Anyone else seeing a pattern in economic news?

Hungary Bill wrote:

The_Jed wrote: *sourced from a local paper* On average, the bottom 20% of earners pay 10.9% of their earnings in state and local taxes, the middle 20% of earners pay 9.4% and the top 1% pay just 5.4%.

(I just noticed that your paper's "bottom + middle+ top" = 41% )

Umm... no it doesn't.

The "bottom 20%" would be the people from 0%- 20%.

The "middle 20%" would be the people from 40%- 60%.

The "top 1%" would be the people from 99%- 100%.

There is NOTHING that says you can add those together and expect to get 100%.

GameboyRMH wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: The only difference between capitalism and communism is the color of the suites...IBM blue vs military green.

Communism also produces more bitchin' beards.

No way. Anarchy and real freedom (like Somalia has) produce some real facial hair. If someone says otherwise you have the freedom to slit his berkeleyin' throat if you can.

I don't either are preferable, although I'd take Scandinavian style direct-democracy socialism in its idealized form over anarchy.

aircooled wrote:

NOHOME wrote: ...North America likes to delude itself with the illusion of a "Vote" bestowing some power to the ordinary citizen that will prevent this corruption...

…but, but, that’s why we’re a republic rather than a democracy and why Rhode Island gets the same number of senatorial seats as California.

Protecting sheep for 239 years and counting…merica’ berkley yeah!

I think we can all agree that sheep are delicious.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I think we can all agree that sheep are delicious.

and they have facial hair so...

NOHOME wrote: North America likes to delude itself with the illusion of a "Vote" bestowing some power to the ordinary citizen that will prevent this corruption, but it just ain't so **as long as people continue to not vote, or vote for a Big Two party.

The power is there, in the vote. It still exists. The problem lies with the 95% of citizens who either don't vote at all, or who think it's only an A/B proposition. People always insist that "a third party vote is thrown away." I contend that a third party vote is the only vote that is not thrown away.

PHeller wrote: I don't either are preferable, although I'd take Scandinavian style direct-democracy socialism in its idealized form over anarchy.

Here's something disturbing to consider: Those Scandinavian countries that have created these very equitable forms of governance are all racially homogenous. If they were a bit more racially diverse, would they have been able to achieve the same thing, or would they have become a bunch of Rugged Individualists and created a more minimalistic government to avoid helping "the other tribes?"

Duke wrote:

NOHOME wrote: North America likes to delude itself with the illusion of a "Vote" bestowing some power to the ordinary citizen that will prevent this corruption, but it just ain't so **as long as people continue to not vote, or vote for a Big Two party.

The power is there, in the vote. It still exists. The problem lies with the 95% of citizens who either don't vote at all, or who think it's only an A/B proposition. People always insist that "a third party vote is thrown away." I contend that a third party vote is the only vote that is *not* thrown away.

The rules (google 15% barrier for just one example) make it difficult to get a third party on a ballot or into a debate in the first place and almost ensure they are not well funded enough.

Unless that changes, you really are down to two choices or null. On paper the two parties are different but in action, not really that much so... you are flipping a two headed coin or no coin at all.

It's an illusion.

Duke wrote:

NOHOME wrote: North America likes to delude itself with the illusion of a "Vote" bestowing some power to the ordinary citizen that will prevent this corruption, but it just ain't so **as long as people continue to not vote, or vote for a Big Two party.

The power is there, in the vote. It still exists. The problem lies with the 95% of citizens who either don't vote at all, or who think it's only an A/B proposition. People always insist that "a third party vote is thrown away." I contend that a third party vote is the only vote that is *not* thrown away.

it's not whether we vote or not .. it's not having anyone worthy of my vote … whether it's 3rd party or not

Oh, I know all about the barriers that the Big Two put up to keep out the third party votes. If people don't get off the stick soon, it will be impossible to get an independent person elected. It's difficult enough now.

Democracy is hard, even in a representative republic. To work it demands that the citizens of said nation pay attention and care about what the country says and does. I think most people today haven't checked out because they never even checked in.

I don't think we're close to having the sky fall, but there will be a sizable realigning shift in the economy sooner than later. It's hard to run a balanced budget when it's longer fashionable or allowable by the populace to start wars of conquest (Europe from the Renaissance to the mid 20th century, and most of US history). And the U.S. just can't sell off land and national resources like we used to support the budget because most of it is gone or protected.

Right now we're stuck with the idea of printing money to cover our asses, but it's pretty clear that system isn't sustainable either.

I'm happy to have my house in the woods and will be ok as long as the oil still flows in the pipeline, but I'm hoping my family and state can adapt when the changes happen.

Duke wrote:

NOHOME wrote: North America likes to delude itself with the illusion of a "Vote" bestowing some power to the ordinary citizen that will prevent this corruption, but it just ain't so **as long as people continue to not vote, or vote for a Big Two party.

The power is there, in the vote. It still exists. The problem lies with the 95% of citizens who either don't vote at all, or who think it's only an A/B proposition. People always insist that "a third party vote is thrown away." I contend that a third party vote is the only vote that is *not* thrown away.

Well, Canada has six official parties that the federal voter can choose from. And they all had representative seats last I checked. But since the election is pretty much a purchased commodity, the usual suspects will always prevail. For those that are curious, I listed the parties below.

Conservative Party of Canada

New Democratic Party

Liberal Party of Canada

Bloc Québécois

Green Party of Canada

Forces et Démocratie

What happened to the “old” democratic party?

Must – resist – floundering – the – berkley – out – of – this – thread

In reply to RX Reven':

They removed the color part, now they are just "For the Man".

NOHOME wrote:

Duke wrote:

NOHOME wrote: North America likes to delude itself with the illusion of a "Vote" bestowing some power to the ordinary citizen that will prevent this corruption, but it just ain't so **as long as people continue to not vote, or vote for a Big Two party.

The power is there, in the vote. It still exists. The problem lies with the 95% of citizens who either don't vote at all, or who think it's only an A/B proposition. People always insist that "a third party vote is thrown away." I contend that a third party vote is the only vote that is *not* thrown away.

Well, Canada has six official parties that the federal voter can choose from. And they all had representative seats last I checked. But since the election is pretty much a purchased commodity, the usual suspects will always prevail. For those that are curious, I listed the parties below. Conservative Party of Canada New Democratic Party Liberal Party of Canada Bloc Québécois Green Party of Canada Forces et Démocratie

Any chance you could give a brief description of each party?

The_Jed wrote:

NOHOME wrote:

Duke wrote:

NOHOME wrote: North America likes to delude itself with the illusion of a "Vote" bestowing some power to the ordinary citizen that will prevent this corruption, but it just ain't so **as long as people continue to not vote, or vote for a Big Two party.

The power is there, in the vote. It still exists. The problem lies with the 95% of citizens who either don't vote at all, or who think it's only an A/B proposition. People always insist that "a third party vote is thrown away." I contend that a third party vote is the only vote that is *not* thrown away.

Well, Canada has six official parties that the federal voter can choose from. And they all had representative seats last I checked. But since the election is pretty much a purchased commodity, the usual suspects will always prevail. For those that are curious, I listed the parties below. Conservative Party of Canada New Democratic Party Liberal Party of Canada Bloc Québécois Green Party of Canada Forces et Démocratie

Any chance you could give a brief description of each party?

That will be fun...time to flounder the thread

Conservative Party of Canada: The Canadian equivalent of the Republicans

New Democratic Party: The socialist party

Liberal Party of Canada: The Canadian equivalent of the Democrats

Bloc Québécois: The Quebec seperatists party for people that don't assume they are seperatists

Green Party of Canada: Greenpeace as a political party

Forces et Démocratie: The tin-foil hat party

Well the rich know what's coming:

http://cfi.co/europe/2015/01/davos-inequality-causes-concern-few-expect-improvement/

They've been hoarding cash since the great recession, and now this:

http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/jan/23/nervous-super-rich-planning-escapes-davos-2015

Is becoming a survivalist really better than downgrading from hyper-rich in a sputtering economy to merely rich in a prosperous economy? Really? NZ is a terrible place for Galt's Gulch anyway, they'll revolt before the US would.

Except keep in mind, you basically need to move them all one notch left. Surprisingly enough the convservatives have more in common with the democrats, our liberals are left of the democrats, etc etc.

Basically scrub the republicans out. Some will say our Conservatives are a spitting image of the Republicans, but that is false. Their ideals do line up a lot, but the way they get there is much different imo.

At the end of the day, its a 4 party system, and one party is wholly supported by a province of people different from the rest, who have a strong power to f&%k over the rest of the country even though they give nothing back... (Cough) quebec and parti quebecois (cough)

HiTempguy wrote: Except keep in mind, you basically need to move them all one notch left. Surprisingly enough the convservatives have more in common with the democrats, our liberals are left of the democrats, etc etc.

I'd say the Canadian Conservatives are clean to the left of US Democrats.

In reply to GameboyRMH:

Probably most of the US Dems.....but definitely not all. The extremists in their ranks make even the Tea Party people look sane.

GameboyRMH wrote: Well the rich know what's coming: http://cfi.co/europe/2015/01/davos-inequality-causes-concern-few-expect-improvement/ They've been hoarding cash since the great recession, and now this: http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/jan/23/nervous-super-rich-planning-escapes-davos-2015 Is becoming a survivalist really better than downgrading from hyper-rich in a sputtering economy to merely rich in a prosperous economy? Really? NZ is a terrible place for Galt's Gulch anyway, they'll revolt before the US would.

Quote from the article:

..."Clarke said: “Solutions are there. What’s been lacking is political will. Politicians do not respond to those who don’t have a voice In the end this is all about redistributing income and power.”

... about politicians, Wallis describing them as people who held up wet fingers “to see which way the money is blowing in from.”

Pretty much what I see, elected officials are employees that respond to the ultra wealthy and their corporations.

I still maintain that Washington was acting under direct orders from WallStreet to lower interest to zero so that they could acquire the last pocket of wealth left in America (savers). Washington did as they were told and it has worked like a charm.

I hear Nebraska has lots of land. Anyone want to start a GRM Compound. If you can't "at least" tell the three main generations of Chevy Small Block apart you aren't allowed in (Only one GRM per family unit is required).

In reply to singleslammer:

One other small requirement... you have to be able to do this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk

In reply to Giant Purple Snorkelwacker: I just saw that guy the other day. That dude is amazing!