Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 John Prins wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Wait wait wait... people are allowed to use their wealth to make their children's lives better and easier? We've got to put a stop to that!

Wait, people want a fair system where people succeed on their own merits? We've got to put a stop to that! /s

"People want a fair system" is a funny way of saying people want to punish those they are envious of, and want to take from those that have more. That's not fair at all.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 John Prins wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Wait wait wait... people are allowed to use their wealth to make their children's lives better and easier? We've got to put a stop to that!

Wait, people want a fair system where people succeed on their own merits? We've got to put a stop to that! /s

"People want a fair system" is a funny way of saying people want to punish those they are envious of, and want to take from those that have more. That's not fair at all.

Both points of view are valid. The issues come when people think they are mutually exclusive.

People who say "We just want a fair and equitable system!" tend to misunderstand how wealth works. They think wealth is a finite resource and that because X person has Y wealth that that means there is less wealth to go around. And thus they think the solution is to steal wealth from the people who have it and give it to those who don't.

This is the main fallacy in this situation, since wealth is not a finite resource. This notion was debunked with the philosophy of mercantilism. That isn't to say wealth is an infinite resource either. Wealth is an elastic concept. It is created by the perception of value that people ascribe to particular objects. Because this is the case, a particular person having a bunch of wealth does not actually prevent other people in any way from acquiring other kinds of wealth. And indeed, that is the core concept behind being an entrepreneur. An Entrepreneur is a person who creates wealth that did not exist before. They develop a new product or service that the market finds desirable and thus ascribes wealth to.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That doesn't change that just shouting "bias!" in a poop'n'scoot and then pretending that wasn't what one was doing when called on it is plain dumb. .

I'm sorry, I should know better. HuffPo is a perfectly reasonable news outlet that simply states the facts with no political leanings and doesn't at all, never has disguised editorials, and never has misleading or omitted info, and never publishes stories bordering on conspiracy theory. They are above reproach and anyone that says they are is a bigot.




Meanwhile in other dakka threads...… FAUX News!!!! Propaganda!!!! Bias!!!

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 John Prins wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Wait wait wait... people are allowed to use their wealth to make their children's lives better and easier? We've got to put a stop to that!

Wait, people want a fair system where people succeed on their own merits? We've got to put a stop to that! /s

"People want a fair system" is a funny way of saying people want to punish those they are envious of, and want to take from those that have more. That's not fair at all.

Both points of view are valid. The issues come when people think they are mutually exclusive.

People who say "We just want a fair and equitable system!" tend to misunderstand how wealth works. They think wealth is a finite resource and that because X person has Y wealth that that means there is less wealth to go around. And thus they think the solution is to steal wealth from the people who have it and give it to those who don't.

This is the main fallacy in this situation, since wealth is not a finite resource. This notion was debunked with the philosophy of mercantilism. That isn't to say wealth is an infinite resource either. Wealth is an elastic concept. It is created by the perception of value that people ascribe to particular objects. Because this is the case, a particular person having a bunch of wealth does not actually prevent other people in any way from acquiring other kinds of wealth. And indeed, that is the core concept behind being an entrepreneur. An Entrepreneur is a person who creates wealth that did not exist before. They develop a new product or service that the market finds desirable and thus ascribes wealth to.

Which sounds very nice, but does nothing to help those who are struggling. It also ignores the reality; the expansion of wealth is also hoarded by the wealthy. The solution of 'adding new slices to the pie' doesn't work when all the new slices go to the very wealthy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 John Prins wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Wait wait wait... people are allowed to use their wealth to make their children's lives better and easier? We've got to put a stop to that!

Wait, people want a fair system where people succeed on their own merits? We've got to put a stop to that! /s

"People want a fair system" is a funny way of saying people want to punish those they are envious of, and want to take from those that have more. That's not fair at all.

No, that is not what he's saying nor is that the circumstance at hand. You are demonizing the opposing viewpoint on moral grounds rather than engaging it on rational terms.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 John Prins wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Wait wait wait... people are allowed to use their wealth to make their children's lives better and easier? We've got to put a stop to that!

Wait, people want a fair system where people succeed on their own merits? We've got to put a stop to that! /s

"People want a fair system" is a funny way of saying people want to punish those they are envious of, and want to take from those that have more. That's not fair at all.

Neither is a system where people bust their backsides for fifty years and still have nothing.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That doesn't change that just shouting "bias!" in a poop'n'scoot and then pretending that wasn't what one was doing when called on it is plain dumb. .

I'm sorry, I should know better. HuffPo is a perfectly reasonable news outlet that simply states the facts with no political leanings and doesn't at all, never has disguised editorials, and never has misleading or omitted info, and never publishes stories bordering on conspiracy theory. They are above reproach and anyone that says they are is a bigot.


Meanwhile in other dakka threads...… FAUX News!!!! Propaganda!!!! Bias!!!

No one claimed they weren't biased or had no political leanings, that is a thing you're inventing, along with the other random gak you threw in at the end there. You made some pretty specific, unambiguous claims about how they're typically full of falsehoods. This specific article is heavily cited, so it was a fair question to see what falsehoods you spotted, in case you were interested in actually having a meaningful discussion about the article, and it wasn't just a particularly clumsy poop 'n scoop.

The fact that rather then standing by your assertion (or withdrawing it when unable to) you instead posted this word salad makes it pretty unambiguous what the original intent was. Sorry you got called out on the lame thing you did!


So far as the glass floor, I'm not sure having wealthy parents is a prerequisite. It seems once you hit a certain net wealth and level of success, it becomes almost impossible to go broke again. I'm not saying no one ever has, but the natural flow of our institutions seem to facilitate just continuously failing upwards, whether it's wall street or hollywood (Colin Treverrow comes to mind).

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 John Prins wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Wait wait wait... people are allowed to use their wealth to make their children's lives better and easier? We've got to put a stop to that!

Wait, people want a fair system where people succeed on their own merits? We've got to put a stop to that! /s

"People want a fair system" is a funny way of saying people want to punish those they are envious of, and want to take from those that have more. That's not fair at all.

Both points of view are valid. The issues come when people think they are mutually exclusive.

People who say "We just want a fair and equitable system!" tend to misunderstand how wealth works. They think wealth is a finite resource and that because X person has Y wealth that that means there is less wealth to go around. And thus they think the solution is to steal wealth from the people who have it and give it to those who don't.

This is the main fallacy in this situation, since wealth is not a finite resource. This notion was debunked with the philosophy of mercantilism. That isn't to say wealth is an infinite resource either. Wealth is an elastic concept. It is created by the perception of value that people ascribe to particular objects. Because this is the case, a particular person having a bunch of wealth does not actually prevent other people in any way from acquiring other kinds of wealth. And indeed, that is the core concept behind being an entrepreneur. An Entrepreneur is a person who creates wealth that did not exist before. They develop a new product or service that the market finds desirable and thus ascribes wealth to.

Which sounds very nice, but does nothing to help those who are struggling. It also ignores the reality; the expansion of wealth is also hoarded by the wealthy. The solution of 'adding new slices to the pie' doesn't work when all the new slices go to the very wealthy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 John Prins wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Wait wait wait... people are allowed to use their wealth to make their children's lives better and easier? We've got to put a stop to that!

Wait, people want a fair system where people succeed on their own merits? We've got to put a stop to that! /s

"People want a fair system" is a funny way of saying people want to punish those they are envious of, and want to take from those that have more. That's not fair at all.

No, that is not what he's saying nor is that the circumstance at hand. You are demonizing the opposing viewpoint on moral grounds rather than engaging it on rational terms.

Well, it's a completely irrational viewpoint, so how would one engage with it on rational terms? What could possibly be unfair about parents using their money to try and give their children better lives? Isn't that what we are all trying to do?

That isn't what he said. Once again you are creating a false argument, claiming it's his position, and responding to that. It makes it look like you are unable to form a rational counterpoint to his.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 John Prins wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Wait wait wait... people are allowed to use their wealth to make their children's lives better and easier? We've got to put a stop to that!

Wait, people want a fair system where people succeed on their own merits? We've got to put a stop to that! /s

"People want a fair system" is a funny way of saying people want to punish those they are envious of, and want to take from those that have more. That's not fair at all.

Both points of view are valid. The issues come when people think they are mutually exclusive.

People who say "We just want a fair and equitable system!" tend to misunderstand how wealth works. They think wealth is a finite resource and that because X person has Y wealth that that means there is less wealth to go around. And thus they think the solution is to steal wealth from the people who have it and give it to those who don't.

This is the main fallacy in this situation, since wealth is not a finite resource. This notion was debunked with the philosophy of mercantilism. That isn't to say wealth is an infinite resource either. Wealth is an elastic concept. It is created by the perception of value that people ascribe to particular objects. Because this is the case, a particular person having a bunch of wealth does not actually prevent other people in any way from acquiring other kinds of wealth. And indeed, that is the core concept behind being an entrepreneur. An Entrepreneur is a person who creates wealth that did not exist before. They develop a new product or service that the market finds desirable and thus ascribes wealth to.

Which sounds very nice, but does nothing to help those who are struggling. It also ignores the reality; the expansion of wealth is also hoarded by the wealthy. The solution of 'adding new slices to the pie' doesn't work when all the new slices go to the very wealthy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

 John Prins wrote:

 Albino Squirrel wrote:
Wait wait wait... people are allowed to use their wealth to make their children's lives better and easier? We've got to put a stop to that!

Wait, people want a fair system where people succeed on their own merits? We've got to put a stop to that! /s

"People want a fair system" is a funny way of saying people want to punish those they are envious of, and want to take from those that have more. That's not fair at all.

No, that is not what he's saying nor is that the circumstance at hand. You are demonizing the opposing viewpoint on moral grounds rather than engaging it on rational terms.

Well, it's a completely irrational viewpoint, so how would one engage with it on rational terms? What could possibly be unfair about parents using their money to try and give their children better lives? Isn't that what we are all trying to do?

What could be unfair about parents using their money to try and give their children better lives? Where do I begin?

1.it's unfair to a capable person who was born to poor parents and worked to get an education and better himself to be lorded over by a lazy incompetent oaf whose sole qualification was being born to advantaged parents.

2.it's unfair to the workers at a company who can have their jobs, salaries, insurance and pensions that they've earned taken away from them because an idiotic scion of corporate exec parents caused the company they worked for to fail because he was placed in a position he did not earn and was not competent for.

3. It's unfair to the shareholders in the company that they don't get the dividends a competent leader could hve given them because an incomplete offspring of privelidged parents was running things.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

Well, it's a completely irrational viewpoint, so how would one engage with it on rational terms? What could possibly be unfair about parents using their money to try and give their children better lives? Isn't that what we are all trying to do?

Good lord, I responded to an obviously sarcastic comment with more obvious sarcasm. I even added a /s.

Don't use sarcasm is you can't distinguish it.

@ Sobekta: Your point #1 is exactly why, for the most part, we no longer have absolute monarchies. Hereditary succession is a *bad* idea. Please note that this is a different concept from inheritance.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That doesn't change that just shouting "bias!" in a poop'n'scoot and then pretending that wasn't what one was doing when called on it is plain dumb. .

I'm sorry, I should know better. HuffPo is a perfectly reasonable news outlet that simply states the facts with no political leanings and doesn't at all, never has disguised editorials, and never has misleading or omitted info, and never publishes stories bordering on conspiracy theory. They are above reproach and anyone that says they are is a bigot.




Meanwhile in other dakka threads...… FAUX News!!!! Propaganda!!!! Bias!!!

You could have just engaged in good faith. Instead you chose to respond with a strawman. QED.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Likewise the claim that rising living costs in the US is somehow the government's fault is so mind-boggling obviously a silly argument, as has already been pointed out.

But that's not a silly argument at all, just because you don't understand it or choose to ignore it.

You're right, it's silly because it's patently not true. If more government intervention is what has caused increased living costs, why does the US, with comparatively less government intervention in healthcare than every other Western country, spend such a disproportionate amount on healthcare?

The rest of the industrialized world doesn't have your problem with insane tuition fees and student debt either. You're an anomaly, and the difference is that you have LESS government intervention, not more.

Feel free to strawman this response just like you have everything else you've responded to.

The rest of the industrialized world doesn't have your problem with insane tuition fees and student debt either. You're an anomaly, and the difference is that you have LESS government intervention, not more.

Meanwhile in switzerland you have even Less interventions and non such issues aswell.
So que?

Not Online!!! wrote:

The rest of the industrialized world doesn't have your problem with insane tuition fees and student debt either. You're an anomaly, and the difference is that you have LESS government intervention, not more.

Meanwhile in switzerland you have even Less interventions and non such issues aswell.
So que?

True. At best you have an argument that government intervention is unrelated entirely, at worst an argument that more of it is better than less, but at no point does looking at any other industrialized country than the US lend credence to the idea that government intervention is the cause.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

The rest of the industrialized world doesn't have your problem with insane tuition fees and student debt either. You're an anomaly, and the difference is that you have LESS government intervention, not more.

Meanwhile in switzerland you have even Less interventions and non such issues aswell.
So que?

True. At best you have an argument that government intervention is unrelated entirely, at worst an argument that more of it is better than less, but at no point does looking at any other industrialized country than the US lend credence to the idea that government intervention is the cause.

Well, you could also point out the questionable interaction of poltical governmental system on the general culture of a country: E.g. Gunlaw, conscription, mandatory healthcare and psychological healthcare.

Switzerland has an estimated ammount of guns per capita as Texas, one of the highest. Personally i estimate way more but i am biased cause rural swiss + in region where the reduit is = seen many guns.
Switzerland has comparatively non gun violence. And even less accidents comparatively.

Switzerland however also conscripts the male population and screens mandatory the psychological state, and has an actual insurance system covering issues like psychological healthcare. Ergo most of the population that is likely to own a gun (he i mean you get it for free, might aswell get it because payment and fun if you like to shoot) is propperly trained to use one and have one at home.

Government intervention can be an issue if it intenciveces wrong behaviour, see actibliz and the videogames industry not paying any taxes and infact getting tax money back. Or the market get negatively impacted most likely if the state intervens stupidly into the market of real estate and rent room.
Non government intervention is also an issue.

Switzerland though has 1 significant advantage, solutions are generally compromised out of many groups makeing them take time but also more acceptable ergo easier to implement and due to the time it takes to reach one often more factors get regarded.

If anything the US has issues with questionable intervention, e.g. the Hemp thread which was lobbied for, an interesting topic indeed.
Or the denial of digital databases on gun owners/ownership due to legal law lobbied for.
If anything it's a wierd mixture of issues and interest parties atleast from my limited outside view.

I'm going to continue the trend of tangent and seize the branch of conversation that mentioned the glass floor relating to feminism.

It reminded me that the 'gender pay gap' is a privelege issue mire than a broader social issue: when you're being payed minimum wage there is no gender pay gap. We should prioritise offering a step up to all those on the bottom rung of the ladder, not to those few high flying females that are stuck on the penultimate step (as much as they may deserve the help).

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That doesn't change that just shouting "bias!" in a poop'n'scoot and then pretending that wasn't what one was doing when called on it is plain dumb. .

I'm sorry, I should know better. HuffPo is a perfectly reasonable news outlet that simply states the facts with no political leanings and doesn't at all, never has disguised editorials, and never has misleading or omitted info, and never publishes stories bordering on conspiracy theory. They are above reproach and anyone that says they are is a bigot.




Meanwhile in other dakka threads...… FAUX News!!!! Propaganda!!!! Bias!!!

You could have just engaged in good faith. Instead you chose to respond with a strawman. QED.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Likewise the claim that rising living costs in the US is somehow the government's fault is so mind-boggling obviously a silly argument, as has already been pointed out.

But that's not a silly argument at all, just because you don't understand it or choose to ignore it.

You're right, it's silly because it's patently not true. If more government intervention is what has caused increased living costs, why does the US, with comparatively less government intervention in healthcare than every other Western country, spend such a disproportionate amount on healthcare?

The rest of the industrialized world doesn't have your problem with insane tuition fees and student debt either. You're an anomaly, and the difference is that you have LESS government intervention, not more.

Feel free to strawman this response just like you have everything else you've responded to.

It's not patently untrue, you just don't know very much about basic economics.

EDIT: On second thought, never mind. The heckler's veto claims yet another thread.

Lets try and see if we can get the thread back on track with out violating any rules instead. If you read a post that breaks the rules then please hit the yellow triangle and tell a mod about it rather than engaging.

nareik wrote:
I'm going to continue the trend of tangent and seize the branch of conversation that mentioned the glass floor relating to feminism.

It reminded me that the 'gender pay gap' is a privelege issue mire than a broader social issue: when you're being payed minimum wage there is no gender pay gap. We should prioritise offering a step up to all those on the bottom rung of the ladder, not to those few high flying females that are stuck on the penultimate step (as much as they may deserve the help).

The Gender Pay Gap is mostly a myth. If women want more pay, they can start by working more hours. Working more hours per week would put them on par with their male counterparts and up their pay by 17% or so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

You could have just engaged in good faith. Instead you chose to respond with a strawman. QED.

 Albino Squirrel wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Likewise the claim that rising living costs in the US is somehow the government's fault is so mind-boggling obviously a silly argument, as has already been pointed out.

But that's not a silly argument at all, just because you don't understand it or choose to ignore it.

You're right, it's silly because it's patently not true. If more government intervention is what has caused increased living costs, why does the US, with comparatively less government intervention in healthcare than every other Western country, spend such a disproportionate amount on healthcare?

The rest of the industrialized world doesn't have your problem with insane tuition fees and student debt either. You're an anomaly, and the difference is that you have LESS government intervention, not more.

.

For starters, my initial response to this thread was that I have skepticism about HuffPo articles because of their history. Others then incorrectly claimed that I said EVERYTHING HuffPo puts out is wrong, or that the article itself was in error. I was trying to say (and yes I did this poorly) that the article shouldn't just be taken at face value. I then got called out for knocking an entire news outlet, to which I pointed out the blatant hypocrisy from those that have done literally the same thing in the past.

Also, don't you think that it's more than a mere coincidence that college education costs started skyrocketing in the US about the time of government intervention?

 Azreal13 wrote:
That's just nepotism and it's nothing new.

Have to admit though, glass floor is going to sound a lot neater in sound bites bashing the rich

Probably because of *how* the US government intervened.

Here in the Netherlands costs for healthcare, public transport, education etc have been skyrocketing since the government decided to privatise more or most of these.

Bran Dawri wrote:
Probably because of *how* the US government intervened.

Here in the Netherlands costs for healthcare, public transport, education etc have been skyrocketing since the government decided to privatise more or most of these.

Privatizing is 'supposed' to lower cost because there's pressure to be efficient, because efficient means more profit. But that requires healthy competition, which is generally absent in the healthcare, public transport and education industries (due to huge start up costs and regulation). And businesses that fail aren't easily replaced with new competition, so it leans towards monopoly (on a local level) and high prices pretty quickly.

 John Prins wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
Probably because of *how* the US government intervened.

Here in the Netherlands costs for healthcare, public transport, education etc have been skyrocketing since the government decided to privatise more or most of these.

Privatizing is 'supposed' to lower cost because there's pressure to be efficient, because efficient means more profit. But that requires healthy competition, which is generally absent in the healthcare, public transport and education industries (due to huge start up costs and regulation). And businesses that fail aren't easily replaced with new competition, so it leans towards monopoly (on a local level) and high prices pretty quickly.

And because when your leg just got broken you aren't in a position to shop around for the best healthcare option.

Well, that and here in the US what company can provide you health insurance is limited by law. It's not like a guy living in Huston can decide to get health insurance from a provider in New York.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Well, that and here in the US what company can provide you health insurance is limited by law. It's not like a guy living in Huston can decide to get health insurance from a provider in New York.

Lol no wonder you have issues

So the issue isn't government intervention, it's inept government intervention or government intervention hamstrung by political reasons?

I think this discussion is going to be difficult to continue without violating the politics ban.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So the issue isn't government intervention, it's inept government intervention or government intervention hamstrung by political reasons?

In a nutshell.... Yes. The US has somehow strung together the worst possible combination of the private and public sectors into the monstrosity we have now. Personally, my insurance premiums from 2010 to today have gone up 108%. During this time I have never had a hospital visit, gotten the flu vaccine a few times, and had a couple doctor's visits for my kids when they were sick. This is well below average.

Well at least doctors still do visits in the US!