keep minimum wage super low and allow them to hire people and not give them any benefits like health care.
.
The real threat to equality and jobs is automation and other tech advances. Not trade. Automation and tech advantages lets a few workers be much more productive.
Automation and tech are going to hit the manufacturing and low skill jobs first, (and has been for some time now.) Amazon end to end employes 1/3 amount of people to deliver your product then buying a product at a brick and mortar store. And they are increasingly reducing that number further still as warehouse and distribution centers get automated.
It is not all doom and gloom, just 200 years ago we went from 90+ % of society in the farming industry to less than 5% now, (in modern western countries.) Automation and powerful equipment like the combine and engines in a few short centuries replaced the primary job source of the vast majority of everyone that ever lived before. The transition had issues, but overall the end result was very positive. People are no longer expected to work from sun up to sundown 6 days a week on their farm even if their back hurts or face starvation. Now we have 40 hour weeks where we can sit on our butts all day in air conditioning. Embrace the automation, retrain our workforce. In the future we can do away with commuting to work all together, and only do more interesting, creative jobs instead of repetitive jobs. When I was in high school I worked retail, mostly as a cashier, it is a mind numbingly boring job, that is maybe fine for a teenager on a summer job, but not a job anyone should expect to do their entire lives. We all seen the automated self check outs, and the order ahead online. That awful job will continue to shrink to the point it will likely mostly disappear in modern first world countries in the next few decades. Infact much of the entire brick and mortar retail industry with all its lousy low skilling boring jobs will continue to fade away, a good thing. We just need to retrain these people to the more interesting job of programing and managing these automated systems, or creating more art as the general public has increasing more free time.
You misunderstand, free trade does benefit both sides, but we do not have free trade. We stifled our manufacturing industries, and so we are forced to buy everything abroad. Media and technology do not produce real wealth. Services may, but we can't export electrical services. Real wealth is the goods which can be got for money, and if we do not produce goods, our real GDP is actually very miniscuel.
Yes, we do have more regulations now than ever before, the Federal Register now has about 100,000 pages in it, whereas in the 1950's it had only about 15,000.
Automation is beneficial to our economy, but the benefits are almost completely lost if you don't produce anything.
You misunderstand, free trade does benefit both sides, but we do not have free trade. We stifled our manufacturing industries, and so we are forced to buy everything abroad. Media and technology do not produce real wealth. Services may, but we can't export electrical services. Real wealth is the goods which can be got for money, and if we do not produce goods, our real GDP is actually very miniscuel.
Yes, we do have more regulations now than ever before, the Federal Register now has about 100,000 pages in it, whereas in the 1950's it had only about 15,000.
Automation is beneficial to our economy, but the benefits are almost completely lost if you don't produce anything.
True we do not have truly free trade, all kinds of tariffs and subsidizing etc going on by both sides, and that hurts the free trade and the benefits it offers.
We partially stifled are manufacturing industries with regulation. Certainly not the sole cause or even the biggest contributing factor to the decline of our production industry.
I think it is a huge mistake to deregulate or make any real efforts to bring back production industry to our country. It is not going to create many real jobs, as automation takes over, it causes a lot of pollution with lowers our health outcomes and standards of living. And we can never solve the problem that other people around the world are willing to work for the equivalent of 2 dollars an hour at 80-120 hours a week doing low skill jobs.
The single greatest cause of decline in US manufacturing is the that the "free ride" the US got after WW2 eventually ended, as the only advanced manufacturing economy that did not have their manufacturing facilities damaged or destroyed in the war, but instead had been ramped up through enormous public funding, (to produce machines for war.) The US manufacturing industry got to run virtually unopposed in world trade. The US by far, was the economic victors of World War 2.
Services, media and technology is a good, you can absolutely export "electrical" services, (if I guessed at your meaning of electrical correctly) we do it all the time. A valuable good at that. If wealth of our country was solely measured by manufactured goods, China and India and many other countries greatly surpass US in "wealth" but you mentioned GDP. Gross Domestic Product. Our GDP still far outstrips any other country, and still more than 7 trillion dollars ahead of China.
Regulation has taken a large dive downwards since Trump got into office, with more deregulation promised. There is also a lot of regulation that is on the books but is simply ignored.
I agree automation is useless if you do not produce anything. But automation helps you produce things and remain competitive. There is no mass produced car that does not have most of its assembly highly automated, if they did not automate, they would be forced to sell their cars for many thousands more then a similar product from a competitor.
Truman, you wrote: Economic crashes are normally caused by fluctuations in the money supply. Where did you come up with this nonsense? Please provide a citation in support of this assertion
Economic crashes are normally caused by fluctuations in the money supply. Massive inflation leads to bubbles forming, whilst deflation pops bubbles and crashes the economy. This used to happen systematically through the Fractional Reserve System, but now the Federal Reserve causes them.
"The wealth "redistribution" in the last 37 plus years has come from giant corporations taking advantage of the exploitation of workers in poorer nations."
Actually, according to the World Bank:
"Nearly 1.1 billion people have moved out of extreme poverty since 1990. In 2013, 767 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day, down from 1.85 billion in 1990."
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview
Apparently these 'sweat shops' actually pay better than the other jobs available in those countries. It does open up the issue of paying some Indian 2$ a hour, whilst his labor is worth 10$ a hour, just because the average wage is 0.20$ a hour, but its definitely an improvement- everyone wins, except for American workers. They may have cheaper goods available to them, but that doesn't help much if you don't have any money to spend.
"American manufacturers have moved production to nations with no environmental laws (so they can get away with polluting) and nations that have no labor laws (so they can abuse and exploit the labor in those nations)."
Of course- you act as if they are doing some strange and questionable business scam. They are acting just as you would expect, of course it is more advantageous to produce things in countries where it is cheaper, and where you don't have to deal with labor unions. Of course this is dissasterous to the American Economy, but whose fault is that? We the consumers- we want the goods produced by these companies, but we don't want the pollution in our country, so they move elsewhere. What are you going to do? You cant stop them from producing things abroad, and you won't reduce environmental regulations here, so, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
"Also because they record those profits in foreign nations they don't have to pay their fair share of income tax in the United States."
Money made abroad is money made abroad. If a company moves elsewhere, you can't tax them. Just like if a tenant moves out, he doesn't have to pay rent anymore. The government ran business out of the country, and now their calling them greedy for leaving.
"You can't justify the disparity of wealth that has happened and exists today. The average CEO makes more than 2000 times the average wage earner in his/her company, and that doesn't even account for the bonuses they receive."
Sure I can, we have more regulations now than ever before- this makes it hard for smaller companies to compete with larger ones, who can afford regulations, thus consolidating industries into fewer and fewer hands. A greater portion of a given industry going to a smaller number of CEO's means those CEOs will be paid more. Especially in the meat industry:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/2285523-wheres-the-beef-consolidation-i...
"What people are actually talking about is fair and equitable practices, where labor makes a fair wage, a living wage."
It used to mean equal justice under law- the entire idea of a living wage seems arbitrary. Obviously they do not mean what you need to live, because that would be something like 10¢ a hour. Instead they mean a wage which can afford all the luxuries we arbitrarily decided everyone should have. Not even minimum wage nuts can agree on what that is. Hillary thinks its 12$, Bernie thinks its 15$, and Richard Wolf thinks it should be 28$, I think the minimum wage should be 0$, but that's just my opinion.
"The great recession happened because "W" Bush didn't enforce financial laws which lead to predatory lending causing an economic bubble that burst."
Really? Because last time you people said it was because Glass Steagal was repealed. I wonder who did that? Either way, its still wrong. Alan Greenspan eve later admitted himself that he did cause the Housing Bubble.
Reply to #3 - mykcob4
Your emotional reply really says a lot. I'm surprised that only two other people agree with you. You are simply incapable of sitting down and thinking logically about things without getting emotional.
The real problem is that you are lying to people about not believing in god. It's obvious to me that your god handed down to you from heaven the rules of equality. How dare anyone touch your precious equality. Of course, you are only too happy to trash Christianity. But no one can ever touch your precious equality. You are a hypocrite.
Did you really check out all my sources? I think you're lying to people on this forum.
How could stability cause 9/11?
Obviously not directly. Stability has allowed political correctness (PC) and other bad ideas to spread. People in charge of protecting the country cannot properly challenge Muslims and Islam. And therefore, they could not catch the terrorists before it was too late.
The same thing is happening in Britain with the big Muslim rape gangs. They are not challenged because of PC and the rapes went on for years. Eventually they get caught.
What about civil war?
'One speaker at a recent conference stated that progressive ideas would have to be installed in society “one funeral at a time”.' - https://is.gd/M5dblM
'For all the talk of Trumpian bluster or exaggeration, there is only one group that seeks to systematically and violently achieve its goals here in the United States on a broad scale: the so-called “anti-facist” movement, now commonly called “Antifa.” And the goal? It’s not “anti-facist” or “anti-racist” as they attempt to portray themselves. It’s the systematic elimination of free speech, free assembly, and free thought via any means necessary, including violent protest, the media and Orwellian revisionism.' - https://is.gd/DKDbor
You're delusional if you think the left is innocent. The left is promoting behavior that is unacceptable. The right is just starting to react.
Who is a Nazi? The left: Anybody who does not agree with me. Certainly, everybody who voted for Trump.
What about equality?
You might think equality doesn't actually means equality - as in we all end up with equivalent stuff. You are not in charge. At some point when you say enough you will be eaten by your own. Some of that eating is going on right now. Laci Green has a huge progressive following on YouTube and Twitter. She cautioned about going too far, and now she is in big trouble. She's not progressive enough.
When you say enough, then you can join other people in the re-education camp - the gulag.
Overall, your explanations are too close to the specific problems. You have to back up a level or two. For example, if the economy is allowed to crash then after a decade the wealth distribution will be much more balanced. Generally, under stable conditions bad ideas and bad decisions are allowed to spread. Instabilities, like full recessions, will make people pay for bad ideas and bad decisions. But recessions and big crashes are heavily suppressed.
@Matt-4
1) I am not emotional. A vehement response only indicates intensity, not emotion or lack of logic.
2) Saying that I am lying about believing in a god is just utter bullshit. It's just you trying to push my buttons and it won't work.
3) No god ever handed anyone down "equality".
a) there is no god to do so
b) no religion actually believes or practices equality
4) I believe in fairness and the rights of individuals the basis of the Constitution of the United States of America. That means equal opportunity. And yes, no one should be allowed to interfere with that.
5) I did check your sources and they were all speculative bullshit. You can think what you want. You won't get credibility for accusing me to be a liar....which I am not.
6) I get far more agrees than you and far less disagrees than you. Check the record.
7) I didn't state that stability caused 9/11. That was YOU!
8) This is a false premise by you "Obviously not directly. Stability has allowed political correctness (PC) and other bad ideas to spread. People in charge of protecting the country cannot properly challenge Muslims and Islam. And therefore, they could not catch the terrorists before it was too late." Stability has nothing to do with political correctness. Political correctness is just respect and there is nothing "bad" about it. Political incorrectness is racism. You want to challenge people just because they are muslim? That is unconstitutional and fascist. Your statement PROVES that you are a racist and a fascist. In this nation, you don't protect people by segregating the people according to their religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. You do the due diligence to fight crimes. You don't racial profile. You want to shred the Constitution to justify outright racism and fascism!
9) This is another lie by you "The same thing is happening in Britain with the big Muslim rape gangs. They are not challenged because of PC and the rapes went on for years. Eventually they get caught." What you are saying is that all muslims are rapist. What a fucking lie!
10) It's YOU that wants to refight the Civil War and return this nation to Antebellum, not me.
11) " 'One speaker at a recent conference stated that progressive ideas would have to be installed in society “one funeral at a time”.' - https://is.gd/M5dblM" Propaganda and the source is a far right-wing nut case.
12) The piece for 'The Hill' is also pure lies and propaganda. there is no leftist terrorism in this nation, and if there were, it wouldn't even come close to the number of right-wing violent christian based terrorist that exist. The FBI cites more than 900 right-wing armed and dangerous christian racist terrorist groups. 'One speaker at a recent conference stated that progressive ideas would have to be installed in society “one funeral at a time”.' - https://is.gd/M5dblM
http://www.snopes.com/2017/06/07/threat-extremists-more/
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/31/the-numbers-dont-lie-white-far-right...
13) The rest of your post is utter nonsense and just a fucking rant of incoherent gibberish.
It proves that you are a NAZI, a racist, a homophobe, an Islamaphobe, a sexist, uneducated, uninformed, brainwashed, moron.
I don't know why Bob is always trying to defend Islam, its gotten so stupid over on the left that even hard core liberals are beginning to seem like moderates when compared. TJKirk made a video regarding your devout love for the religion of pieces.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UHQjhNH6g94
I don't know why Bob is always trying to defend Islam, its gotten so stupid over on the left that even hard core liberals are beginning to seem like moderates when compared. TJKirk made a video regarding your devout love for the religion of pieces.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UHQjhNH6g94
@Harry T.
I am not Bob, I don't where you get that.
I am not defending islam, never have, don't know where you get that. I am defending the Constitution, don't know why you don't get that.
Matt-4 wants to arrest or something to that effect a group of people based on their religion alone. No probable cause just profiling based on what he sees as a potential terrorist. Well, the number one terrorist profile in this nation is white christian male. So if we use that logic we should arrest and interrogate every white christian male in this nation and lock them up without a trial, without probable cause, without them committing any crime, just to protect the country.
"I am not defending islam, never have, don't know where you get that. I am defending the Constitution, don't know why you don't get that."
Yes you have- you once said it was a wonderful religion! Also, you don't defend the constitution and you never have.
"Well, the number one terrorist profile in this nation is white christian male. So if we use that logic we should arrest and interrogate every white christian male in this nation and lock them up without a trial, without probable cause, without them committing any crime, just to protect the country."
That's probably because most of the country is white and most of the country is Christian, per Capita Muslims from foreign countries are far more likely to commit terrorism.
A total lie Harry. I served 22 years defending the Constitution. All you have ever done is give lip service. I never said that islam was a wonderful religion.
The most likely terrorist in the USA is a white male conservative christian.
You shot up Gernada- Ill give you that, though I don't know what attacking radon countries has to do with defending to constitution. Thank you for your service to the Military Industrial Complex, I'm sure they made a lot of money off or those wars you fought. That aside- you did say Islam was a tolerant religion founded upon peace and love, I can try and find all those posts if you want.
You shot up Gernada- Ill give you that, though I don't know what attacking radon countries has to do with defending to constitution. Thank you for your service to the Military Industrial Complex, I'm sure they made a lot of money off or those wars you fought. That aside- you did say Islam was a tolerant religion founded upon peace and love, I can try and find all those posts if you want.
I won't comment with too much critical analysis as it's not an area i know a great deal about.
But can i say if i saw someone in my kitchen simply put a weight on the lid of a bubbling, boiling pot,
i think i would ban them from ever touching an appliance or object within a kitchen ever again lol
Just turn it down!
@Lucy
Matt made a ludicrous analogy. It doesn't reflect reality at all.
mykcob4
The boiling pot of water was just meant to show how stability can cause some things to blow up. That's all.
@ orignal post by Matt-4
So much wrong with this it is hard to know where to begin.
You are talking about perfect equality, where everyone has the exact same amount no matter what. No one wants nor advocates that. Even the height of socialism was no where near that. And of course did not achieve anywhere near that.
Equality promotes stability, yes it does. No argument there, equality is a good thing.
Stability promotes crashes. I assume you stock market crashes? That is the opposite of every stock market crash I ever heard of. Economist talk all the time about "bubbles" being created, and when they pop, the market crashes, that is the opposite of stability. Yes, if the bubble "pop's" sooner or is allowed to deflate slowly that is better than a large bubble popping violently. You do not use instability to do this, you use stability. A slow strategic rise in the fed rate for instance. A nice stable rise in inflation to the target inflation rate. Slow, steady, and stable.
Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have gone up a tremendous amount in the last year, very fast and unstable, and now bitcoin and others are shedding that rise quickly as news comes out that China is not going to support crypto currencies.
Any person with half a brain would tell you that putting more weight/force on a pot lid to keep it shut is not adding stability, it is creating unstable conditions. Stability is when you allow steam and pressure to escape, not build up. Creating a nice stable conditions even when large amounts of energy is being placed into a container.
Yes, putting out small fires all the time in forest will lead to a build up of highly flammable undergrowth and dead/drying wood which leads to a much hotter and bigger fire eventually. Again that is obviously not adding to stability putting out fires, it creating unstable conditions.
Stability would be working to prevent unstable conditions.
A strong middle class instead of the extreme inequality we have in the US today would stabilize things, not make them less stable.
Your argument is so crazy I have to wonder if you are trolling, or if you are just crazy.
@ Matt-4
Wow ... it has been a long, long time since I've read such a concentration of false narratives! But, it did remind me of sign I saw recently:
"Let's make class warfare great again!"
The diagram provided below from the U.S. Census Bureau for the period of 1967 to 2011 clearly illustrates that the real income redistribution (that leads to wealth redistribution) has gone to the upper 5% of society.
Current statistics illustrating the devastating affects of financial inequality are even worse. Just one statistic is shown below:
For the record, "equality" does not equal "sameness" but rather if Individual A puts for the same effort and sacrifice as Individual B, the compensation for their efforts and sacrifice will be similar.
PARECON Economics: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/participatory-economics-3/
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
The top 5% is anyone earning 100k or above- and yes, their wages have risen because skilled laborers are rarer now.
The top 5,4,3,2 percent of earners, take home income increased a bit. These people are also often burdened by expensive college education debt.
The top 1% of earners income zoomed a lot. And the top .01% incomes zoomed at insane levels.
I think the top 5% to 2% earners increase in income is mostly pretty fair and what all income brackets should roughly be in my opinion. If the top 1% shared their income gains with the bottom 94% then we would have pretty good across the board income gains for every income segment.
Certain skilled labor positions are indeed rare and well compensated. My particular coding skills/experience in less commonly used coding languages mostly not taught at universities comes in very high demand, and the pay is commensurate to the rarity of these skills. The skilled "labor" shortage for these my particular skillset is extreme. For every project/job/contract I take on, at least a dozen of these opportunities go unmet and the companies are forced to instead of updating their specialized code, to upgrade to very expensive enterprise software solutions utilizing modern code and buy all new equipment and retrain their staff at great expense. Or muddle through on outdated software with critical security vulnerabilities or crippling stability/uptime issues. We could have a 10 fold increase in skilled workers in my particular specialization and there still would be a shortage of skilled labor. As the baby boomers retire, the situation is only growing more desperate as the few people familiar with these highly specialized languages and their unique coding style retire.
I have before, tried expanding out of my current one man operation to help fill all these unmet work opportunities, but it is impossible to find a qualified worker, that I would not have to train extensively. And soon as that person is trained the odds are very high that person would accept employment at more glamorous companies like google, microsoft, apple, once the head hunters become aware of the person's skill/experience set. I can price match within reason, but cannot offer the stability and all the other perks these giant corporations can offer, especially when my workplace environment that can be very lonely to many people compared to the culture of people in places like google.
mbrownec
"For the record, "equality" does not equal "sameness" but rather if Individual A puts for the same effort and sacrifice as Individual B, the compensation for their efforts and sacrifice will be similar."
Look at the pay gap that feminists constantly complain about. What exactly is the pay gap?
Pay Gap = [Average take home pay for women]/[Average take home pay for men]
Women bring home 78% of men. Notice any problem with that? What about hours worked? What about overtime leading to promotions? What about leaving to pick up the kids? What about more men picking higher paying STEM jobs and more women picking lower paying jobs like education?
The pay gap is all about equal outcome for men and women regardless of the different choices they make. For example, men like things and women like people. So more men become engineers to make things and more women become nurses or educators to be around people. Feminists know this but just don't care.
Equality = Equal Outcome.
All the measurements used by feminists are outcome based measurements: Do women end up at the same place as men? They don't care about any reasons that could explain differences. They just want equal outcomes. Also, measuring equal opportunity is either difficult or impossible.
@Matt-4
No ... it does not! Only according to the propaganda and false narratives of the capitalist ruling elites and right libertarians does it mean that. Even then, that does NOT make it true in any sense of the reality of the issue whether it be historical, current, or in the future.
You might be able to force-feed that line of "alternative facts" to the uneducated ... but you won't come within a million miles of me accepting it. A better equation post capitalism will be:
Equal Effort + Equal Sacrifice = Similar Compensation (As determined by one's worker council peers)
I know that you are totally opposed to this type of equality. You need a system in which you have the "appearance" of being superior and special. You much prefer the current system in which a few rule over the many via exploitation, oppression, laws, intimidation, and violence when needed.
Well... it would appear that someone has had their head in a nose bag of uncle Escobar's Columbian finest...
That seems incorrect on dimensional grounds alone:
Nyarlathotep
You are correct. It was meant as a simplification. The real equation would be like this: Crash = f(t,s); Crash is a function of time and stability.
Pages