Occupy Wall Street

[MadocComadrin]

The problem isn't so much the size of the debt as it is US politics. They're far too polarised at the moment, the feeling being that the US is putting party politics ahead of actual effective governance. The markets fear instability far more than debt, and when you have a situation where one party will happily act against the common interest simply to score political points against their opponents it creates that instability. And that's before you start to worry about what happens when the platform of both parties essentially becomes "undo everything the previous government did".

Arch hits the nail on the head. The other nail that I tend to notice as well is heavy career politics, which simply adds to the former issue.

 

[MrNomNom]

Huh, I saw maw watching the thread, and thought he might actually reply. Guess not.

It's the Sarah Palin thread all over again.

 

[Jhessail]

Maw only cares about Maw. End of story. Which is why he is a perfect example of American "capitalism".

 

[rebelsquirrell]

Maw only cares about Maw. End of story. Which is why he is a perfect example of American "capitalism".

Well the "American Dream"  was never about a lovey dovey share with the world feeling. The first "American Dream" was to leave one's own crap hole country(not saying that all other countries are currently crap holes in comparison) and start anew here.

Originally a state could be as capitalistic as it wanted or as socialistic as it wanted. If a state wanted to be built around a friendly society it could do so, if a state wanted to rely on natural selection it could do so. Then came the rise of Federalism, which effectively created one state and made the US into a democracy. There is no reference to democracy in the constitution or in any of the 50 states constitutions; all say we are a republic. So on paper you should be able to take care of your own local needs at the state level, therefore you do not force other states to meet your needs especially if they conflict.

For example

Suppose New York has a crime problem and they think they can stop it through gun control; that is ok so long as they do it in their own state. Now suppose New York decides everybody should have gun control and goes to the federal government to have their way. Meanwhile a rancher in Texas uses his semi auto rifle to protect his cattle from predators, when New York says  alright hand over your guns Texas becomes angry that people that live thousands of miles away are telling them what they need.

In short we are supposed to be a cornucopia of ideals and ways of life that defend each other, but we wound up becoming a empire and lost our states independence.

 

[Adorno]

Jhessail didn't say anything bout "American Dream".

(Also, if the dream is only about leaving your home trying to find something better
then it's happening everywhere, all the time, around the entire world).

 

[rebelsquirrell]

Jhessail didn't say anything bout "American Dream".

(Also, if the dream is only about leaving your home trying to find something better
then it's happening everywhere, all the time, around the entire world).

Yes I know he didn't say anything directly about the American dream, but he did talk about  "American capitalism". Which more or less addresses the the American Dream, at least in most peoples eyes.

The dream is not understood by most people, The dream changed about the time of the gold rush instead of being "if you work real hard you will get rich" it became " Come here get rich fast" in addition to the federalism aspect.

Really people are not supposed to be discussing what the USA is doing to help the economy, but rather what the states are doing to help their own economies, although the Feds have some degree of flexibility on paper.(I already explained why this doesn't happen today.)

(and yes the dream can happen any wear for any country; it just happened on gigantic level in the past, thus the name.
Generally speaking its hard to monopolize a abstract concept)

 

[Adorno]

The dream is not understood by most people, The dream changed about the time of the gold rush instead of being "if you work real hard you will get rich" it became " Come here get rich fast" in addition to the federalism aspect.

If it's about getting rich then USA is the last place you want to go in the western world 


The poverty rate is the highest it's been since 1993, and the number of people in poverty is the greatest since records began 52 years ago.
http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/dont_slash_the_safety_net
About 1 in 6 Americans are poor according to the Census Bureau.

Social mobility in USA is the lowest in the western world:


(Social mobility is measured by the level of education of a person in relation to that person's parent's education)

 

[MadocComadrin]

Which is an incomplete measure of social mobility and social standpoint in general.

Consumer prices and rent prices (when taken out of consumer prices) are all higher in the countries that are on the left side of the trend than those of the US. Likewise, purchasing power is lower for those on the left.  Only when you get to the middle are those numbers reversed when compared to the US. Likewise, the middle-trend countries and the US all have a significantly higher GDP. Which means there's more wealth to go around.

So, while everyone in ie Norway are all making close to 51,959 Intl$ GDP per Capita, it takes more of that to actually get more stuff than in the US. (Also note that average full-time salary in Norway is 43,607 Intl$. Compare this to the US where GDP per Capita is 46,860 and average salary is 43,250, a much smaller gap).

Now, don't take this argument for more than what I'm using it for. All I'm saying is that graph isn't good for measuring social standpoints. In truth, the countries that are in the middle on the trend seem to be more well off in general.

You might try arguing the actual ideas, instead of just having a fight with a semi-imaginary group of "liberals."

Also, I caught this just a second ago. While I do believe that reducing a whole bunch of people to a single word is stupid, the fact of the matter is, you see a lot of demonization from either side. While the "liberal" side seems to get slightly more support by claiming progress, the truth of the matter is, the a lot of the stuff spewed back and forth falls under moral relativity.

 

[Adorno]

Which is an incomplete measure of social mobility and social standpoint in general.

Measuring social mobility based on parent's education is exactly how it's done.
The higher education the larger salaries (economic capital) and the higher social status (social capital).

Poverty is always measured relatively within a society. It's not measured by looking at wealth internationally.
I.e. the poorest 10 percent of the population in America have much more wealth than the poorest 10 percent in Albania.
But the interesting thing is they share the same 'effects' of poverty. They both have shorter lives,
worse health, more likely to be victims of violent crimes and become criminals themselves, and many other parameters.
The goal here is to level out economic wealth whether it be by lowering income differences or redistribution by taxes.

 

[MadocComadrin]

Measuring social mobility based on parent's education is exactly how it's done.
The higher education the larger salaries (economic capital) and the higher social status (social capital)

Yet, this says nothing about the education conundrum, where in some countries the cost of higher education causes about equal or less overall earnings. It's a poor determining factor alone.

Spoiler

Poverty is always measured relatively within a society. It's not measured by looking at wealth internationally.

Poverty is measured in whatever region you need to measure it in-globally if needed.

The goal here is to level out economic wealth whether it be by lowering income differences or redistribution by taxes.

That's based on an ideology. Another ideology would suggest minimizing the "effects" of poverty aside from having less material possessions.

The problems of the American people aren't due completely to the 1% having a disproportionate amount of money, but more about how they use it (not that the former doesn't have a significant effect). They're stabbing the invisible hand instead of letting it guide them.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Are you saying that you think reducing economic inequality in the US would not reduce the effects of poverty?

You might try arguing the actual ideas, instead of just having a fight with a semi-imaginary group of "liberals."

Also, I caught this just a second ago. While I do believe that reducing a whole bunch of people to a single word is stupid, the fact of the matter is, you see a lot of demonization from either side. While the "liberal" side seems to get slightly more support by claiming progress, the truth of the matter is, the a lot of the stuff spewed back and forth falls under moral relativity.

I guess. It just bothers me to see these groups brought when the qualities of those groups don't seem to have been the point in the first place. It's not the labels that bother me - it's the straw-mannish and ad hominem flavour of the talk.

Measuring social mobility based on parent's education is exactly how it's done.
The higher education the larger salaries (economic capital) and the higher social status (social capital)

Yet, this says nothing about the education conundrum, where in some countries the cost of higher education causes about equal or less overall earnings. It's a poor determining factor alone.

You can't really call it poor unless you've specified a question, but I'd agree that education isn't the only thing people care about when they discuss social mobility. The US is still behind if you use income instead of education though.

 

[MadocComadrin]

Are you saying that you think reducing economic inequality in the US would not reduce the effects of poverty?

No, it would reduce poverty itself, but I was also rather vague: I should have said the effects of being poor on those who are poor.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Not sure what you're getting at. It sound a bit like "keep some poor people around, but make it nicer to be poor."

 

[MadocComadrin]

Yes and no. I'm not a fan of a classless society: in my ideal, the poor are the ones who deserve to be poor--the lazy, untalented, and uninspired (and as in having all three characteristics). These people don't deserve crime, unnecessary health issues, etc., but they DO deserve to have fewer material possessions and less property.

 

[Adorno]

Yes and no. I'm not a fan of a classless society: in my ideal, the poor are the ones who deserve to be poor--the lazy, untalented, and uninspired (and as in having all three characteristics). These people don't deserve crime, unnecessary health issues, etc., but they DO deserve to have fewer material possessions and less property.

People are not poor because of laziness.
When you can statistically foresee those who will become poor already before they are born
it doesn't make much sense to explain poverty with psychology.
Unless you believe people are lazy by genetics and pass on the lazy gene.
But that does not explain why the social mobility is much higher in some countries than others.
In short forget about free will - that illusion died long ago    (I'm exaggerating but psychology just doesn't work when you want to explain social phenomena). 

Measuring social mobility based on parent's education is exactly how it's done.
The higher education the larger salaries (economic capital) and the higher social status (social capital)

Yet, this says nothing about the education conundrum, where in some countries the cost of higher education causes about equal or less overall earnings. It's a poor determining factor alone.

It's true there are variations, but overall using level of education to measure 'rank' in society works pretty well.
Also notice that people with longer education have better health insurances, better pension plans (save up more money, buy shares etc.)
and all in all are better financially protected so to speak.
Whereas those with short educations don't save up that much and are more vulnerable in times of financial crisis,
both globally but also personally, in case of becoming unemployed or sick i.e.

The goal here is to level out economic wealth whether it be by lowering income differences or redistribution by taxes.

That's based on an ideology. Another ideology would suggest minimizing the "effects" of poverty aside from having less material possessions.

It certainly is 
But there's only one proven method to effectively reducing poverty, and that's reducing economic inequalities.
Food stamps won't cut it 

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Spoiler

Poverty is always measured relatively within a society. It's not measured by looking at wealth internationally.

Poverty is measured in whatever region you need to measure it in-globally if needed.

If poverty is confined into an economic region, how do you know if a person is really poor or not?

 

[MadocComadrin]

People are not poor because of laziness.
When you can statistically foresee those who will become poor already before they are born
it doesn't make much sense to explain poverty with psychology.
Unless you believe people are lazy by genetics and pass on the lazy gene.
But that does not explain why the social mobility is much higher in some countries than others.
In short forget about free will - that illusion died long ago    (I'm exaggerating but psychology just doesn't work when you want to explain social phenomena). 

First, why are you typing like that...it's weird. I'm talking about the ideal. That is to say, a lot of poverty in reality is caused from misfortune rather than not working or not being of any (potential) worth to society. In my ideal, the poor are those who work little or don't work, don't have the talent/skill to make their little-to-no work worth it to society, and do not have the will to correct the former.

Also, sociology does include aggregate psychology, and most forms of statistics are empirical, and the probabilities are often empirical (or Bayesian) as well. That means they are hardly set in stone: the quantitative depends on the qualitative.

It's true there are variations, but overall using level of education to measure 'rank' in society works pretty well.
Also notice that people with longer education have better health insurances, better pension plans (save up more money, buy shares etc.)
and all in all are better financially protected so to speak.
Whereas those with short educations don't save up that much and are more vulnerable in times of financial crisis,
both globally but also personally, in case of becoming unemployed or sick i.e.

Err, in the US and many other countries, it's arguable whether an education leads to financial security, or even financial success. It's not just a small variation, it's a rather big consideration. People who don't get higher education will pretty much buy a house earlier, have less debt, will earn more money from interests from savings, and have a very good chance of earning more in their lifetimes than a person who goes to college.

It certainly is 
But there's only one proven method to effectively reducing poverty, and that's reducing economic inequalities.
Food stamps won't cut it 

It's not "the effective method" it's the definition: the lower end of economic inequality is poverty. What is means to be poor is my concern: I have no intention to reduce inequality beyond what's fair (based on what I described already). Some view poverty in general as a bad thing; on the other hand, I only view undue poverty as bad. 

If poverty is confined into an economic region, how do you know if a person is really poor or not?

Relative purchasing power is a good start. But then again, I'm not sure what you mean by economic region, seeing as that could be anything from my house, my state, a group of states, the US, North America, North AND South America, the world, the solar system, etc. 

 

[Swadius 2.0]

If poverty is confined into an economic region, how do you know if a person is really poor or not?

Relative purchasing power is a good start. But then again, I'm not sure what you mean by economic region, seeing as that could be anything from my house, my state, a group of states, the US, North America, North AND South America, the world, the solar system, etc.

Well, aren't you just drawing lines around some poor people with some rich people dispersed in them? You could just as easily draw a line around the poor people with no rich people in them and call this an economic region where no one is recognizably poor.

 

[MadocComadrin]

Well, if you consider an economic region that is gerrymandered to include only poor people, then the poorer of those poor will be that region's poor, while the less poor will be the rich.

The thing is, you don't draw an economic region based on economics, you draw an economic region based on geography to determine the economy of that geographic region.  IE. I think you misunderstood when I said economic region. 

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Not all definitions need to be relative. You could also use objective thresholds. For example, you might say a person is poor if they cannot obtain a certain amount of food, or if they are, for financial reasons, unable to obtain certain medical treatments.

Yes and no. I'm not a fan of a classless society: in my ideal, the poor are the ones who deserve to be poor--the lazy, untalented, and uninspired (and as in having all three characteristics). These people don't deserve crime, unnecessary health issues, etc., but they DO deserve to have fewer material possessions and less property.

In that case I think you're using a bit of a different definition of "poverty." Crime, unnecessary health issues and so on are the problems here, not the fact that some people have "fewer possessions."

In short forget about free will - that illusion died long ago    (I'm exaggerating but psychology just doesn't work when you want to explain social phenomena). 

Not to change the subject, but I don't think anyone says that free will means that one has infinite potential. You can still have free will but be unable to improve your social situation.

Also, psychology is a very broad discipline and includes study of the effects of situational variables (e.g., poverty) on behaviour. It's not limited to personality, so it's not really fair to say "psychology" doesn't work to explain social phenomena.