Anyone switching to a credit union with what's going on?

[MrPopo]

If our justice system allows for things such as settlements then that's just how it's going to work.

Then we need to change the justice system. You act like these things are immutable. We can change them. If you're not part of the upper 1%, you don't benefit in any way from them being able to flaunt the law. If you're motivated by self-interest, you should join us in taking the power back. It's in your self-interest.

I suspect you're not actually motivated by self-interest. I think you're just cravenly authoritarian.

See, the thing you don't seem to get is that I haven't been prevented from doing the things I want to do. I haven't felt the supposed boot of oppression on my neck. I go to work, get paid, buy video games, play video games. Sometimes I go to a concert. Sometimes I speed, and when I get caught I pay the fine. Just because I don't have the freedoms you want doesn't mean I think I'm being trampled on.

Also, it's hard to take the power back when the masses never had it to begin with. In every society you have the people at the top and everyone else. The rules never apply equally to everyone because there are always loopholes, and those with the power can exploit those loopholes. This is a constant feature across all societies. The difference between ours and ones in the past is that our citizens have the most opportunities to raise themselves to that position of power.

Isn't it about time you just accepted that money makes the world go round?

Money does make the world go around. And when the lower 99% of us don't have any left it won't go around anymore. The more the rich take from us, the more of us will hit the streets. Something will give eventually.

I like the doom and gloom here, and the inevitibility that everyone will be without any capital at all. Where, precisely, will the top 1% get their money from then?

[Hatta]

I haven't felt the supposed boot of oppression on my neck.

Really? Do you expect to be able to own a house and keep a family of four fed on one salary like they did 50 years ago? If not, blame the 1%. If you haven't lost a job yet because of the credit crisis, you're just lucky. If you haven't fallen ill and gone bankrupt because of it, you're one of the lucky ones. Relying on your own personal luck as an argument for the status quo makes no more sens than justifying drunk driving by saying "I haven't hit anyone yet".

Also, it's hard to take the power back when the masses never had it to begin with. In every society you have the people at the top and everyone else. The rules never apply equally to everyone because there are always loopholes, and those with the power can exploit those loopholes. This is a constant feature across all societies.

Basically what you're saying here is that policy doesn't matter. If policy didn't matter, corporations wouldn't spend so much on lobbying. You say that nothing changes, but look at this chart. There are some very significant differences between eras, that seem to correlate quite nicely with political eras. We can turn these trends around. Why shouldn't we?

I like the doom and gloom here, and the inevitibility that everyone will be without any capital at all. Where, precisely, will the top 1% get their money from then?

Nowhere. They'll die in a bloody revolution, as happens periodically. That's the way capitalism/feudalism is. Money makes money faster than work does, so the rich always get richer, and the poor always get poorer. Eventually the poor can't pay for their own bread and circuses, and the rich are too greedy to pay for the bread and circuses that keep the poor from storming their castles. Nobody likes bloody revolution, so lets try at least slowing the increase in inequality instead of accelerating it, as has been the case for the past 30 years.

[MrPopo]

I haven't felt the supposed boot of oppression on my neck.

Really? Do you expect to be able to own a house and keep a family of four fed on one salary like they did 50 years ago? If not, blame the 1%. If you haven't lost a job yet because of the credit crisis, you're just lucky. If you haven't fallen ill and gone bankrupt because of it, you're one of the lucky ones. Relying on your own personal luck as an argument for the status quo makes no more sens than justifying drunk driving by saying "I haven't hit anyone yet".

Right now I own a house but am single. I currently have no plans to have kids. But my coworker who makes the same as me feeds a family of 5 as the sole breadwinner. It's definitely feasible, but you do have to make some choices when it comes to your finances (which I'll get to when I talk about your picture). For me to be lucky for not having lost my job would mean that the unemployment would be >50%. That is not the case. Instead, those who have lost their job are unlucky. Similarly with those who are bankrupted by medical costs. I'm fairly certain the majority of the country isn't dealing with crippling medical costs. I have no problem with the notion that some people are going to lose in the game of life.

Also, it's hard to take the power back when the masses never had it to begin with. In every society you have the people at the top and everyone else. The rules never apply equally to everyone because there are always loopholes, and those with the power can exploit those loopholes. This is a constant feature across all societies.

Basically what you're saying here is that policy doesn't matter. If policy didn't matter, corporations wouldn't spend so much on lobbying. You say that nothing changes, but look at this chart. There are some very significant differences between eras, that seem to correlate quite nicely with political eras. We can turn these trends around. Why shouldn't we?

No, what I'm saying is what you originally said; whoever has the gold makes the rules. That's why corporations spend so much on lobbying.

Very interesting graph that you have there. I noticed that the other two graphs don't go back to the pre-Depression era. The pre-Depression era seems to mimic our current era in terms of wealth to the top 1%. I'm guessing that a good chunk of the wealth of those people is due to the stock market. Either straight up playing the market or being large shareholders of companies that do very well in the market (as a comparison, when I joined Amazon the stock was at 80, now it's at 240, and I know the split-adjusted value per share when Bezos started the company is ridiculously low). So after the depression wealth is created from more solidly tangible goods because of low confidence in the market. But then confidence picks back up and the value of any given security in the market increases over time. If you're giving your top people a ton of stock and the company does well their wealth is going to grow extremely fast by that metric. So as confidence in the stock market has grown we've seen that those who are invested heavily in it get a higher return.

The productivity graph seems misleading to me. How is it being defined? If it's raw value of goods being produced then that can be chalked up to automation. If I can get more stuff for the same amount of man hours worked then that's going to increase production without needing to increase wages. You don't need them to work any harder to produce more, whereas before you did.

As for the debt as a percentage of household income, that needs WAY more numbers behind it. Why is debt higher? I suspect it's related to credit cards. Mastercard was in '66, Visa in '70. The ability to make purchases without having to pay right away completely changes how people do their shopping. Especially when you can pay it off over a long period of time (albiet with a high interest rate). I'd be curious to see what debt to income looks like if you remove credit card debt.

I like the doom and gloom here, and the inevitibility that everyone will be without any capital at all. Where, precisely, will the top 1% get their money from then?

Nowhere. They'll die in a bloody revolution, as happens periodically. That's the way capitalism/feudalism is. Money makes money faster than work does, so the rich always get richer, and the poor always get poorer. Eventually the poor can't pay for their own bread and circuses, and the rich are too greedy to pay for the bread and circuses that keep the poor from storming their castles. Nobody likes bloody revolution, so lets try at least slowing the increase in inequality instead of accelerating it, as has been the case for the past 30 years.

See, now you're talking sense. I've always had you pegged as a wide-eyed idealist who thinks that we could live in a utopia where everyone gets what they need. It's good to see that you understand that the inequality is a natural part of people coming together.

[o.pwuaioc]

See, now you're talking sense. I've always had you pegged as a wide-eyed idealist who thinks that we could live in a utopia where everyone gets what they need. It's good to see that you understand that the inequality is a natural part of people coming together.

I mentioned this to a friend earlier, and thought it was appropriate here. Yes, inequality is natural, and perfect communism impossible. However, just because we can't have perfect equality doesn't mean we shouldn't strive toward it. The striving is what took us away from tyranny in 7th century BCE Greece, monarchy in 18th century CE USA.

[MrPopo]

See, now you're talking sense. I've always had you pegged as a wide-eyed idealist who thinks that we could live in a utopia where everyone gets what they need. It's good to see that you understand that the inequality is a natural part of people coming together.

I mentioned this to a friend earlier, and thought it was appropriate here. Yes, inequality is natural, and perfect communism impossible. However, just because we can't have perfect equality doesn't mean we shouldn't strive toward it. The striving is what took us away from tyranny in 7th century BCE Greece, monarchy in 18th century CE USA.

Britain at the time was under the parlimentary system already. The problem we had was we weren't being considered equal members, instead we were England's bitches. You know, kind of like the US Territories today.

[o.pwuaioc]

See, now you're talking sense. I've always had you pegged as a wide-eyed idealist who thinks that we could live in a utopia where everyone gets what they need. It's good to see that you understand that the inequality is a natural part of people coming together.

I mentioned this to a friend earlier, and thought it was appropriate here. Yes, inequality is natural, and perfect communism impossible. However, just because we can't have perfect equality doesn't mean we shouldn't strive toward it. The striving is what took us away from tyranny in 7th century BCE Greece, monarchy in 18th century CE USA.

Britain at the time was under the parlimentary system already. The problem we had was we weren't being considered equal members, instead we were England's bitches. You know, kind of like the US Territories today.

Or the 99%.

And it was a tad more than just not being equal, but if you want, I can give you another example: monarchy to representative democracy in Rome in the 6th century CE.

[Hatta]

I have no problem with the notion that some people are going to lose in the game of life.

Nor do I. I'd just like winners and losers to be determined on merit, and not biases built into the system.

See, now you're talking sense. I've always had you pegged as a wide-eyed idealist who thinks that we could live in a utopia where everyone gets what they need. It's good to see that you understand that the inequality is a natural part of people coming together.

It is, but we can slow or stall the process with policy. Redistribution of wealth doesn't have to come through violent revolution, but can be done peacefully. It's really up to the rich. They can either contribute some small part of their fortune back to the society that made them rich, or they can die in a bloody revolution. Their choice. The rich seem to be choosing the latter.

The relationship between capitalists and labor is a lot like that between a farmer and his livestock. Except that a farmer is smart enough to know that if you starve your cow, you won't get any milk. Somehow this lesson is lost on capitalists.

[MrPopo]

I have no problem with the notion that some people are going to lose in the game of life.

Nor do I. I'd just like winners and losers to be determined on merit, and not biases built into the system.

But aren't the biases towards those who have risen to a high position on merit?

[o.pwuaioc]

I have no problem with the notion that some people are going to lose in the game of life.

Nor do I. I'd just like winners and losers to be determined on merit, and not biases built into the system.

But aren't the biases towards those who have risen to a high position on merit?

Absolutely not.

[Hatta]

But aren't the biases towards those who have risen to a high position on merit?

Why would you assume that?