Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"

[boedicca]

You have a graph to compare the opportunity of people in the USA with "most everyone who has ever lived?"

Instead of comparing Toro's graph to a mythical one, a better use of one's time would be to sample Rex-Goliath Chardonnay, 2008, Woodbridge, CA. The wine is named after the "World's Largest ......um.....'Rooster'.......weighing in at 47 lbs.

No graph - just logic.

And one is drinking Rosé these days.

 

[mudwhistle]

A two party system bent on getting your vote and taking your money. Government is the people, get a clue moron.

Actually government answers to the people.....but these days they don't.

 

[QUENTIN]

Fuckheads like Quentin need to get a grip.

I'm sure if you search long enough you can find some kind of obscure statistic that backs up your lame-brained ideological beliefs....but the overall big picture doesn't jive with your findings.

You see in order for your stance on the subject to have any validity you have to exclude countries and pigeonhole the fuck out of the facts.

China is industrialized...and they are quickly overtaking us. They produce more products then the United States. Yes they are developing but they are a modern society. Mexico is an industrialized nation as well. The very fact that they are so fucked up is why they are worse off then we are...and that simple fact is what you're using to exclude them.

Any country that doesn't meet your criteria is automatically excluded which means the sample you're using is biased. The whole premise is rigged to get findings that are not real nor do they reflect the truth.

A more honest result would be derived from using all countries in the world and compare them, not just look at the few that fall into the narrow class that suits your aims.

In a nut-shell....any country that is worse off then the United States, according to you, doesn't meet your criteria....so they are automatically and conveniently excluded. So guess what.....your findings are meaningless.

There are three and only three widely respected and recognized organizations that classify countries based on their economies. They are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), all three groups uniformly consider China and Mexico to be developing countries on their way to industrialization, not industrialized countries. This information is contained in the links that both I and Si modo posted in this thread.

I'm not a part of any of the three organization. It's not my standards, I'm doing no pigeonholing and the criteria are not mine. Words have meanings that can't be defined by us as we see fit to make an argument. An industrialized or developed nation is one that has reached a certain level of industrialization and quality of life measured by these international organizations that have the means to make these measurements and rate them accordingly.

All of the major bodies tasked with relaying their expert findings on whether a country is industrialized and developed or not conclude that Mexico and China are not.

If you have an issue with that, take it up with them. The fact is, you are wrong. What seems most likely from your attempt at argument is that you don't know what industrialized means or what criteria are recognized as the measurements of industrialization and development. You apparently think the fact that China for instance sells more things than us means it's industrialized. On this subject, you're quite ignorant. That would be fine, as long as you didn't make an ass of yourself by calling someone else a fuckhead for knowing more than you about the subject and being able to back that up with the findings of the IMF, UN, and CIA, which were already provided in the thread before you tried to call me a fuckhead for accurately citing them.

You don't know what you're talking about, it's probably best for your own sake that you either now inform yourself or shut up about it.

Of course I called you an idiot. You are. Anyone who makes a claim, ESPECIALLY one so easily verified or refuted, without backing it up is an idiot.

And, Singapore, Mexico, and China - all with higher income disparity, just for example - are industrialized countries (vide supra). I don't make claims that are not supported AND I support those claims with links and/or references.

A lesson you and others should learn. Then you wouldn't be idiots. It's just that simple.

I did back it up, you even helped back it up for me. As stated now repeatedly and as evidenced here:

Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as I quoted above.

Like mudwhistle, you seem to not know what being an industrialized or developed nation means and think, like a huge fucking idiot making your stupidity readily apparent, that "Well they have a really large economy and make lots of stuff, they must be industrialized!" Again, it wouldn't be a problem to be ignorant on the subject if you didn't pretend to know what you were talking about and chastise someone for speaking accurately on the subject when even you have provided the evidence that you are wrong.

Your links and references you've cited demonstrate that Singapore has less income inequality than the US (Singapore = 42.5, US =45 on Gini index) and that China and Mexico are both developing countries on their way to being industrialized but not yet having met the benchmarks that the IMF, CIA, and UN use for determining what countries are and are not "developed."

It's hard to tell whether you're lying to save face or have no idea what you're talking about, but the longer this goes on either the more dishonest or more stupid you look.

Check your own references, they prove you wrong.

And again, even if we were to set aside this issue and pretend China and Mexico were already developed nations, their income inequality is 1 and 2 points higher than the U.S., or in other words quite similar. It doesn't prove anything because they're not developed nations, but if they were, what would that prove? That we have the fourth greatest income inequality in the world? What the hell is the purpose of your point? What are you trying to argue by attempting to point out, even if you weren't wrong, that there are a couple countries even worse than we are? Is our level of income inequality then not a problem, in need of no reform, and a moot discussion point?

Moron.

Mexico, China, and Singapore, just for example, ARE industrialized nations (vide supra).

At this point, you are a bigger idiot for trying to deny it.

Your claim that the USA has the highest income disparity of all induistrialized nations, or even the second largest, is just plain bullshit, as my links and the references therein demonstrate.

Moron.

Well, you've not at least made clear whether you were being dishonest or dumb. Congratulations, perhaps you're not an idiot, you've just proven yourself to be a liar.

Once more for those keeping score at home:

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Developing countries are in general countries which have not achieved a significant degree of industrialization relative to their populations, and which have, in most cases a medium to low standard of living. There is a strong correlation between low income and high population growth.

The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".

The following are considered emerging and developing economies according to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Report, October 2009:

* Afghanistan
* Albania
* Algeria
* Angola
* Antigua and Barbuda
* Argentina
* Armenia
* Azerbaijan
* The Bahamas
* Bahrain
* Bangladesh
* Belarus
* Belize
* Benin
* Bhutan
* Bolivia
* Botswana
* Bosnia and Herzegovina
* Brazil
* Bulgaria
* Burkina Faso
* Burma
* Burundi
* Cameroon
* Cape Verde
* Central African Republic
* Chad
* Chile
* China
* Colombia
* Comoros
* Democratic Republic of the Congo
* Republic of the Congo
* Costa Rica
* Côte d'Ivoire
* Croatia
* Djibouti
* Dominica
* Dominican Republic
* Ecuador
* Egypt
* El Salvador
* Equatorial Guinea
* Eritrea
* Ethiopia
* Fiji
* Gabon
* The Gambia
* Georgia
* Ghana
* Grenada
* Guatemala
* Guinea
* Guinea-Bissau
* Guyana
* Haiti
* Honduras
* Hungary
* Indonesia
* India
* Iran
* Iraq
* Jamaica
* Jordan
* Kazakhstan
* Kenya
* Kiribati
* Kuwait
* Kyrgyzstan
* Laos
* Latvia
* Lebanon
* Lesotho
* Liberia
* Libya
* Lithuania
* Macedonia
* Madagascar
* Malawi
* Malaysia
* Maldives
* Mali
* Marshall Islands[18]
* Mauritania
* Mauritius
* Mexico
...

Keep lying pal, but it's not very effective when the proof you're lying is readily available above, below, and all around your comments.

Also interesting to note you've yet to reply now to the substantive question of what point you were trying to make by, however erroneously, arguing there were a couple industrialized nations with even greater income inequality than the U.S.

"Hey Afghans, great news! We don't have to worry about fixing our health care anymore, we no longer have the highest infant mortality rate in the world, just the third highest! No problems here!"

 

[Si modo]

There are three and only three widely respected and recognized organizations that classify countries based on their economies. They are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), all three groups uniformly consider China and Mexico to be developing countries on their way to industrialization, not industrialized countries. This information is contained in the links that both I and Si modo posted in this thread.

I'm not a part of any of the three organization. It's not my standards, I'm doing no pigeonholing and the criteria are not mine. Words have meanings that can't be defined by us as we see fit to make an argument. An industrialized or developed nation is one that has reached a certain level of industrialization and quality of life measured by these international organizations that have the means to make these measurements and rate them accordingly.

All of the major bodies tasked with relaying their expert findings on whether a country is industrialized and developed or not conclude that Mexico and China are not.

If you have an issue with that, take it up with them. The fact is, you are wrong. What seems most likely from your attempt at argument is that you don't know what industrialized means or what criteria are recognized as the measurements of industrialization and development. You apparently think the fact that China for instance sells more things than us means it's industrialized. On this subject, you're quite ignorant. That would be fine, as long as you didn't make an ass of yourself by calling someone else a fuckhead for knowing more than you about the subject and being able to back that up with the findings of the IMF, UN, and CIA, which were already provided in the thread before you tried to call me a fuckhead for accurately citing them.

You don't know what you're talking about, it's probably best for your own sake that you either now inform yourself or shut up about it.




I did back it up, you even helped back it up for me. As stated now repeatedly and as evidenced here:

Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as I quoted above.

Like mudwhistle, you seem to not know what being an industrialized or developed nation means and think, like a huge fucking idiot making your stupidity readily apparent, that "Well they have a really large economy and make lots of stuff, they must be industrialized!" Again, it wouldn't be a problem to be ignorant on the subject if you didn't pretend to know what you were talking about and chastise someone for speaking accurately on the subject when even you have provided the evidence that you are wrong.

Your links and references you've cited demonstrate that Singapore has less income inequality than the US (Singapore = 42.5, US =45 on Gini index) and that China and Mexico are both developing countries on their way to being industrialized but not yet having met the benchmarks that the IMF, CIA, and UN use for determining what countries are and are not "developed."

It's hard to tell whether you're lying to save face or have no idea what you're talking about, but the longer this goes on either the more dishonest or more stupid you look.

Check your own references, they prove you wrong.

And again, even if we were to set aside this issue and pretend China and Mexico were already developed nations, their income inequality is 1 and 2 points higher than the U.S., or in other words quite similar. It doesn't prove anything because they're not developed nations, but if they were, what would that prove? That we have the fourth greatest income inequality in the world? What the hell is the purpose of your point? What are you trying to argue by attempting to point out, even if you weren't wrong, that there are a couple countries even worse than we are? Is our level of income inequality then not a problem, in need of no reform, and a moot discussion point?

Moron.

Mexico, China, and Singapore, just for example, ARE industrialized nations (vide supra).

At this point, you are a bigger idiot for trying to deny it.

Your claim that the USA has the highest income disparity of all induistrialized nations, or even the second largest, is just plain bullshit, as my links and the references therein demonstrate.

Moron.

Well, you've not at least made clear whether you were being dishonest or dumb. Congratulations, perhaps you're not an idiot, you've just proven yourself to be a liar.

Once more for those keeping score at home:

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Developing countries are in general countries which have not achieved a significant degree of industrialization relative to their populations, and which have, in most cases a medium to low standard of living. There is a strong correlation between low income and high population growth.

The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".

The following are considered emerging and developing economies according to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Report, October 2009:

* Afghanistan
* Albania
* Algeria
* Angola
* Antigua and Barbuda
* Argentina
* Armenia
* Azerbaijan
* The Bahamas
* Bahrain
* Bangladesh
* Belarus
* Belize
* Benin
* Bhutan
* Bolivia
* Botswana
* Bosnia and Herzegovina
* Brazil
* Bulgaria
* Burkina Faso
* Burma
* Burundi
* Cameroon
* Cape Verde
* Central African Republic
* Chad
* Chile
* China
* Colombia
* Comoros
* Democratic Republic of the Congo
* Republic of the Congo
* Costa Rica
* Côte d'Ivoire
* Croatia
* Djibouti
* Dominica
* Dominican Republic
* Ecuador
* Egypt
* El Salvador
* Equatorial Guinea
* Eritrea
* Ethiopia
* Fiji
* Gabon
* The Gambia
* Georgia
* Ghana
* Grenada
* Guatemala
* Guinea
* Guinea-Bissau
* Guyana
* Haiti
* Honduras
* Hungary
* Indonesia
* India
* Iran
* Iraq
* Jamaica
* Jordan
* Kazakhstan
* Kenya
* Kiribati
* Kuwait
* Kyrgyzstan
* Laos
* Latvia
* Lebanon
* Lesotho
* Liberia
* Libya
* Lithuania
* Macedonia
* Madagascar
* Malawi
* Malaysia
* Maldives
* Mali
* Marshall Islands[18]
* Mauritania
* Mauritius
* Mexico
...

Keep lying pal, but it's not very effective when the proof you're lying is readily available above, below, and all around your comments.

Liar. (The link I posted a while back. A waste of my time posting it to you, obviously.)

 

[QUENTIN]

Moron.

Mexico, China, and Singapore, just for example, ARE industrialized nations (vide supra).

At this point, you are a bigger idiot for trying to deny it.

Your claim that the USA has the highest income disparity of all induistrialized nations, or even the second largest, is just plain bullshit, as my links and the references therein demonstrate.

Moron.

Well, you've not at least made clear whether you were being dishonest or dumb. Congratulations, perhaps you're not an idiot, you've just proven yourself to be a liar.

Once more for those keeping score at home:

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following are considered emerging and developing economies according to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Report, October 2009:

* Afghanistan
* Albania
* Algeria
* Angola
* Antigua and Barbuda
* Argentina
* Armenia
* Azerbaijan
* The Bahamas
* Bahrain
* Bangladesh
* Belarus
* Belize
* Benin
* Bhutan
* Bolivia
* Botswana
* Bosnia and Herzegovina
* Brazil
* Bulgaria
* Burkina Faso
* Burma
* Burundi
* Cameroon
* Cape Verde
* Central African Republic
* Chad
* Chile
* China
* Colombia
* Comoros
* Democratic Republic of the Congo
* Republic of the Congo
* Costa Rica
* Côte d'Ivoire
* Croatia
* Djibouti
* Dominica
* Dominican Republic
* Ecuador
* Egypt
* El Salvador
* Equatorial Guinea
* Eritrea
* Ethiopia
* Fiji
* Gabon
* The Gambia
* Georgia
* Ghana
* Grenada
* Guatemala
* Guinea
* Guinea-Bissau
* Guyana
* Haiti
* Honduras
* Hungary
* Indonesia
* India
* Iran
* Iraq
* Jamaica
* Jordan
* Kazakhstan
* Kenya
* Kiribati
* Kuwait
* Kyrgyzstan
* Laos
* Latvia
* Lebanon
* Lesotho
* Liberia
* Libya
* Lithuania
* Macedonia
* Madagascar
* Malawi
* Malaysia
* Maldives
* Mali
* Marshall Islands[18]
* Mauritania
* Mauritius
* Mexico
...

Keep lying pal, but it's not very effective when the proof you're lying is readily available above, below, and all around your comments.

Liar. (The link I posted a while back. A waste of my time posting it to you, obviously.)

Ooh, and you're back at it, keeping it difficult to discern whether you're lying or stupid with every post.

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Countries with more advanced economies than other developing nations, but which have not yet fully demonstrated the signs of a developed country, are grouped under the term "newly industrialized countries."

The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".

Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached First World status but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented). Incipient or ongoing industrialization is an important indicator of a NIC.

Still haven't figured it out buddy? I understand if these terms are unfamiliar to you and you just assumed "big economy" meant "industrialized economy," but NICs are countries going through a rapid process of industrialization who are not yet industrialized. They've yet to meet the criteria of the UN, IMF, CIA, etc. to be considered developed countries. In other words, they are not industrialized nations. Again, your own cited evidence is proving you wrong.

 

[saveliberty]

Singapore appears on the list of industrialized AND developed nations. The US is post-industrialized. They should be off the list to begin with.

 

[Toro]

I see that there is a debate raging on income disparity. I will post this graph. It is a decade old but I don't think things have changed too much.

What this graph says is that, yes, the income disparities between the richest and the poorest in America is the widest of all the richest countries in the world. But, interestingly, the disparity between the median income and the poorest is actually not that much wider than it is in Europe. In fact, the difference between the poorest and the median income in the US was slightly less than that in the welfare states of Sweden and Finland.

BTW, it is a specious argument to compare America to China and Mexico, but it is somewhat fair to compare the US to Singapore, although Singapore is a small city-state. Perhaps we should compare Singapore to Minneapolis.

What's the income disparity of Zimbabwe?

Your graph is really quite meaningless. The people below the median level of income in the U.S. have standards of living that not even kings had in the past. They have indoor plumbing, potable water, heat, air conditioning, big screen TVs, motor powered transportation, inexpensive food....all of which are the products of capital investment which made them widely available, relatively cheap, and cost effective to distribute.

Its meaningless to those who do not understand context.

One could make the same argument about social democracy and why high taxes produce a better society.

The people below the median level of income in Sweden have standards of living that not even kings had in the past. They have indoor plumbing, potable water, heat, air conditioning, big screen TVs, motor powered transportation, inexpensive food....all of which are the products of human capital investment which gave people a high level of education, great social mobility, and social insurance.
​

 

[Si modo]

Well, you've not at least made clear whether you were being dishonest or dumb. Congratulations, perhaps you're not an idiot, you've just proven yourself to be a liar.

Once more for those keeping score at home:

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Keep lying pal, but it's not very effective when the proof you're lying is readily available above, below, and all around your comments.

Liar. (The link I posted a while back. A waste of my time posting it to you, obviously.)

Ooh, and you're back at it, keeping it difficult to discern whether you're lying or stupid with every post.

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".

Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached First World status but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented). Incipient or ongoing industrialization is an important indicator of a NIC.

Still haven't figured it out buddy? I understand if these terms are unfamiliar to you and you just assumed "big economy" meant "industrialized economy," but NICs are countries going through a rapid process of industrialization who are not yet industrialized. They've yet to meet the criteria of the UN, IMF, CIA, etc. to be considered developed countries. In other words, they are not industrialized nations. Again, your own cited evidence is proving you wrong.

Look. You're a spineless idiot at this point. YOU made a claim that the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. That is flat wrong. Suck it up and deal with it.

Then you said the USA has the second largest income disparity of industrialized countries. That is also flat wrong.

Now, here's an idea: When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported. Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.

Quit crying.

 

[Toro]

Look. You're a spineless idiot at this point. YOU made a claim that the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. That is flat wrong. Suck it up and deal with it.

Then you said the USA has the second largest income disparity of industrialized countries. That is also flat wrong.

Now, here's an idea: When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported. Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.

Quit crying.

Just a question here. When I think of this argument, I do not include Mexico nor China in the group of "industrialized" countries. The term "industrialized" used to mean "rich" when referring to economic advancement. Perhaps I am outmoded in my thinking, and we should we say "post-industrial" countries. Those countries, whether they are called "industrialized," "post-industrial" or "rich" are generally considered to be the countries of Western Europe, the US, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. You can't really put China and Mexico into that group because they are still quite poor by our standards.

My question is thus, compared to this group of countries, where does the US rank in income disparity?

 

[QUENTIN]

Look. You're a spineless idiot at this point. YOU made a claim that the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. That is flat wrong. Suck it up and deal with it.

Then you said the USA has the second largest income disparity of industrialized countries. That is also flat wrong.

Now, here's an idea: When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported. Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.

Quit crying.

Ooh, what fun hypocrisy.

You'll notice in my second post on the subject I admitted that yes, Hong Kong was an industrialized nation with greater income inequality than the U.S. My point was no less valid (the point not being that the U.S. had the greatest income inequality, but rather "To give a multi-billionaire a $100 million bonus while millions are without food, homes, or medicine is obscene." and that for the lower and middle class to defend the right to receive those enormous bonuses while they fight for scraps, to defend their financial masters' exploitation, is "serf thinking" as was clear in my post... I've tried to debate that point with you now, oh, half a dozen times but you've routinely refused to engage on the substantive point and just want to bicker about whether we're #1, #2, or #3), but it was true that we were not #1 and I said as much immediately.

Meanwhile, you refuse to admit your own glaring and (unlike mine) repeated error.

YOU made a claim that China and Mexico were industrialized nations, while you and I kept both kept posting proof that that is flat wrong. While posting the evidence, I multiple times tried to explain it to you in objective terms using the criteria of the IMF, UN, and CIA, but like a programmed zombie wholly unaffected by external stimuli, YOU continued on with the same erroneous claim over and over.

It's like I said an adolescent isn't an adult and you said "MORON! An adolescent isn't a child, see! So it's an adult! Only an idiot would think otherwise." Just as a 13-year-old isn't an adult, China and Mexico aren't industrialized countries. You might do well to take your own advice. Unlike me, who did readily admit a minor error (we're not #1), you even now refuse to admit yours and press on with it, by now surely recognizing the error of your ways, either lying or vainly trying to save face.

So, here's an idea: When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported. Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.

Quit crying.

 

[QUENTIN]

Look. You're a spineless idiot at this point. YOU made a claim that the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. That is flat wrong. Suck it up and deal with it.

Then you said the USA has the second largest income disparity of industrialized countries. That is also flat wrong.

Now, here's an idea: When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported. Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.

Quit crying.

Just a question here. When I think of this argument, I do not include Mexico nor China in the group of "industrialized" countries. The term "industrialized" used to mean "rich" when referring to economic advancement. Perhaps I am outmoded in my thinking, and we should we say "post-industrial" countries. Those countries, whether they are called "industrialized," "post-industrial" or "rich" are generally considered to be the countries of Western Europe, the US, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. You can't really put China and Mexico into that group because they are still quite poor by our standards.

My question is thus, compared to this group of countries, where does the US rank in income disparity?

Among the list of truly developed countries (there are 37 according to the CIA, 34 according to the IMF, China and Mexico on neither) which includes, as you said, Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and the "Asian Tigers"

List of countries by income equality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US has a Gini index of 45 and the only industrialized nation higher is Hong Kong at 53. Singapore, according to the CIA but not IMF, has a Gini as of 2008 of 48, when the CIA puts the US at 46.6. The IMF's last available data on Singapore is a decade old at 42.5

So to answer your question, we are either #2 or #3 for highest income inequality of industrialized or developed nations.

If you're thinking of only the countries you named, those that have been rich or industrialized or developed for a long time now (so excluding the four "Asian Tigers" which are considered industrialized but may not fit into your older "rich" paradigm), we are #1.

Rather than continue to bicker with people who are unfamiliar with the terms they're using about this #1, #2, or #3 status, what I was hoping to discuss was that while America has an inarguably quite high gap between the rich and poor, it's a terrible idea to argue for the continued and further lining of the pockets of the wealthiest while the lower and middle class suffer through an economic crisis that elite are largely responsible for. The very rich, at this point, have made enough money, we should be focused on bringing up the employment, income, and economic advancement among the rest of the country who've been hit quite hard lately and can use (and deserve) the help much more.

 

[Si modo]

Look. You're a spineless idiot at this point. YOU made a claim that the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. That is flat wrong. Suck it up and deal with it.

Then you said the USA has the second largest income disparity of industrialized countries. That is also flat wrong.

Now, here's an idea: When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported. Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.

Quit crying.

Ooh, what fun hypocrisy.

You'll notice in my second post on the subject I admitted that yes, Hong Kong was an industrialized nation with greater income inequality than the U.S. My point was no less valid (the point not being that the U.S. had the greatest income inequality, but rather "To give a multi-billionaire a $100 million bonus while millions are without food, homes, or medicine is obscene." and that for the lower and middle class to defend the right to receive those enormous bonuses while they fight for scraps, to defend their financial masters' exploitation, is "serf thinking" as was clear in my post... I've tried to debate that point with you now, oh, half a dozen times but you've routinely refused to engage on the substantive point and just want to bicker about whether we're #1, #2, or #3), but it was true that we were not #1 and I said as much immediately.

Meanwhile, you refuse to admit your own glaring and (unlike mine) repeated error.

YOU made a claim that China and Mexico were industrialized nations, while you and I kept both kept posting proof that that is flat wrong. While posting the evidence, I multiple times tried to explain it to you in objective terms using the criteria of the IMF, UN, and CIA, but like a programmed zombie wholly unaffected by external stimuli, YOU continued on with the same erroneous claim over and over.

It's like I said an adolescent isn't an adult and you said "MORON! An adolescent isn't a child, see! So it's an adult! Only an idiot would think otherwise." Just as a 13-year-old isn't an adult, China and Mexico aren't industrialized countries. You might do well to take your own advice. Unlike me, who did readily admit a minor error (we're not #1), you even now refuse to admit yours and press on with it, by now surely recognizing the error of your ways, either lying or vainly trying to save face.

So, here's an idea: When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported. Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.

Quit crying.

Damn, you ARE stupid. SINGAPORE, not Hong Kong.

And, if you post a claim, make sure it is accurate. Your initial one was not and your whiney attempt at a correction to it was not either.

When I say idiot and stupid and moron, I mean it. Only idiots and morons and stupid persons make inaccurate yet easily verifiable claims AND don't support them.

See, if you actually provided references with your claims, you wouldn't be flat wrong so often. Youre excessive verbosity does not change the fact that your initial claim and your lame attempt at a correction are still wrong, either.

At this point and with your continued idiocy, I doubt you even know WHEN you should provide a reference.

Idiot.

Moron.

And, you are a pathetic person who has issues with admitting your OWN errors.

Trust me on this, I am dug in. You were and are wrong. Deal with it.

 

[QUENTIN]

Look. You're a spineless idiot at this point. YOU made a claim that the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. That is flat wrong. Suck it up and deal with it.

Then you said the USA has the second largest income disparity of industrialized countries. That is also flat wrong.

Now, here's an idea: When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported. Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.

Quit crying.

Ooh, what fun hypocrisy.

You'll notice in my second post on the subject I admitted that yes, Hong Kong was an industrialized nation with greater income inequality than the U.S. My point was no less valid (the point not being that the U.S. had the greatest income inequality, but rather "To give a multi-billionaire a $100 million bonus while millions are without food, homes, or medicine is obscene." and that for the lower and middle class to defend the right to receive those enormous bonuses while they fight for scraps, to defend their financial masters' exploitation, is "serf thinking" as was clear in my post... I've tried to debate that point with you now, oh, half a dozen times but you've routinely refused to engage on the substantive point and just want to bicker about whether we're #1, #2, or #3), but it was true that we were not #1 and I said as much immediately.

Meanwhile, you refuse to admit your own glaring and (unlike mine) repeated error.

YOU made a claim that China and Mexico were industrialized nations, while you and I kept both kept posting proof that that is flat wrong. While posting the evidence, I multiple times tried to explain it to you in objective terms using the criteria of the IMF, UN, and CIA, but like a programmed zombie wholly unaffected by external stimuli, YOU continued on with the same erroneous claim over and over.

It's like I said an adolescent isn't an adult and you said "MORON! An adolescent isn't a child, see! So it's an adult! Only an idiot would think otherwise." Just as a 13-year-old isn't an adult, China and Mexico aren't industrialized countries. You might do well to take your own advice. Unlike me, who did readily admit a minor error (we're not #1), you even now refuse to admit yours and press on with it, by now surely recognizing the error of your ways, either lying or vainly trying to save face.

So, here's an idea: When you make a claim, make sure it's accurate and supported. Then we won't have to deal with your whining when you are called out on on your errors and inaccuracies. It's just that simple.

Quit crying.

Damn, you ARE stupid. SINGAPORE, not Hong Kong.

And, if you post a claim, make sure it is accurate. Your initial one was not and your whiney attempt at a correction to it was not either.

When I say idiot and stupid and moron, I mean it. Only idiots and morons and stupid persons make inaccurate yet easily verifiable claims AND don't support them.

See, if you actually provided references with your claims, you wouldn't be flat wrong so often. Youre excessive verbosity does not change the fact that your initial claim and your lame attempt at a correction are still wrong, either.

At this point and with your continued idiocy, I doubt you even know WHEN you should provide a reference.

Idiot.

Moron.

And, you are a pathetic person who has issues with admitting your OWN errors.

Trust me on this, I am dug in. You were and are wrong. Deal with it.

Hahahahaha, again the hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Over and over and over you claimed China and Mexico were industrialized nations while we both provided the proof they're not. You've yet to address this and instead went into a tailspin of deflection when it was finally proven via your own sources that you were wrong.

And you're even making new ones, Hong Kong's Gini index is 53.3 and it's an industrialized nation. Singapore's listing on the link you provided is 42.5, although as I said the CIA (but not IMF) now list it higher. According to your source, and one of the three major judges of income disparity, Singapore's is lower, according to one of the others, it's higher, so Singapore is questionable while Hong Kong, as I accurately stated and backed up, is definitively known as higher.

You've now made more factually incorrect assertions more times and refused to acknowledge them.

So according to your own standards, having repeatedly claimed that China and Mexico were industrialized, developed nations, you are an idiot and stupid and a moron, in fact, more of one even than you describe since you not only made an inaccurate and easily verifiable claim that you didn't support, you actually cited as support proof that you were dead fucking wrong. It doesn't get much stupider than that.

"And, if you post a claim, make sure it is accurate. Your initial one was not and your whiney attempt at a correction to it was not either... Only idiots and morons and stupid persons make inaccurate yet easily verifiable claims AND don't support them...See, if you actually provided references with your claims, you wouldn't be flat wrong so often...At this point and with your continued idiocy, I doubt you even know WHEN you should provide a reference...And, you are a pathetic person who has issues with admitting your OWN errors."

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[JBeukema]

Fuckheads like Quentin need to get a grip.

I'm sure if you search long enough you can find some kind of obscure statistic that backs up your lame-brained ideological beliefs....but the overall big picture doesn't jive with your findings.

You see in order for your stance on the subject to have any validity you have to exclude countries and pigeonhole the fuck out of the facts.

China is industrialized...and they are quickly overtaking us. They produce more products then the United States. Yes they are developing but they are a modern society. Mexico is an industrialized nation as well. The very fact that they are so fucked up is why they are worse off then we are...and that simple fact is what you're using to exclude them.

Any country that doesn't meet your criteria is automatically excluded which means the sample you're using is biased. The whole premise is rigged to get findings that are not real nor do they reflect the truth.

A more honest result would be derived from using all countries in the world and compare them, not just look at the few that fall into the narrow class that suits your aims.

In a nut-shell....any country that is worse off then the United States, according to you, doesn't meet your criteria....so they are automatically and conveniently excluded. So guess what.....your findings are meaningless.

There are three and only three widely respected and recognized organizations that classify countries based on their economies. They are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), all three groups uniformly consider China and Mexico to be developing countries on their way to industrialization, not industrialized countries. This information is contained in the links that both I and Si modo posted in this thread.

I'm not a part of any of the three organization. It's not my standards, I'm doing no pigeonholing and the criteria are not mine. Words have meanings that can't be defined by us as we see fit to make an argument. An industrialized or developed nation is one that has reached a certain level of industrialization and quality of life measured by these international organizations that have the means to make these measurements and rate them accordingly.

All of the major bodies tasked with relaying their expert findings on whether a country is industrialized and developed or not conclude that Mexico and China are not.

If you have an issue with that, take it up with them. The fact is, you are wrong. What seems most likely from your attempt at argument is that you don't know what industrialized means or what criteria are recognized as the measurements of industrialization and development. You apparently think the fact that China for instance sells more things than us means it's industrialized. On this subject, you're quite ignorant. That would be fine, as long as you didn't make an ass of yourself by calling someone else a fuckhead for knowing more than you about the subject and being able to back that up with the findings of the IMF, UN, and CIA, which were already provided in the thread before you tried to call me a fuckhead for accurately citing them.

You don't know what you're talking about, it's probably best for your own sake that you either now inform yourself or shut up about it.

Of course I called you an idiot. You are. Anyone who makes a claim, ESPECIALLY one so easily verified or refuted, without backing it up is an idiot.

And, Singapore, Mexico, and China - all with higher income disparity, just for example - are industrialized countries (vide supra). I don't make claims that are not supported AND I support those claims with links and/or references.

A lesson you and others should learn. Then you wouldn't be idiots. It's just that simple.

I did back it up, you even helped back it up for me. As stated now repeatedly and as evidenced here:

Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as I quoted above.

Like mudwhistle, you seem to not know what being an industrialized or developed nation means and think, like a huge fucking idiot making your stupidity readily apparent, that "Well they have a really large economy and make lots of stuff, they must be industrialized!" Again, it wouldn't be a problem to be ignorant on the subject if you didn't pretend to know what you were talking about and chastise someone for speaking accurately on the subject when even you have provided the evidence that you are wrong.

Your links and references you've cited demonstrate that Singapore has less income inequality than the US (Singapore = 42.5, US =45 on Gini index) and that China and Mexico are both developing countries on their way to being industrialized but not yet having met the benchmarks that the IMF, CIA, and UN use for determining what countries are and are not "developed."

It's hard to tell whether you're lying to save face or have no idea what you're talking about, but the longer this goes on either the more dishonest or more stupid you look.

Check your own references, they prove you wrong.

And again, even if we were to set aside this issue and pretend China and Mexico were already developed nations, their income inequality is 1 and 2 points higher than the U.S., or in other words quite similar. It doesn't prove anything because they're not developed nations, but if they were, what would that prove? That we have the fourth greatest income inequality in the world? What the hell is the purpose of your point? What are you trying to argue by attempting to point out, even if you weren't wrong, that there are a couple countries even worse than we are? Is our level of income inequality then not a problem, in need of no reform, and a moot discussion point?

Moron.

Mexico, China, and Singapore, just for example, ARE industrialized nations (vide supra).

At this point, you are a bigger idiot for trying to deny it.

Your claim that the USA has the highest income disparity of all induistrialized nations, or even the second largest, is just plain bullshit, as my links and the references therein demonstrate.

Moron.

So he provides links and you repeat your assertions and insult his intelligence?

 

[bucs90]

?

Wow. "Protecting the government from the people". You said that in sarcasm, so I assume you buy into the idea of "Protecting the people from the government", aka, militias and conservative loons like Reagan and Von Mises.

There is one thing you conservadolts never seem to realize: The government IS THE PEOPLE.

You contards seem to equate governments with non-human things. It's not the terminator. It's not global warming, or a hurricane, or an asteroid. It is a government, an institution, run by people, founded by people, employing and paying people.

Without people, a government doesn't exist. Somewhere in the past, a single person founded "evil" governments like U.S.. And England/UK. And France.

PEOPLE founded it. And people run it. And people are employed by them. And people pay taxes to them and get services from them. And other governments share and trade with them. And thats how the world works, with governments legislating, regulating, employing, succeeding, and failing, and all around the merry go round.

But no, you righties don't grasp that. You believe there is an infinite free market stash of money out there with your name on it, and only Sugar Daddy Big Business can fairly distribute the corporate stash to you.

So, when Boehner says a government has "Gotten big enough", he's telling its thousands of workers, and millions of citizens, and millions of people that government protects and provides services for: No more. You have enough. The corporate stash needs a boost so I can handout some goodies to my industry minions.

Sounds an awful lot like plutoc........wait, that must of been my racism about to slip out. Sounds a lot like social inequality There, thats better, right?

/\ I don't necessarily agree with all of the above, but it's the equal argument that you made. In other words, you chastised people for demonizing corporations in exactly the same way you and your ilk demonize government and despite the fact that it's also made up of lots of people who work for it, benefit from it, rely on it, etc. It's a hypocritical line of thinking. If you want to defend an unfettered and unregulated market, there are ways to do that, but employing the same tactics you condemn others for in the process won't cut it.

Clever play on words there, but not consistent with what I said.

A big difference is as follows:

Gov't: Has men with guns, can write laws, can use violence to force us to pay them or obey them. Or both.

Coporation: Commerce is completely voluntary. Citizens have choice, and can live without any interaction with any company if they choose.

See, the government takes from the most successful, and gives to the least successful. Corporations do the opposite, thus, inspiring harder work and more productive people. Government has no competition, thus, can embrace inadequacy and inefficiency, thus breeding lazy, careless employees. Corporations survive only through competence and competitiveness.

Corporations employ hard workers, and pay dividends to those who work hard, save, and buy stock.

Government employs some hard workers, and some lazy leeches who want to be guaranteed a job. Gov't pays dividends, aka welfare, to the lazy.

Corporations can only ask for money, and hope you frequent their business.
Governments mandate taking our money, and do so by force.

And finally, frequenting a corporation or business is completely voluntary. The government can force us to pay taxes and obey laws, but they cannot force us to purchase any item from any private company........er, wait, until now.

 

[Si modo]

There are three and only three widely respected and recognized organizations that classify countries based on their economies. They are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), all three groups uniformly consider China and Mexico to be developing countries on their way to industrialization, not industrialized countries. This information is contained in the links that both I and Si modo posted in this thread.

I'm not a part of any of the three organization. It's not my standards, I'm doing no pigeonholing and the criteria are not mine. Words have meanings that can't be defined by us as we see fit to make an argument. An industrialized or developed nation is one that has reached a certain level of industrialization and quality of life measured by these international organizations that have the means to make these measurements and rate them accordingly.

All of the major bodies tasked with relaying their expert findings on whether a country is industrialized and developed or not conclude that Mexico and China are not.

If you have an issue with that, take it up with them. The fact is, you are wrong. What seems most likely from your attempt at argument is that you don't know what industrialized means or what criteria are recognized as the measurements of industrialization and development. You apparently think the fact that China for instance sells more things than us means it's industrialized. On this subject, you're quite ignorant. That would be fine, as long as you didn't make an ass of yourself by calling someone else a fuckhead for knowing more than you about the subject and being able to back that up with the findings of the IMF, UN, and CIA, which were already provided in the thread before you tried to call me a fuckhead for accurately citing them.

You don't know what you're talking about, it's probably best for your own sake that you either now inform yourself or shut up about it.




I did back it up, you even helped back it up for me. As stated now repeatedly and as evidenced here:

Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as I quoted above.

Like mudwhistle, you seem to not know what being an industrialized or developed nation means and think, like a huge fucking idiot making your stupidity readily apparent, that "Well they have a really large economy and make lots of stuff, they must be industrialized!" Again, it wouldn't be a problem to be ignorant on the subject if you didn't pretend to know what you were talking about and chastise someone for speaking accurately on the subject when even you have provided the evidence that you are wrong.

Your links and references you've cited demonstrate that Singapore has less income inequality than the US (Singapore = 42.5, US =45 on Gini index) and that China and Mexico are both developing countries on their way to being industrialized but not yet having met the benchmarks that the IMF, CIA, and UN use for determining what countries are and are not "developed."

It's hard to tell whether you're lying to save face or have no idea what you're talking about, but the longer this goes on either the more dishonest or more stupid you look.

Check your own references, they prove you wrong.

And again, even if we were to set aside this issue and pretend China and Mexico were already developed nations, their income inequality is 1 and 2 points higher than the U.S., or in other words quite similar. It doesn't prove anything because they're not developed nations, but if they were, what would that prove? That we have the fourth greatest income inequality in the world? What the hell is the purpose of your point? What are you trying to argue by attempting to point out, even if you weren't wrong, that there are a couple countries even worse than we are? Is our level of income inequality then not a problem, in need of no reform, and a moot discussion point?

Moron.

Mexico, China, and Singapore, just for example, ARE industrialized nations (vide supra).

At this point, you are a bigger idiot for trying to deny it.

Your claim that the USA has the highest income disparity of all induistrialized nations, or even the second largest, is just plain bullshit, as my links and the references therein demonstrate.

Moron.

So he provides links and you repeat your assertions and insult his intelligence?

Yup. HE posted an easily verifiable claim and it was inaccurate. Then he posted an inaccurate claim again.

In my book, that is what idiots do. It's not hard to be accurate when one supports their claim, from the start. It's just that simple.

I like accuracy. Others obviously don't.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't like Obama one bit, but I agree with him on this. America has the biggest wealth disparity gap in the industrialized world. To give a multi-billionaire a $100 million bonus while millions are without food, homes, or medicine is obscene.

Those mentioned as Obama's friends as well as many of his top donors, if they weren't disingenuous would recognize that they've made far more money than they need or could ever reasonably use and try to give back to the people whose work and patronage put them there.

Middle and lower class people defending the right of the super wealthy to exploit them is perhaps the most crystallized form of serf thinking we have in this country.

Forgive me for bringing up a three day old post that scanning through all the other pages shows it has been discussed ad nauseum but I just want to say this and didn't see where anyone else had said it.

I can agree that these people make far more than any human being has a right to make, it is not the place of President Obama, Congress or anyone else to dictate how much is too much.

Serf thinking or not, it is not my place to tell anyone that does not work for me that they make too much money.

Immie

 

[QUENTIN]

Yup. HE posted an easily verifiable claim and it was inaccurate. Then he posted an inaccurate claim again.

In my book, that is what idiots do. It's not hard to be accurate when one supports their claim, from the start. It's just that simple.

I like accuracy. Others obviously don't.

If you think Singapore and China, just for example, are not industrialized countries, you are an idiot. (Mexico IS an industrialized country.)

And, Singapore, Mexico, and China - all with higher income disparity, just for example - are industrialized countries (vide supra).

Mexico, China, and Singapore, just for example, ARE industrialized nations (vide supra).

At this point, you are a bigger idiot for trying to deny it.

You can tell when you realized you were probably wrong because you stopped posting support for your claim, since it didn't support it but disproved it, and started saying "vide supra"... "I don't have to support it, I already supported it... Yes, I did! Trust me! Just don't go looking for it and definitely don't click the link, take my word."

I like your obstinate argument, it damns you more than anyone else you're trying to insult. You are very clearly, by your own estimation, a big idiot. And that's funny.

 

[masquerade]

I wonder if Obama has told his buddies in Hollywood and in the media that there comes a point when they've made enough money.

 

[QUENTIN]

?

Wow. "Protecting the government from the people". You said that in sarcasm, so I assume you buy into the idea of "Protecting the people from the government", aka, militias and conservative loons like Reagan and Von Mises.

There is one thing you conservadolts never seem to realize: The government IS THE PEOPLE.

You contards seem to equate governments with non-human things. It's not the terminator. It's not global warming, or a hurricane, or an asteroid. It is a government, an institution, run by people, founded by people, employing and paying people.

Without people, a government doesn't exist. Somewhere in the past, a single person founded "evil" governments like U.S.. And England/UK. And France.

PEOPLE founded it. And people run it. And people are employed by them. And people pay taxes to them and get services from them. And other governments share and trade with them. And thats how the world works, with governments legislating, regulating, employing, succeeding, and failing, and all around the merry go round.

But no, you righties don't grasp that. You believe there is an infinite free market stash of money out there with your name on it, and only Sugar Daddy Big Business can fairly distribute the corporate stash to you.

So, when Boehner says a government has "Gotten big enough", he's telling its thousands of workers, and millions of citizens, and millions of people that government protects and provides services for: No more. You have enough. The corporate stash needs a boost so I can handout some goodies to my industry minions.

Sounds an awful lot like plutoc........wait, that must of been my racism about to slip out. Sounds a lot like social inequality There, thats better, right?

/\ I don't necessarily agree with all of the above, but it's the equal argument that you made. In other words, you chastised people for demonizing corporations in exactly the same way you and your ilk demonize government and despite the fact that it's also made up of lots of people who work for it, benefit from it, rely on it, etc. It's a hypocritical line of thinking. If you want to defend an unfettered and unregulated market, there are ways to do that, but employing the same tactics you condemn others for in the process won't cut it.

Clever play on words there, but not consistent with what I said.

A big difference is as follows:

Gov't: Has men with guns, can write laws, can use violence to force us to pay them or obey them. Or both.

Coporation: Commerce is completely voluntary. Citizens have choice, and can live without any interaction with any company if they choose.

See, the government takes from the most successful, and gives to the least successful. Corporations do the opposite, thus, inspiring harder work and more productive people. Government has no competition, thus, can embrace inadequacy and inefficiency, thus breeding lazy, careless employees. Corporations survive only through competence and competitiveness.

Corporations employ hard workers, and pay dividends to those who work hard, save, and buy stock.

Government employs some hard workers, and some lazy leeches who want to be guaranteed a job. Gov't pays dividends, aka welfare, to the lazy.

Corporations can only ask for money, and hope you frequent their business.
Governments mandate taking our money, and do so by force.

And finally, frequenting a corporation or business is completely voluntary. The government can force us to pay taxes and obey laws, but they cannot force us to purchase any item from any private company........er, wait, until now.

I think the extent to which public consumption of corporate goods is truly voluntary is often exaggerated. For instance I lived for two years in an area that had only one internet service provider serving that community. If you wanted internet, you had to go through them. There's the argument that you could choose not to have internet if you don't want to do business with them and that's true, but when say your work requires you to have the internet and it's the primary means of business and personal communication, that's no longer really an accurate or reasonable reflection of the situation.

Let's go a step further and use an example you can't at all make the choice not to have: health care. Before all this government intervention, if you take someone with serious pre-existing conditions from a chronic childhood illness say, they are going to have a nearly impossible time finding coverage for their health. Insurance companies will raise their prices out the ass because that person actually has no other option and they know this. He can't choose not to do business with an unscrupulous corporation, because to do so puts him in mortal danger.

Even with things that don't immediately put you at risk of dying, the degree to which one can choose to opt out is unrealistically overstated. Oil companies for instance have recognized that much of the world runs on oil and in a modern, commuter society like America most people rely on transportation that consumes oil. So they fix their prices at the highest rate they think they can get away with to a customer base that without their product is rendered practically immobile. Public transportation isn't an option outside of cities for a lot of people. So while someone can theoretically opt out of dealing with gas suppliers if they choose to because they don't like their unethical behavior, they are left pretty much with walking, biking, or taming a horse which is obviously impractical.

The idea that all business interaction with corporations on the part of people is truly voluntary or that there are such a plethora of options that they can choose a corporation they like better that won't engage in unethical behavior is practically and in reality often a kind of fiction.

The "option" to not do business with any corrupt corporation if you so "choose" leaves you with alternatives that aren't really viable options at all. "If you don't want to deal with unscrupulous landlords, you can live out on the street" for instance isn't really a valid reflection of choice. And for that matter, if you truly want to remove yourself from the control of the U.S. government, you can either live far off the grid or even easier leave the country. Those should also not really be considered an equal and reasonable solution to bad government policy though, anymore than trying to live a life that doesn't rely to some extent on corporations is a reasonable solution to sleazy corporate practice. Both do have "choice" to some extent, but it's more an illusion of choice. "Gimme your money or I'll throw you in jail" is different but in the same vein of "I'm the only guy with water in this desert. Gimme your money or you can choose to dehydrate."

I think it's refreshing that you admit that corporations, by and large, take from those who have the least and give to those who have the most, but I disagree that that necessarily inspires harder work and productivity. It's often just demoralizing when you have so little to see it all go to those who already have so much because they're more powerful and can, say, gouge your rent (you need to live somewhere, homelessness is not a practical or reasonable choice), credit (if you can't afford those groceries but need to eat), etc. And I think that plays itself out among the lower class actually. You call poor people on welfare "lazy," but most of them work pretty stressful low reward jobs, and it's not going to make you more productive to realize that no matter how hard you work at the handful of jobs you can get, you're never going to crawl out of debt or even be able to provide for yourself. It's soul-crushing, not motivating, and the idea that anyone can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and succeed if they work hard enough is an even bigger fiction in our society.

On the government mandating we buy private insurance from their corporate donors, I'm with you that that's absolutely ridiculous and awful. It's also funny that it gets called socialism (single-payer would have been socializing health care), as government intervention by force to assure the benefit of a private corporation is an economic aspect of fascism.

I would consider myself anti-government, anti-corporate, I think enormous bureaucracies fueled primarily by maintaining or expanding their own existence and power are almost inherently detrimental to the people they come into contact with. I think where anti-government, pro-corporate people go wrong is often in not recognizing the degree to which corporations own the government and pay it to work for them, rather than the other way around. So much government malfeasance is simply government acting in the best interest of business against the best interest of its citizens.

Anyway, all that's to say I think it's not an entirely accurate or practical oversimplification to argue the difference between government and corporations is that interaction with or paying a corporation is entirely voluntary. In theory it is, but in practice we often aren't given sufficient options to make it true.

However, your point about the government having guns, having the ability to write laws, using direct force, those are all quite valid and considerable distinctions between government and corporations that demonstrate they are not interchangeable. They just aren't any of the points you were using in the post I parodied to argue a pro-corporate stance, since that hinged upon the fact that corporations are just made up of people, which is also true of government. My issue wasn't with your stance, but with the poor nature of your argument in defense of it. Now you're making a better case for it.

I don't like Obama one bit, but I agree with him on this. America has the biggest wealth disparity gap in the industrialized world. To give a multi-billionaire a $100 million bonus while millions are without food, homes, or medicine is obscene.

Those mentioned as Obama's friends as well as many of his top donors, if they weren't disingenuous would recognize that they've made far more money than they need or could ever reasonably use and try to give back to the people whose work and patronage put them there.

Middle and lower class people defending the right of the super wealthy to exploit them is perhaps the most crystallized form of serf thinking we have in this country.

Forgive me for bringing up a three day old post that scanning through all the other pages shows it has been discussed ad nauseum but I just want to say this and didn't see where anyone else had said it.

I can agree that these people make far more than any human being has a right to make, it is not the place of President Obama, Congress or anyone else to dictate how much is too much.

Serf thinking or not, it is not my place to tell anyone that does not work for me that they make too much money.

Immie

No worries, I agree with that too.

I believe, like Adam Smith,

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion."

that progressive taxation is necessary for capitalism to function in a society. So my belief that certain people have made enough money justifies progressive taxation, that if you've made $100 million bonus this year, you should have to give a greater percentage of it to the country whose economy, protections, and services you enjoy than the guy who made $10,000 all year.

It doesn't justify and I don't believe in putting a cap on the amount someone can make, i.e. taking all of someone's wealth over a certain point because that's just too much money, because even though I feel at a certain point enough is enough, I don't believe anyone has the right to enforce that.