Forum Post: Sorry Republicans -- these are the facts!
Posted 11 years ago on June 15, 2012, 9:34 p.m. EST by Underdog
(2971)
from Clermont, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Richard Wilkinson - How economic inequality harms societies (video)
Note where the USA falls in the graphed data compared to other industrialized countries. These statistics are NOT manipulated. This is hard, unbiased data.
This is why people started Occupy. This is why the USA is becoming (or already is) a 2nd rate country. Look at the statistics --- just look with open eyes and unbiased mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Good post. I had heard about the book Spirit Level. Now I would like to get my hands on it. I notice after a little grumbling and the usual attacks, there were no attempts to challenge the data (with facts). I have seen some of it from other sources, since it is in no way secret. The data essentially speak for themselves and if that is all anyone got out of it, it would be one of the most important set of facts in existence. What kind of state, country or world do you want to live in?
The data clearly shows how far we have slipped and that the areas where we are still "exceptional" are not one's to be bragging about.
Small excerpt from The Spirit Level:
RAIDERS AND MAVERICKS
Perhaps another marker of corroded social relations and lack of trust among people was the rapid rise of the Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) through the 1980s and 1990s. These vehicles are known in the UK by the derogatory term "Chelsea Tractors" - Chelsea being a rich area of London, the name draws attention to the silliness of driving rugged off-road vehicles in busy urban areas. But the vehicles themselves have names that evoke images of hunters and outdoorsmen -- Outlander, Pathfinder, Cherokee, Wrangler, etc. Others evoke an even tougher image, of soldiers and warriors, with names like Trooper, Defender, Shogun, Raider, and Crossfire. These are vehicles for the 'urban jungle', not the real thing.
Not only did the popularity of SUVs suggest a preoccupation with looking tough, it also reflected growing mistrust, and the need to feel safe from others. Joseph Lauer, in his paper, "Driven to Extremes" asked why military ruggedness became prized above speed or sleekness, and what the SUV said about American society. He concluded that the trend reflected American attitudes towards crime and violence, an admiration for rugged individualism, and the importance of shutting oneself off from contact with others -- mistrust. These are not large vehicles born from a co-operative public-spiritedness and a desire to give lifts to hitchhikers -- hitchhiking started to decline just as inequality started to rise in the 1970s. As one anthropolgist has observed, people attempt to shield themselves from the threats of a harsh and untrusting society by 'riding in SUVs, which look armoured, and by trying to appear as intimidating as possible to potential attackers'. Pollster Michael Adams, writing about the contrasting values of the USA and Canada, pointed out that minivans outsell SUVs in Canada two to one -- the ratio is reversed in America (and Canada is of course more equal than America). Accompanying the rise of SUVs were other signs of Americans' increasing uneasiness and fear of one another: growing numbers of gated communities, and increasing sales of home security systems. In more recent years, due to the steeply rising cost of filling their fuel tanks, sales of SUVs have declined, but people still want that rugged image -- sales of smaller, tough-looking 'cross-over' vehicles continue to rise.
I live in a Western state where approximately 1 out of 7 vehicles is an SUV. A highly visible minority drives with total disregard for traffic laws and are continually rude to other drivers. Part of the problem stems from the 1990's when SUV's were really taking off---the cops were looking the other way probably due to many of them were buying SUV's themselves. I have more SUV driver stories than I have time to repeat here. One of my favorites though was this driver in a black Lexus was behind a Honda both merging into a thoroughfare. Lexus driver decided Honda wasn't going fast enough and (I'm not kidding) PUSHED the Honda into merging traffic. Once the Lexus driver pulled his head out of his ass and realized he had just created a rear-end accident, he "disengaged" (as it were). Insurance companies think SUV's are great--give them preferential rates--the executives should come out here where I live and see how these people REALLY drive!
I've had people tell me that insurance companies routinely charge higher rates to low income zip codes.
"...the popularity of SUVs suggest a preoccupation with looking tough..."
"...the importance of shutting oneself off from contact with others -- mistrust."
"...people attempt to shield themselves from the threats of a harsh and untrusting society by 'riding in SUVs, which look armoured, and by trying to appear as intimidating as possible to potential attackers'."
==============
The above just indicates we Americans have become a nation of paranoids. We receive so much violence on news programs that we have concluded that we should live in fear even while driving a car.
Insanity!
I wonder what they drive in Sweden?
Even though they have cars, my understanding is that they utilize mass transit (trains, busses) much more than we do. So most average citizens can get around just fine in most instances without cars (notice I said most, not all). They also walk more in the major metro areas.
SAAB used to be manufactured there I think, but they went out of business I believe (I am drawing this from my old memory so some of this may not be 100% accurate).
Sweden sounds like a good model - except for the driving on the wrong side of the road thingy. :-)
LOL, Sweden is a good model imho, as I argued months ago when I first started contributing to this site.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/sweden-should-be-our-model/
It is still a good argument.
Yep - hey all you rugged individualists - be prepared - you have gotsta have an SUV if you want to escape the struggle that is coming - Gas(?) - OH - Um - Sure - Buy a tanker and bury it somewhere - problem solved.
Thank you for that. I have been arguing an intelligent yet also highly biased troll who claims there is no cause presented related to the correlations, so that it must therefore be labeled pseudo-science. He loves to use logical fallacies to try to defeat people. But I am also aware of logical fallacies (I point them out all the time), so my latest response to him shows HE is committing them.
I say this to you to be aware of this guy. He will make falsehood sound like the truth, and truth sound like falsehood.
Forewarned is fore warned, after all.If fact some of the 1%ers are enlightened to recognize that it is in their interest to live in a society which is more homogeneous economically and are speaking out in support of reducing our gini coefficient to the levels of the northern Europeans, because they would be more secure and rubbing shoulders with a happier community.
Yeah that's true. Wonder why so many of them can't grasp that simple concept.
Not really wanting to act in their own self interest is shared by the Tea P guys and much of the rank and file. Giving a greater and greater share of the cost savings of productivity to (some of) the 1%, is something the working GOP poor see to do happily or willingly at least. I guess they are so wrapped up in social issues, they think it is their moral obligation to accept the screwing they get in exchange.
"...so wrapped up in social issues, ..."**
That is a very astute observation that you would think most of the poor R's would realize. I have always found it a strange paradox that they join/vote R mearly for the conservative "values" part of the platform, and tend to completely ignore the "wealth agenda" contained in the party.
Really strange to me.
They are so prickly about the paradox that you can never get a straight answer to how they rationalize it. But even though a few will acknowledge it looks strange, you can't change their minds. I have given up trying.
Very good stuff. This is what happens when we use critical thinking skills and start realizing the truth, which is knowable, you just have to take a little time to acquaint your self with it.
Good one. I highly recommend the video for those who like the facts about what income inequality is doing to us. The consequences of this income disparity is, as most of us know, never good. Basically it causes needless suffering and something can be done to stop it. We are learning. WATCH THE VIDEO!!!
Thanks Underdog!
You are very more than welcome. I thought it really went to the heart of the matter, and the best thing is that it isn't any BS, despite what the detractors on this site claim. If it were, then they should be able to refute it with solid metrics to support their opposing position. But I don't see anything credible being offered up. Just denigrations and insults and other fallacious logic.
Isn't truth beautiful?
If you had critical thinking skills you would know what a correlation without causation logical fallacy is.
You keep saying that all over this post in other places. Statistics, a branch of mathematics, is Science -- the most pure form of Science. Unless Wilkinson was intentionally trying to deceive his audience, which includes millions around the world since it was posted on YouTube, he was sincere and accurately presented the FACTS. Additionally, he stands to jeopardize his career and reputation if he presented anything that wasn't true. And all he presented was the Scientific EVIDENCE that there is a direct correlation between size of Income Inequality gap and degree/amount of related social problems.
Science doesn't always have all the answers at once. It can have evidence, but not necessarily know the cause. YOU have committed a logical fallacy of Style over Substance -- the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT ISN'T TRUE!!! Because you don't like Wilkinson's presentation, and because to YOU (others would certainly disagree with you) he did not present a cause for the evidence, you label it pseudo-science. Now you have committed TWO fallacies. The other is Attacking the Person instead of the argument. Is it not true that the evidence is pure science regardless of how it is presented? Are these not FACTS?
SCIENCE must report the FACTS even when causes are a subject of debate. Statistics is not pseudo-science, unless they have been intentionally manipulated to present a false conclusion. Then it would be FRAUD. That means Wilkinson would be EVIL, and I don't think any reasonable person would draw that conclusion.
To top it off, you have committed a 3rd logical fallacy called Slothful Induction which is that the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary. Evidence to the contrary. EVIDENCE to the contrary.
So go away and study up more on your beloved logical fallacies that you throw around. Trying to defeat someone on these forums amounts to nothing more than a sick mental chess game, and people are trying to seriously discuss things here about how to heal our sick country. Labeling Science as pseudo-science is an insult. It is also easy to pull one over like that on the unknowledgeable.
I do not fall in that category.
the usefulness in reveling decent is it disarms the liar
Mathematics is the language of Science... its how we communicate. It is not 'the most pure form of science' as you claim. The subject of proofs lies in the realm of mathematics and logic... not science.
I'm not picking sides here... just setting the record straight. Science has been abused enough lately, we don't need it to be abused more. I have chastised shadzhairart accordingly as well for his abuses of the word.
There is still debate about math = science I grant you. But depending on who you're talking to, opinions go either way. So I would say you are both right and wrong (how unscientific is that ? - :-).
Here is an example of what I'm talking about.
http://andrewlias.blogspot.com/2004/08/is-mathematics-science.html
Despite what your blog alludes to there is no debate on this. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. As I wrote to shadzhairart on this:
Mathematics deals in proofs. Science does not.Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.
In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.
Furthermore...proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.
In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.
The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.
I think we are involved in semantics here. When I was growing up a zillion years ago, we were taught that mathematics is the purest of knowledge that mankind has ever produced because it's knowledge is something that can be shown to be undeniably true in all cases where it has been proven (as you indicated). Science seeks to know answers to things, and to bring those answers into the realm of knowledge. But science does not always have all the answers, and is continually groping it's way ever further toward knowledge. Mathematics is the foundation of science because science could not even exist without it. So if that which is the basis for science is not in and of itself science, then what is it?
Ultimately I think you and I are getting hung up on definitions.
Not at all. The goal of science is understanding nature. Mathematics happens to be a useful tool to describe nature... but it is not nature, and often nature does not conform to math which is a human invention.
When that happens we will invent new maths to attempt to describe nature better, as with Newton developing calculus to better model and communicate the physics of his time. Math has its own rules, internal consistencies and proofs..... proofs- again not in the realm of science. The purest knowledge is nature itself... not mathematical models.
I grew up a zillion years ago as well and have worked as a physical scientist in academia and the private sector for ~ 20 years. Mathematical Modeling is more and more being confused with reality and its a dangerous practice. Observational evidence is the foundation of science. Observational evidence can be independent of math.
Example:
I'm on a beach and I dig down. I notice that there are several layers of sand, a red layer, brown layer, and white layer with shells overlying a gray layer.
I move over a long distance and dig down again. I encounter the same layer sequence. From this observational evidence I hypothesis that the layer with the shells is the very same layer I encountered on my first dig.
Do I see any math here? No, but I do see science.
Ok, I will not argue this with someone with 20 years of physical science under their belt. My background is Information Technology, not Physical Science.
But consider this.
There is a branch of philosophy known as Theory of Knowledge that seeks to know exactly what knowledge is and what can be ultimately known. As you know, we cannot always trust our senses. Senses can always be fooled and are poor receptors of knowledge (any optical illusion shows this conclusively). Your example of sand layers on the beach is ultimately true only if your senses are accurately judging external reality correctly (and in most cases concerned with observational science this is true). However, observational conclusions are not a priori knowledge (they are a posteriori). Mathematics is such that most of it (all of it???) is a priori. So it's very nature is that of more certain knowledge because of it's foundation of the logical princicples upon which it builds a large superstructure are of the most certain knowledge (this is what Principia Mathematica by Whitehead/Russell shows).
So the importance of a priori knowledge (certainty) is necessary to validate the accuracy of a posteriori observations, since they can always be called into question (that is, common sense cannot always be trusted, as I know you are no doubt aware).
I am really not trying to "win" an argument with you, and greatly respect your years in the scientific community. I'm not aware that there are many scientists on this site. :-)
Not an argument but discussions.... everybody learns that way.
I understand that Plato argued that math is a discoverable system that underlines the structure of the universe. I am more solidly in the "Formalist" theory camp. They argue that mathematics boils down to the manipulation of man-made symbols. In other words, that math is a kind of analogy that draws a line between concepts and real events.
As I answered to jph below (but these posts jump around), There is Godel's first incompleteness theorem. It concerns axioms, that we assume to be true but can't be proven with a mathematical proof. A simple example of this would be the axiom of equality....x = x. We assume this to be a true statement, but we can't actually back it up with a mathematical proof. Every system is built with assumptions that we take for granted as being true... otherwise the 'system' would not work. To me that is evidence of human construct.
Are you a geologist? is that why your user name is geo?
I do not intend to debate you on the subject of math = science, but I happened to stumble across the below quote and thought it summed up my view on things. But I totally respect your point of view on this also.
The below is from "Is Mathematics a Science?", and here is the entire link if you care to read it:
http://www.arachnoid.com/is_math_a_science/index.html
Let me ask a question. Did Dirac invent his equation, or did he discover it? If we claim he invented it, because nature subsequently obeyed Dirac's equation and in ways no one could have expected, this must make Dirac God. But Dirac isn't God, therefore he discovered his equation. If Dirac discovered his equation, where did he find it? He found it in nature. For the entire history of the universe, Dirac's equation lay as an undiscovered treasure in the bosom of nature, until Dirac happened upon it.
Conclusion? Nature is innately mathematical, and she speaks to us in mathematics. We only have to listen.
My own personal view is that math and science are forever bound together in one thing, like two sides of one coin. It is possible, of course, for mathematicians to engage in pure mathematics apart from nature as they seek to come up with more and more interesting things or solve conundrums that have been discovered down through the centuries. I think people will probably debate this math = science thing for a very long time.
To end on a humorous note, Charles Darwin said the following:
A mathematician is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. :-)
I am a geologist....geochemist specifically. There is no doubt that the universe can be described through some mathematics, and as you point out not all mathematics, to a large degree.... which makes math a very important tool for science, one that will always be used.
The easiest way to distinguish math and science is that math deals with proofs and science deals with evidence. The mathematical proofs are final and will never change. The law of addition will forever be.
The empirical laws of physics, though not likely to change, but can change and that is acceptable, and the most fundamental distinction between the two. We are always looking for a violation of the speed of light constant.... which is why it makes the news when some evidence comes up that it has been violated. Here is another example:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110720103517.htm
A mathematician is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.
Darwin was a smart guy. : )
"math which is a human invention." not at all, math is fact, not "invented" by man. Math was true before man and will be after,. our understanding of this truth does not mean we 'invented' it, only that we took notice of it.
Math is derived from pattern recognition, natures way of helping organisms filter the chaos of information we are bombarded with. We have an internal 'number sense', most living things do.
We externalize this number sense to create math. It is no accident that we count in groups of 5 and 10 (the number of fingers and toes), this is part of our externalization of pattern recognition. What would our everyday math be like if we had 40 toes? It is very much the same with how we experience time....pattern recognition. We externalize these internalized systems to try and provide a framework to exist.
Maybe you heard of Godel's first incompleteness theorem? It concerns axioms, that we assume to be true but can't be proven with a mathematical proof. A simple example of this would be the axiom of equality....x = x. We assume this to be a true statement, but we can't actually back it up with a mathematical proof.
In brief, Godel's theorem states that any adequate axiomatizable theory is incomplete or inconsistent. The implication is that mathematics is inexhaustible. No matter how many problems we solve, we'll inevitably encounter more unsolvable problems within the existing rules.
"Evidence-based medicine" is used to describe current efforts that medical treatment is based on the best scientific evidence of what works and what does not. Wilkinson said in his book he applied the same methodology to his work. He is more or less recommending a treatment for a healthy society based on the best evidence of what works and what does not. His work is supported by other research that concur with his findings. It is a no-brainer to me that we should adopt social policies based on the best evidence of what works and what does not.
I was wondering what your thoughts on that were?
First time I have heard of this, medicine isn't my field... however it appears very logical on the surface. Go with what actually works seems like a very common sense approach.
A common sense approach works for me. Thanks for science briefing, also. I suppose my layman understanding is that science is our best understanding, or evidence, for what reality is and how the universe works, but I guess I sometimes think in terms that something can be proven because of the existence of natural laws, like gravity or the speed of light.
We are always looking for a better understanding of things. In this way Science is very progressive. Einstein radically changed our views of what gravity may really be... not a force in the Newtonian sense but a part of the fabric of the Universe. The evidence is pointing to his way of viewing gravity as the best way so far. It's this progressive nature of science that brings us closer to the truth with every new discovery.
Viewing evidence or arguments as best-to-date leaves the door open for new discovery, as opposed to viewing it as proof (and certainly not absolute proof), which would by its very nature, hinder the introduction of new evidence and subsequent discovery. So, if I got this right, your saying in layman's terms that - science always keeps an open mind.
This can wait. Julian Assange needs our help NOW!
http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-julian-assange-ask-ecuador-to-grant-him-polit/
a head two arms two legs, it's everywhere, except insects
And there are more insects on earth than all the mammals.
still the number of places the 5 pattern repeats is interesting even star fish, almost makes you think life might of started somewhere else and came here
I buy into that.
Showing that there is correlation between two things does not mean that one causes the other. Mr. Wilkinson shows correlation with his graphs, but he does not show causation.
I would be doing the same thing if I presented a graph showing the decrease in the number of pirates in the last 200 years, then another graph showing the increase in life expectancy in the last 200 years. Both graphs would show a correlation between the two types of data. I could show evidence that the data is correct. Yet, unless I show causation, we do not know if the decrease in the number of pirates caused the increase in life expectancy.
At the end of his presentation, we still have no evidence that wealth inequality has anything to do with creating more poor people. He shows correlation, but not causation. This is a known logical fallacy, look it up!
"At the end of his presentation, we still have no evidence that wealth inequality has anything to do with creating more poor people."
He does not draw that conclusion that it creates more poor people. His conclusion is mearly that the size of the income inequality gap has a direct relationship on the number and degree of a variety of social problems...period!!!
Nothing else.
Do not read something into the presentation that was not there. Open your biased prejudicial mind to the FACTS presented.
Yes, but he DOES NOT prove this in ANY way! He only shows graphs that correlate. He DOES NOT explain why they correlate, thus he is using a logical fallacy. It's pseudoscience.
I conclude that the decrease in pirates over the years has a direct relationship with the increase in life expectancy. What? You want proof? Look at these graphs boy! They correlate!
Underdog 0wn3d you, bro. You're not winning this one.
I don't care about winning. It does not matter to me if you Americans do not understand how science works. If you think correlation is proof of causation, then so be it. Smart people know their logical fallacies.
"Smart people know their logical fallacies".
Yes, that's true. But intelligence has nothing to do with how to use a tool. A hammer can be used to build a house or bash a person's brain in. The use of logical fallacies is HONORABLE when utilized to correct incorrect reasoning. It is DISHONORABLE when utilized as sophistry with intent to distract and confuse people from REALITY.
Underdog scores again !
I didn't say anything dishonest. You fail to understand this simple logical fallacy.
I understand it perfectly. You do not understand what evidence is, and what SCIENCE really is. You want to win an argument, because you don't like the facts presented, and all you have is your one-trick pony called the logical fallacy of correlation and cause. But I have already asked you this before. Where are your counter-metrics that show Wilkinson is wrong?
It looks like a comparison to the global warming conspirators
He has the burden of proof, not I. Can you prove that the decrease in pirates did not affect the increase in life expectancy? The person making the claim bears the burden of proof my friend, and Mr. Wilkinson has not offered proof.
And, you'll note I never said his conclusion was necessarily wrong. I said that we can't know because he offered no proof.
Wrong. You have the burden of proving him wrong. He has already presented the facts. YOU must offer up hard data that refutes (or at least calls into question) his metrics. This is standard argumentative procedure as in a court of law. Evidence is presented by one side, and counter-evidence is presented by the other. The jury decides which evidence is most valid.
He DID NOT present evidence. He presented correlations without causations. I'm reporting his logical fallacy. I'm not against what his conclusion points to, I'm saying his conclusion is subjective and meaningless because it is based on pseudoscience. I have shown why, i.e. he only shows correlations, but DOES NOT explain their cause.
Bless you UD, trying to talk sense to a severely disturbed individual.
I believe strongly in science. He believes strongly in winning.
Yes trashy does not care how he wins just that he does - so even in losing he considers himself to be a winner.
Funny that.
The science of correlations without a cause? Are you also a fan of the science of Intelligent Design?
i am not.
Are you a paid troll? If so, your actions are understandable. If not, you are just very sick to get your kicks from trying to difuse and muddy up the discussions on this site.
Although I haven't been here for several months, I believe your June 13 user creation date (not to mention writing style) clearly shows who and what you are.
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
Wow! You really don't understand science. If you think his correlations are proof of anything so be it. Hint: science is not like a trial. In a trial there has to be a side that wins, in science you can simply say that its inconclusive, such as this case of correlation without causation.
People in the scientific community disagree all the time on evidence that exists, just like in a courtroom. They are not concerned with WINNING (if they are good scientists). They are concerned with knowing the TRUTH, and will search for evidence that supports their hypothesis. That is how science makes progress. The gradual accumulation of factual evidence in support of hypothesis. Good data/evidence supports the hypothesis and bad/questionable data does not.
If Wilkinson's data does not support the hypothesis, then kindly supply the data that refutes it.
'They are concerned with knowing the TRUTH, and will search for evidence that supports their hypothesis. That is how science makes progress.'
No... this method only supports bias. Science fails if it proceeds this way.
You do not search for evidence that supports your hypothesis. You look at all the observations made (evidence) and develop a theory that best explains those observations.
Poorly worded on my part. Since they are human beings, they do seek to confirm their hypothesis through evidence. Sometimes the evidence works in favor of their hypothesis and sometimes it does't.
Sloppy wording on my part. Thanks for correcting any miscommunication.
If Mr. Wilkinson had come up with a false causation, then, yes, I would correct him. But, he has not. His fault lies in the fact that he didn't talk about any causation at all, and that's what I'm bringing up.
I'm beginning to believe you are obstinate enough to argue against gravity while simultaneously falling from a skyscraper (sigh). He talks openly on how the effects of economic inequality cause unhealthy societies. He is so willing to let you in on the cause, he even states it in the title of the video.
I agree. I search for truth, and that is why I report a logical fallacy when I see one. Again, he is making claims so he has the burden of proof. He has shown no proof at all.
If I tell you that 2+2=5, would you not correct me with PROOF that 2+2=4 ?
Where is your data? Where is your data? Where is your data?
the data cannot be disclosed due to potential harm it may cause the country / company
Talking Heads Cool Water (HQ)
You are distracting from the substance of the issue at hand with more petty, pedantic nonsense. Just like your efforts against the great article on stop and frisk yesterday. It is a dishonest attempt at stifling important discussions. Why don't you take a stand, or stand aside.?
I don't disagree with that premise, I'm demanding proof for it.
Use your head. Is this the 1st time you've heard such things? I think not! Do you live under a bush in the outback? This data should simply corroborate what you have experienced all your life. You know it is true but because you are anti 99% you attempt to distract with petty criticisms.
I did take a stand, Pseudoscience is evil.
I think your opinion is shaded by your disagreement with the premise of this SOLID science. That economic inequity creates great disadvantages for an entire society, It spirals into greater and greater disparity amongst the people in regards to health, crime, mobility, outlook on life, self esteem. And the reason you disagree with the premise is because you are a 1% supporter. You are clearly anti 99% and anti OWS. You efforts at distraction on these important substantive issues prove it.
Whether you wanted to "win" or not, you did.
As soon as someone accuses you of being a "paid troll" you can safely assume you are dealing with an imbecile or a 9/11 truther (sorry for being redundant).
And since ows is lousy with 9/11 truthers, there is an excellent chance underdog is a 9/11 truther.
Then again anyone who doesn't understand the difference between correlation and causation and avoids responding to the logical fallacy of assuming they mean the same has no business in a debate that includes the need to discern it.
Finally, his bitchboy cheerleader...what more do you need to know. Good job crushing another idiot,
I am NOT a 9/11 truther, conspiracy theory nut, or anything else. What happenned on 9/11 was very sad, but I don't dwell on it or have any interest in conspiracy theories at all.
I DO have a great deal of interest in the TRUTH and the FACTS. We don't always know causes. But FACTS are undeniable. In the case of these particular FACTS, Wilkinson clearly showed the relationship that exists.
If you and this moron can't see the plain reality when it is staring you in the face, that's not my problem. See a psychiatrist.
[Removed]
What is this, your 47th post since shadz brought up the glaring lack of evidence of causation where you haven't explained why you buy this decidedly un-scientific bullshit that exclusively shows correlation?
You're in over your head, son.
Asking him if he's a paid shill destroyed any credibility you might have. Very, very truther-like. In fact, based on your logic, it is evidence that you are a 9/11 truther. I have seen that accusation puked out, literally, 100s of times here and on other forums. Every single time, without exception, it has come from a 9/11 truther. So by your own standard, you're a 9/11 truther.
Hey 'sleazo' ! How'd your empty head end up so far up your (x) - tho' we do now know how you've come to be talking such shit and only you cunts are brining up 9/!! on this or any of the other threads !!
Further, re your BS below - You're a clown shoe wearing fukn half-wit who would be out of his depth in a muddy puddle in a car park and you are on the wrong forum at the wrong time & talking total bollocks !!!
temet nosce ...
see, ows should've purged the 9/11 truthers from their ranks. That way, this parade of stupid where hundreds and hundreds of posts, none of which address the correlation/causation point shadz made, would never have happened.
Now, instead, there is eternal digital proof of the pathetically lacking intellect in the ows movement.
Truthers are the absolute worst at this. They can't even fathom the idea that someone can exploit a situation without having caused it!
And your little hissy fit with bad words and angry stamping of feet...thanks for the laugh, truther. Now run along....Alex Jones' dick isn't going to suck itself you know.
I don't care about winning. I just think we should be after the truth. But, you're right, underdog is probably a 911 truther. Most of these guys are, that's why they don't understand logical fallacies. Sad really.
What could I possibly do or say that would convince you I am NOT a "truther" as you call it? It doesn't matter anyway, because even if I provided proof of it you have already formed an opinion and closed your mind and made outrageous accusations with no factual basis to support it. It further reveals your mentality, your mental illness.
And I already told you I use logical fallacies to point out incorrect reasoning probably more than the average poster on this site. Hell, I even provided you with the web page of logical fallacies that I consult on a regular basis so you could bone up on them, because you commit more of them than most people I have encountered here. WTF else do you want from me, my blood?
Must you diverge from the disussion at hand and start making speculations and accusations about me? You know NOTHING about me, and yet the final frustration of the small mind is to begin hurling insults and accusations instead of addressing the issue at hand.
You love logical fallacies, and then you commit the #1 fallacy of all time -- attacking the person instead of the argument. The final refuge of a person who is out of ideas.
So ''Dr. TrashyMask' : Let us analyse a little, shall we ? Thus, "underdog is probably a 911 truther" and "they don't understand logical fallacies. Sad really." LOLOL !!! Need I say more ?!! Worra Total Fukwit ?!
Have you or your sad sidekick 'sleazo' ever heard of a 'non sequitur', you dreary, duplicitous dingbats ?!!
et nosce te ipsum ...
9/11 truthers are always impressed by volume, too. Merit? Not so much.
All of their many, many talking points are bullshit, but they can't imagine how SO MANY talking points can possibly be wrong. And they can't even admit a single one of them is wrong. It's like religion to these retards, and they're all fundamentalists.
Of course it is a logical fallacy to confuse correlation with causation, but they can't accept that because it gets in the way of what they so want to believe. So they will go on and on and on with irrelevant bullshit, talking in circles, swerving to other topics, and eventually wind their way to personal attacks culminating with an accusation of being a paid troll.
See the truthers response? ANYTHING to avoid addressing the correlation/causation point.
ANYTHING.
I swear, these fucking idiots share one faulty, 13-year old's brain.
I expect Gulf of Tonkin to be brought up any minute now!
the causation is lack of funds of the poor to take care of themselves
To say he offered no proof is an outright lie and dishonest. He offered verifiable statistical data gathered from (WHO, UN, OECD, World Bank, US Federal Government etc).
What data did he offer that shows causation? He only offered correlations.
He drew the correlations from the data, the correlations pointed to the cause. Please try and follow the logic. It really is not that hard.
Correlations don't point to a cause, they can only point to a possible cause. You need to explain how the cause actually works. Medical researchers to that. They don't just say "Look, more smoking correlates to increased chances in getting a cancer". They explain why, and this is what Mr. Wilkinson does not do. He does not explain the perceived cause. Until he does, the cause is only perceived. It could be an illusion.
Because he does not explain the cause he perceives, his conclusion remains absolutely subjective. It is a conclusion backed by no evidence.
I read the book, did you? "Evidence-based medicine" is used to describe current efforts that medical treatment is based on the best scientific evidence of what works and what does not. He applied the same methodology to his work to prescribe a recommended treatment for a healthy society based on the best evidence of what works and what does not. His work is supported by other research that concur with his findings. It is a no-brainer to me that we should adopt social policies based on the best evidence of what works and what does not. Should we use the worst evidence instead?
Wow! That's some strange science there! Correlations explaining the cause, wow, I've heard it all.
Listen, if you're happy with this type of "science" so be it.
Yes, I'm happy with real science used in the medical profession to diagnose health issues by using correlating evidence to point to the cause. It saves lives everyday !
Why the red herring? We were discussing the video which is based on correlations without causation, hence no evidence, and now you're talking about medicine based on trial and error. That's entirely different. Trial and error can work because you make experiments and observe. The video above is not based on trial and error and my argument against it has nothing to do with what you are now talking about.
Are you able to stay on topic?
You may be discussing the video, but I'm discussing his work, to which the book and his method of reaching his findings are highly relevant. Quit goofing around.
while the rich may fund the health of the poor,
they do not have time or the will to run every bodies affairs
health can be better if people help each other
You keep talking about science, what scientific training have you had? Please enlighten us?
Ph.D. in biochemistry. But that's not important. I don't like appeal to authority logical fallacies. The only thing that matter are the arguments.
Well, it is important if you're using science as a battering ram. I'm not a scientist (although, I did complete a pre-med curriculum at the undergrad level, albeit my major was economics, and then I went to law school & obviously became a lawyer). Nevertheless, Wilkinson's arguments are sound. It's one thing if you're ponying a single anecdotal example. But in case after case, wealth disparity creates a poor society (or maybe it's a symptom of a poor society, but the overall point is, wealth disparity is a serious problem).
This doesn't necessarily imply that a free for all against the rich can be justified. The problem is just as easily remedied by attacking it from the other direction, making the poor wealthier (although in my opinion things like a Buffet rule, or allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, make perfect sense from a utilitarian standpoint, considering fiscal realities, but I also think it's absurd to view those things as some sort of assault against wealth).
Now, I don't have so much as a degree never mind a "Ph.D., PhD, D.Phil., or DPhil." though a couple of family members are "Doctors of Philosophy" ... BUT who in the entire english speaking academic world - Who Actually Really Had a "Ph.D", would ever capitalise all three letters ?!!! WTF is that about ?!!
Lest the mendacious manipulator try to amend and edit his reply - I copy your original exchange below :
[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3045) 1 hour ago : You keep talking about science, what scientific training have you had? Please enlighten us? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
[-] -3 points by shadzhairart (0) 1 hour ago : PH.D in biochemistry. But that's not important. I don't like appeal to authority logical fallacies. The only thing that matter are the arguments. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
Is this 'circumstantial' or 'prejudicial' or 'jealousy' or even a 'logical fallacy' (lol) for me to point this out ? You and the good readers can decide that for yourselves !
Further, I'm more than impressed with the patience and clear thinking employed by yourself, 'Underdog', 'JadedCitizen' et al and your efforts to make this individual see sense. However, please be fully aware of his nature ; his specious arguments ; his tendentious 'pseudo-logic' and his outright sophistry and tho' I've observed this thread but tried to stay out of it thus far - I can not help but draw attention to the real nature of this 'shadzhairart' and allow him to give an insight into his own nature - with his own words :
So after a hearty guffaw at the above - please reflect on the "nature of the beast" and ask yourself IF he is ever really going to change OR accept any arguments deployed against his specious mendacity and tedious disinformation ! Finally, even IF he really did have a "Ph.D" ... so what ?!! Who gives a flying fuk if he keeps warbling and worming his abject twaddle which is in the final analysis, reactionary drivel ?!!!
ad iudicium ...
I'm quickly getting the same impression :)
Shadz, that is one of the greatest things I've ever seen you write, and thank you very much for revealing who and what this intelligent but misanthropic "person" really is.
'Ud' : Thanx for your gracious comment tho' I have to confess I had rather a brain jolting moment and simultaneously - a wee epiphany as well.
The jolt came from the prospect of one of my "greatest" (shucks thanx + inter-cranial jolt!) comments being to do with 'Dr. Trashymask' and more agreeably for both of us - the epiphany came in mentally committing to doing a decent forum-post on a far more important and 99%-relevant matter, very soon.
In the meantime & more in keeping with your excellent 'forum-post' which instigated this prolific thread :
"Keep On Keeping On" bro' : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-l91O9VxN0 ~{:-)
per ardua ad astra ....
Shadz, those vids are very good. I would say the Young Turks one is great. I wish every adult American would see it, take it to heart, and get involved in trying to fix our mess.
Thanks for providing.
~{:-) et Dum Spiro, Spero ...~*~...
red herrings + ad hominem.
You can't argue my point, you just use logical fallacies like 911 truthers.
I don't think it has been shown that wealth inequality is such a big problem. I seriously don't. You have to look deeper. You have to look at the total created wealth also.
You're assuming that decreasing wealth disparity would negatively affect total economic output (e.g. GNP growth), this is purely an economic argument (and something I am academically qualified to comment on). If you look at every metric, for instance US economic growth, moving away from gross wealth disparity, has in fact resulted in more robust economic growth, not to mention far better performance in terms of economic stability, and we see the same story repeated in case after case. A world where robber barons control virtually all wealth, is what we used to call a banana republic (a term we should re-familiarize ourselves with).
It is true that this idea could go too far (taking Greece as a case in point). However, the funny thing is, when we compare social welfare (as a percent of GNP), we find that Greece actually devotes a lower share of GNP to social welfare programs compared to Scandinavia (and even compared to Germany). So I would contend that it is you who needs to look deeper into the numbers.
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I don't think it has been shown that wealth inequality plays a role in creating more poor people. I think in some cases there is an increase of poor people while there is a decrease in wealth inequality. Just like the GNP sometimes grows in tandem with wealth inequality, but sometimes not.
Poverty is relative, and therefore growing wealth disparity and growing poverty rates are the same thing. I'm quite sure if you were to compare the living standards of a person living in a homeless shelter (here in the United States), provided with three hots and a cot (as we used to say in the army), the average third world tribal inhabitant might consider them wealthy, but that is not how we measure either poverty or wealth.
Poverty Line: the estimated minimum level of income needed to secure the necessities of life. (From Oxyford)
We can thus imagine a country with no poor people. A country where everyone is above the poverty line and has the necessities of life.
A measure of relative poverty defines "poverty" as being below some relative poverty threshold. For example, the statement that "households with an accumulated income less than 60% of the median equivalized household disposable income are living in poverty" uses a relative measure to define poverty. In this system, if everyone's real income in an economy increases, but the income distribution stays the same, then the rate of relative poverty will also stay the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold#Relative_poverty
Also, how do we define basic needs?
Some measurements combine certain aspects of absolute and relative measures. For example, the Fraser Institute publishes a basic needs poverty measure for Canada. According to the Fraser Institute, "the basic-needs approach is partly absolute (the list [of necessities] is limited to items required for long-term physical well-being) and partly relative, reflecting the standards that apply in the individual's own society at the present time."[9] The Fraser Institute's list of necessities for living creditably in Canada includes not only food, shelter, clothing, and health care, but also personal care, furniture, transportation, communication, laundry, and home insurance. It is criticized for not including any entertainment items like cable television, daily newspapers, and tickets to movies or sporting events.[9][10]
See Id.
Bullshit too. Its political science, and no Ph.D.
I'd sooner believe biochemistry (we would expect a political science major to at least understand how to measure poverty, whereas you don't really get that if all you've studied was chemistry, physics, biology, organic chemistry, analytical and physical chemistry, mathematics, etc.).
Maybe so. Or, political science and he couldn't cut it, and flunked out.
Actually, I believe he is a musician. At least that is what he said months ago.
Getting close!
Let me guess. They kicked you out when they discovered your need for all things science to the detriment of all else, thereby showing a complete lack of empathy for human kind. Or, perhaps it was that they found out you were best friends with Luka Rocca Magnotta.
Are you able to argue the point on the table, or are just able to attack the proposer with red herrings and ad hominem?
First, the person I would would argue with, would need to at least appear ostensibly real. You don't fit the criteria.
Just a bit ago you said you were black and earned less than $15,000 per year. Now you have a PHD. LOL!
More red herrings and ad hominem. Just like a 911 truther, you can't argue the point at hand. You fool yourself that you have gained some knowledge on this thread by attacking me with a flurry of logical fallacies, but you have gained nothing. You have learned nothing. You remain on the level of a stupid Jerry Springer watching American.
Learn the art of rhetoric. Don't worry about me the proposer, worry about the argument I put on the table.
There's no ad hominem there. You are the one who said those things. If you're going to lie you lose credibility.
Lol! The funniest thing is that I do know people with Ph.D.'s who make that amount!
Yes, of course, but why all the dissembling here? You are none of those three characteristics.
And given how hard you work here, you have to be earning more than $15,000 per year. If not, I'm sorry. You should demand a living wage.
"PHD / Ph.D" ?! What's That ?!! Pedantic Hubristic Drivel or Petty horrid Dross ?!!!
verum ex absurdo ...
How did you know my field of study? Richie, is that you?
Hahaha. Not by a mile.
Ding Ding Ding Ding............Because BS is his ( trash's ) area of study and chosen profession.
You don't understand how science works. But you are not alone in this.
Proofs exist in the realms of mathematics and logic... not science. The observation that you and underdog are using 'science' to justify your arguments shows that neither of you understand science.
Proofs exist in the realms of mathematics and logic... not science if your talking about junk science then yea this statement works but if your talking real science then the above statement is incomprehensible because math and logic is science
Another fail, read my posts up thread... I have to log off. Math is independent of science. Observations are the foundation of science, and observations can be made independently of math. Therefore, math and science are not the same.
they are inseperable
Math is a tool. Science is a system designed to obtain objective information regarding nature and provide the best explanation to encompass all the observations regarding a phenomena. To facilitate this endeavor an investigator will use the steps in the scientific method.
He may use the tools of math to help him refine his observations, as metrics in experimentation, and to help to devise a theory to encompass his observations.
Math is a tool that is heavily relied on today, but I have provided an example in this thread where science can be conducted without a single number used, without mathematical formulaes, without any counting whatsoever.... they are quite separable.
Science is a discipline that utilizes tools such as mathematics, and logic with a prescribed method of research. I am using logic within the field of science.
Again....Logic does not lie within the field of science.
Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions.
They are tools used by scientists to prove their claims.
You are digging yourself a deeper hole.....
The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.
In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.
Right, I remember in my first biology class in college, we learned scientific method (although I had already studied a little about Karl Popper by that time), but the mantra is, science NEVER uses the term "proven" (although we assign the term "theory" to concepts that are extremely well understood, have withstood rigorous peer review, repeat testing, etc.). We say something is supported by the evidence, or consistent with X hypothesis, or words to that effect.
Also, as you say, proofs are purely mathematical (because mathematics is essentially relational, it can start with a contrived [definitional] axiom--like a triangle consists of three perfectly straight lines, and it can use deduction). Logic is sort of similar, but it gets more fuzzy (because, how do I say this the right way, in some cases, the premise you begin with and build your argument on, may beg the question, it may not be amenable to proof, you may have to rely on something like a reducto ad absurdum argument, etc., although there are of course different strands of logic).
Especially in this subject which asks for causation. There is no mathematical proof. All one can hope for is a theory with preponderance of evidence that supports it.
Thank you.
Do you believe correlation implies causation?
You realize that is a mathematical concept... not scientific, but as I answered below no, correlation does not imply causation .
No.... of course not.
Everyone else on this page does.
Take it up with them... but leave science out of it, unless you plan on using the term correctly.
JadedCitizen is on to a better methodology http://occupywallst.org/forum/sorry-republicans-these-are-the-facts/#comment-766158
You obtain a preponderance of evidence and develop a theory that best explains what is observed. There is no mathematical proof for the subject you all are arguing about.
Last I heard economics is a social science, not a hard science.
Your clarifications are good and true geo. Thank you for them. It's true that correct vocabulary should be used.
It's too bad you didn't give your thoughts on this video. I think it's important the people here realize it's based on a logical fallacy. If we want to build a better world, we must be more disciplined.
I would just be throwing in an opinion as far as my thoughts on the video. My opinion is worth as much as anybody else, on these type of topics. My interjection was just to set the rules straight on the debate.
Well, let's hope that at least a few American occupiers know what logical fallacies are.
Showing only a graph about 1) pirates and 2) life expectancy and relating it to the cause of wealth inequality would be a fallacy because it assumes cause and effect based on two variables simply occurring together.
However, It is possible to build a strong, scientific case for a specific cause using pure epidemiological, or statistical evidence. The way to do this is to look at multiple independent correlations to see if they all point to the same causal relationship. Doing it this way is not a fallacy. Look it up, Captain Ahab.
!!!! Huston.... We have a problem !!!!
This is EXACTLY what Mr. Wilkinson does. He shoes correlation BUT NOT causation.
It DOES NOT matter how many correlations you come up with. You can have zillions. If you CANNOT explain the cause YOU HAVE NOTHING!
Learn your logical fallacies please. This is pathetic.
Read the last quote there. "point to the same causal relationship" This is what Mr. Wilkinson DOES NOT talk about. He DOES NOT point to a causal relationship AT ALL.
Anyone can look up the logical fallacy of confusing cause with association and see your abusing the fallacy itself. Anyone can look up epidemiological study and see it is accepted scientific procedure. Anyone who makes an outrageous claim that zillions of correlations point to nothing is just a plain old idiot.
I don't see how I'm abusing anything. The guy shows graphs that correlate, but doesn't explain the causation of that correlation. It's a simple logical fallacy.
I didn't say they necessarily pointed to nothing, but if you can't explain their cause, then it could simply be coincidence.
Science doesn't work with "mabye"'s, it works with providing evidence for cause and effect.
Ever the sophist. The correlations point to wealth inequality as the cause. There is no need to explain the cause, which is wealth inequality, unless you are an idiot and need me to explain to you what a high income gap is.
I listened pretty closely to the video. I never once heard the speaker try to explain cause. He used the word 'seems' alot. ie: It 'seems' that wealth inequality correlates with all kinds of social problems. He used the word 'related' alot. Not 'cause'. But 'effect' and 'relationship'. I didn't hear him try to explain the cause.
Basically he just pointed out the correlations/relationships of wealth inequality to social problems. The correlations appear strong. I suppose you could view that as a sort of circumstantial evidence. But that is still not proof of cause. I don't think the speaker ever tried to explain the cause. He only discussed inequality as it correlates to social problems. The question is - does wealth inequality cause social problems? I don't think that is the root cause. It appears to be a symptom. Strongly/closely related to wealth inequality.
He only used the word 'causality' once, at the very end. He said ' I think we can improve the quality of life by lessening' wealth inequality. Which is basically an informed opinion. He doesn't explain the cause of inequality, only the effects - social problems. He says at the end that the causes of wealth inequality can be addressed through tax policies.
So I think what this whole thing is saying is that policy (tax and other) is the cause of wealth inequality. The effects of wealth inequality is social problems.
if everyone has equal wealth , there is less reason to rob each other
And if nobody has any wealth, there is even less reason to rob eachother.
No - there is still survival - and those without compassion for another - will prey on others for their survival.
the land has wealth
I am not going around the sophist wheel with you again just because you assumed a different guise.
You're funny JC. : )
No, the author does not show that social problems are the effect of wealth inequality. The only thing he does is he shows correlation between them, but that means nothing without explaining how wealthy inequality creates or causes social problems.
What he did seems strong at first glance because it seems natural to us that wealth inequality would create social problems. But, there is no evidence of this (at least not in this video).
I would be doing the exact same thing as Mr. Wilkinson if I showed 1) a graph showing the increase of the number of firemen in the world 2) a graph showing the increase in life expectancy. I could then say that it "seems" that the more firemen we have in the world, the longer we can expect to live. You wouldn't believe me because my analysis doesn't seem natural/plausible, but you believe Mr. Wilkinson because his does. But, and this is a really big butt, we have both shown just as much evidence as each other as to how our respective graphs are related, and that is no evidence whatsoever.
Mr. Wilkinson must explain exactly by what means wealth inequality creates social problems. He fails to do so. And, because of this miserable failure, what he gives us is a logical fallacy - correlation without causation.
Beat your dead horse trashy - beat it.
Whip it. Whip it good.... nan nan nan nan, you gotta whip it!
Quit goofing around.
Teaching proper research methods to my poorly schooled American students is never a waste of time.
"Do you know what correlation without causation is? We could start with this first lesson if you wish?"
associating one thing to be caused by another thing, that may be totally unrelated, because they simply occur together.
"May I ask a personal question, was it your heart, your mind, or your member which was jaded first?"
It's a free world. I don't police the stuff that comes out of your mouth. But maybe you should.
This shows your heat remains overly sensitive and is therefor not jaded.
May I ask a personal question was it your mind, or your member which was jaded first
Publish your research methods in detail and then we might have something to discuss. Otherwise, leave them kids alone.
Do you know what correlation without causation is? We could start with this first lesson if you wish?
May I ask a personal question, was it your heart, your mind, or your member which was jaded first?
I agree he doesn't explain why or attempt to show causation. Only correlation. He says as much. But the correlating information, in and of itself, is still informative. The fact that he doesn't attempt to show causation doesn't necessarily negate the importance of educating people of the correlations. So I don't think it's a miserable failure.
What do you mean he 'must explain exactly by what means wealth inequality creates social problems'? I don't think that was the intent. His intent was to show the correlations. I don't think he was trying to mislead. If he had been trying to mislead us by specifically saying there is a causation, I would agree that would be a failure. But he really never said that.
The way I interpret the video - there are underlying causes of wealth inequality (ie: economic polices), and there are underlying causes for the social problems (perhaps it's psychological, ie: needs hiearchy) - that he doesn't address. The two happen to correlate. And sometimes correlation points to causation.
But it would be near impossible to scientifically provide a counter to the same set of circumstances. Holding all other variables constant, changing one variable, and do a replay, to prove it exactly scientifically.
So without being able to provide a counter replay, I'm not sure how there is a way to scientifically prove that wealth inequality causes social problems or not. That doesn't mean there is no causality. That we aren't capable of proving causality, because there are too many variables to control. In this case, I don't think it's overreaching to say that the strong correlations point to causality. In the absence of a means to prove causality.
No, correlation never points to causation. Causation is not information present in a correlation. A correlation is just two things that move in a correlated manner, but what makes them move together in that manner is never inherently explained in the correlation. It could very well be simple coincidence, many correlations are.
Without showing correlation, Mr. Wilkinson gives us nothing of real value.
We can do a simple exercise. Let's change wealth inequality with something else that would also correlate. We could use bread price for example, or the number of people in the population. So, watch Mr. Wilkinson's video and imagine that wealth inequality is replaced by graphs showing rising bread prices. Does the video now show how rising bread prices create more social problems? No, it just shows a correlation. We would now have to explain how bread prices can create more social problems, else we have nothing.
cum hoc ergo propter hoc
Mr. Wilkinson needs to explain how rising wealth inequality creates social problems. He hasn't done that yet. Until he does, I'll believe rising bread prices are the problem. ;-)
No, correlation never points to causation.
Thats just as not true as what you claim. Correlation is not proof. But correlation can indeed point to causation.
It can hint to possible causations, but it cannot point to causation. You can never be sure of causation with correlation alone. You'll have to work a bit harder.
"Yes, correlation clearly shows cause. So, by lowering bread prices, we should therefor see an inevitable decrease in social problems."
Your nobel peace prize is in the mail.
What is your best recommendation for solving the problems - to lower bread prices?
rent is were most of my money goes
then gasoline
then food
Yes, correlation clearly shows cause. So, by lowering bread prices, we should therefor see an inevitable decrease in social problems.
We should also look at the number of transistors currently in existence. The number of transistors in existence has been increasing for a long time and correlates to the number of social problems. We must destroy transistors!
Do you know what "prima facie" evidence is?
This is exactly the problem here, the fact that the cause APPEARS to be self-evident does not mean it actually is. And, really, if the cause is so evident, then Mr. Wilkinson should have explained how wealth inequality creates or causes social problems. The fact is he didn't explain how. The why of that matters not. Because it was self-evident, because he didn't know? Does not matter. What matters is he did not provide evidence, only correlation without a cause.
Sir Newton! Why are you spending time writing a book trying to explain why apples fall to the ground! My sir, this goes without saying. It's obvious! What a waste of time! Why explain what is plainly obvious! Really, stop writing that book and come play with us in the garden.
Oh Isaac! Isn't it just obvious that wealth inequality creates social problems in some way or another. Why bother explaining how?
Nevertheless, Prima facie evidence is considered evidence. It seems apparent that there is a cause and effect relationship. In the absence of any counter explanation, it seem like the most likely. Your claim that he presented NO evidence is wrong. You have not presented any counter hypothesis to cause and effect. Have you heard of Ockhams razor?
It does not, and I don't see why you think it is apparent.
In fact, if it really was apparent, then you would "see" that cause and effect relationship and you would be able to explain it to us right now.
Mr. Wilkinson has not presented an hypothesis to cause and effect that I could try to counter. I'm still waiting for him to posit some kind of cause. That's the problem!
Sure, but the problem right now is that Mr. Wilkinson DID NOT offer an explanation as to why wealth inequality creates social problems. So, he gives us nothing to counter, and nothing to go with. He gives us nothing at all!
You don't see why it's apparent. OK, because it is based on a very large sampling. There are no apparent anomalies, (ie, exceptions to the rule,) where the inequality does not coincide with the other parameters. Those would be legitimate counters. Basic statistical analysis. There are many cause and effect relationships that are accepted to occur without the necessity of understanding every detail of the mechanics. You haven't said whether you believe in the existence of gravity. Is the jury still out on that one for you? Can you "see" gravity?
Whether you see something or not means little. Plato already explained 2,500 years ago how our senses can be fooled - see Republic, Book VII. Sure, if you want to play the relativist game, then nothing can be proven. How do you know you are even alive. The problem with that is you really go nowhere. You must take some things for granted if you want to build something. However, there's no reason to take Mr. Wilkinsons correlations for granted. We have the possibility to at least try to explain them.
Scientists have tried to explain gravity for hundreds of years, don't you think Mr. Wilkinson should at least try to explain his correlations in just one video? Isn't OK to ask him for at last one try, one tiny effort?
Conversely, whether or not you DON'T see something means little. Sure, I think it is ok to ask for an analysis of the mechanics, but it doesn't change the probability factor even if the complex mechanics can not be clearly defined. Sociology can never be an exact science. If we could conduct an experiment, and say let's just change the wealth disparity in nation x and see what happens, that could be helpful, but that isn't so easy.
[Removed]
Are you saying the rock might not fall back to Earth?
No, I'm talking about correlation without causation. We know why the rock falls back - gravity. We don't know why wealth inequality causes social problems, or even it if actually does.
Do you think the increase of overall number of firemen in the last 300 years had something to do with the increase in life expectancy. It correlates perfectly.
Before we can accept the idea that it is gravity that causes the rock to fall, you must explain precisely how gravity works. Otherwise, we might as well conclude it is invisible demons or angels grabbing the rock and bringing it back to earth. By your own standards, you haven't proved cause and effect.
We agree! Yay! Scientists must work on explaining gravity, while Mr. Wilkinson must work on explaining how wealth inequality actually creates social problems.
So the bottom line may be, proof is often a subjective word. What constitutes proof to some, may not to others. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you do accept the idea that gravity exists as a natural force, perhaps based on the fact that it seems to be the most logical conclusion, even though, in the strictest sense, it could be said to be unproven.
Sure, but there exists theories that explain gravity to a certain extent. Einstein explains it as a curvature of space-time, and string theory has a few things to say also. There have been attempts to point to a cause.
Mr. Wilkinson doesn't even try to give us a cause. He gives us nothing.
And, gravity is felt everywhere you go, everyday. Nothing ever goes against it. On the other hand, I could give you examples where an increase of social problems was seen in correlation with a decrease wealth inequality. There's nothing clear about wealth inequality being responsible for social problems. Nothing clear at all. The existence of gravity is clear, the existence of wealth inequality affecting the number of social problems is not.
What examples can you give?
Yugoslavia 1994.
That is a logical fallacy. A single correlation between an increase in firemen and life expectancy is not evidence of anything, it could simply be coincidence. We been over this already.
Quit goofing around.
A single correlation or a zillion correlations both mean ziltch if the cause is not explained. If you can't explain how one affects the other, then you simply cannot be sure that one does affect the other.
We've already covered this too. You have yet to answer my question.
"Evidence-based medicine" is used to describe current efforts that medical treatment is based on the best scientific evidence of what works and what does not. He applied the same methodology to his work to prescribe a recommended treatment for a healthy society based on the best evidence of what works and what does not. His work is supported by other research that concur with his findings. It is a no-brainer to me that we should adopt social policies based on the best evidence of what works and what does not.
Should we use the worst evidence instead?
Iv'e answered this. You're talking about trial and error here. This is not the same as correlation without causation. Mr. Wilkinson did not try to create wealth inequality and see if this created social problems. There's no trial and error in this video. Trial and error can lead to knowledge. Correlation without causation cannot.
Trial and error is the only way to gain knowledge. Your argument is idiotic. Quit goofing around and answer my question. Should we use the best evidence available or the worst evidence?
we have a name for why the rock falls, we have a name for why health results are poor in certain countries, they are both theories only "proven" in that they have not been disproven
I submit that the chocolate doughnut is not a theory
it's recipe is known,
Gravity on the other hand we have no causal evidence for, we assume mass, as we may assume that wealth inequality causes health problems and a shorter life for all, but all of this is based on observation.
Translation.............programmed propaganda!!!!
This is such fucking bullshit and for any of you Leftist freak jobs to believe this moron speaks volumes of why you voted for Oblamer in 2008. This is a great example of PROGTARD 101.
really - what part is propaganda?
What part isn't?
thoughtful answer - to be expected - he presents many facts - which ones are incorrect
You tell me? Which ones are correct?
all of them obviously - you are a waste of time - i should have known. you must have a sad life or probably no life since you are here for what reason?
Prove it!!
why - seems to me that you are the one who needs to prove your assertion - don't try - you won't be able to - stop wasting our time
Actually, he doesn't present useful facts. What he does is show correlations, but not causations. That's a logical fallacy. Might as well say the number of pirates has been declining in an inverse proportion to the wealth inequality increase. Correlations prove nothing unless their causation is explained.
You keep saying that all over this post in other places. Statistics, a branch of mathematics, is Science -- the most pure form of Science. Unless Wilkinson was intentionally trying to deceive his audience, which includes millions around the world since it was posted on YouTube, he was sincere and accurately presented the FACTS. Additionally, he stands to jeopardize his career and reputation if he presented anything that wasn't true. And all he presented was the Scientific EVIDENCE that there is a direct correlation between size of Income Inequality gap and degree/amount of related social problems.
Science doesn't always have all the answers at once. It can have evidence, but not necessarily know the cause. YOU have committed a logical fallacy of Style over Substance -- the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT ISN'T TRUE!!! Because you don't like Wilkinson's presentation, and because to YOU (others would certainly disagree with you) he did not present a cause for the evidence, you label it pseudo-science. Now you have committed TWO fallacies. The other is Attacking the Person instead of the argument. Is it not true that the evidence is pure science regardless of how it is presented? Are these not FACTS?
SCIENCE must report the FACTS even when causes are a subject of debate. Statistics is not pseudo-science, unless they have been intentionally manipulated to present a false conclusion. Then it would be FRAUD. That means Wilkinson would be EVIL, and I don't think any reasonable person would draw that conclusion.
To top it off, you have committed a 3rd logical fallacy called Slothful Induction which is that the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary. Evidence to the contrary. EVIDENCE to the contrary.
So go away and study up more on your beloved logical fallacies that you throw around. Trying to defeat someone on these forums amounts to nothing more than a sick mental chess game, and people are trying to seriously discuss things here about how to heal our sick country. Labeling Science as pseudo-science is an insult. It is also easy to pull one over like that on the unknowledgeable.
I do not fall in that category.
This shows you DO NOT understand the logical fallacy of correlation without causation. Again, it does not matter if you show correlation if you don't show causation!
Showing that there is correlation between two things does not mean that one causes the other. Mr. Wilkinson shows correlation with his graphs, but he does not show causation.
I would be doing the same thing if I presented a graph showing the decrease in the number of pirates in the last 200 years, then another graph showing the increase in life expectancy in the last 200 years. Both graphs would show a correlation between the two types of data. I could show evidence that the data is correct. Yet, unless I show causation, we do not know if the decrease in the number of pirates caused the increase in life expectancy.
At the end of his presentation, we still have no evidence that wealth inequality has anything to do with creating more poor people. He shows correlation, but not causation. This is a known logical fallacy, look it up!
If he hasn't shown the cause (he hasn't, he only shows correlation which is all but meaningless), then we don't know that wealth inequality causes more people to be poor. Since we don't know what the cause is, we can't pronounce ourselves on the effects of wealth inequality vis a vis poor people.
Instead of beating your logical fallacy dead horse over and over again, how about offerring up some counter-metrics that can DISPROVE Wilkinson's metrics? That would go a long way to showing he was incorrect in his presentation. But you have offered up NO hard data. Only denial of proper reasoning, which is what a logical fallacy is.
That's not the point. I don't think Mr. Wilkinson is necessarily wrong. I'm simply saying he proved nothing. It could very well be that the correlation he showed us has a legitimate causation, he just didn't explain it.
what you say sounds intelligent but is just sophistry - you can point out where he is wrong any time you like - and your income?
My income? Now that's sophistry! Last year it was 12,000k.
If you want, you can read more about correlation without causation. It's a common logical fallacy. The only one doing sophistry is the guy in the video.
don't need to read about it - if you want to try to dispute his conclusion you need to do more than just yap about correlation. if your income is 12,000,000 then you should be ashamed of yourself - dumping on those who advocate for poor people. i am guessing you are a christian - not one jesus would recognize!
What conclusion? He only shows correlation? So what? Did you know that life expectancy increased in an inverse proportion to the number of pirates that decreased? The fewer pirates are on the earth, the long we can expect to live. Correlation is great.
I made 12,000$, not 12,000,000$. Sorry for the typo.
It's said that correlation does not equal causation, but of course that's a commonly abused logical fallacy. Repeated correlation is indeed valid statistical evidence (the fallacy really only aims its cross hairs at anecdotal evidence). For example, if someone was standing over a dead body (stabbed to death), with a knife in hand, we would say there's an increased probability that he's the killer, but it's still only circumstantial. If, however, we find the same guy standing over body after body, each time with a knife in his hands, with each incident, the probability increases. You eventually reach a point where it is valid to assume this person is the killer (and with enough circumstantial evidence, we can say this person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).
No. You are being fooled because you believe from the start (without evidence) that wealth inequality increases poverty. Your common sense is fooling you. Common sense is not science. There are scientific discoveries which fly in the face of common sense.
If you look at every country in the world, you will see that the number of pirates decrease as life expectancy increases. This happens over and over and over again in hundreds of countries. Frequency of correlation does not make it more true. You MUST show causation, else there is nothing at all.
Oh okay, so my law degree, all that calculus, all those biology, chemistry, physics classes, all those statistics and probability theory classes I've taken, all the history, sociology, economics, and philosophy I've learned throughout my academic career, yeah ... it's a big giant trick by the sky monster to dazzle and confuse my senses. I mean, what-fucking-ever.
Correlations are just correlations. If there are millions of correlations pointing in one direction, then it's obviously more than likely that there is something there. But, unless you show causation you really have nothing. However, if there are many correlations pointing to one thing it should be easy enough to find a causation if there is one.
Mr. Wilkinson does not find a causation, most likely because there isn't one. We know that it's mathematically possible to have a very poor population with wealth almost distributed equally. We know it's also mathematically possible that when wealth inequality increases the number of poor decreases.
I don't see that an increase in wealth inequality automatically means an increase in the poor. I think it's hogwosh.
All of these statements tell me that you missed the point entirely. Wilkinson's argument is much more elaborate than you apparently understand. Watch the video again (if you're even capable of washing out your biases when digesting new information).
You - "YOU" - are being presented with information. What you do with that information depends on your abilities as well as your loyalties - your perspective is clouded.
Are you loyal to humanity (?) or to yourself (?).
Do you worship/cherish life (?) or money (?) or WHAT?
if there is wealth then poverty can be decreased
Indeed, but a situation where wealth is distributed evenly is not guaranteed to be a situation where everyone is equally OK, everyone could be equally poor.
not if we support each other
[Removed]
[Removed]
use some common sense like the rest of us. speak to the subject if you can - that is doubtful - marshall your evidence to show that inequality does not cause harmful effects instead of doing some childish pirates of the caribbean move. if you made 12k then you paid lots of your income in taxes of all sorts - why a shill for the rich?
No shill for the rich, a deep care for science. I don't tolerate pseudoscience even if it's trying to do me a favor. Science doesn't work from common sense, it works from evidence.
so present some evidence
You are wrong. It is not obviously correct. At best, it is possible. Mr. Wilkinson did not show us proof.
I'm convinced that the most important thing we can do at this point in time is clean up the mess of science, pseudoscience, and religion. They are all messed up together, and most people can't tell them apart. How much time and energy did you waste in US because of Intelligent Design? How much time do you waste with conspiracy theories?
Pushing for clarity and precision of thought is never a waste of time, certainly not in this day and age.
keep muddying the waters - very helpful if you are a shill for the rich - do you have common sense
I never said his conclusions were incorrect. What I said is that he didn't prove his conclusions. Whether they are correct or not remains to be seen.
what a waste of time you are - they are obviously correct. how old are you - do you have eyes and a brain and why waste time on this nonsense anyway - you cannot think of more important things to do at this crucial moment in the worlds history. i was right the first time - sophist - go play with the kids in the science sandbox
I did. I said Mr. Wilkinson used the fallacy of correlation without a cause, i.e he shows correlations, but not their cause. The evidence lies in the video. Watch it. You won't see causation, just correlation.
doesn't mean his conclusions are incorrect - you seem to think they are - prove it
And where is YOUR evidence?
My claims is not that his conclusion is wrong, but that it is unproven because he uses only correlations and does not explain their causation. The proof is in the video. Watch it. There's only correlation.
I'm not claiming anything, therefor I don't bear the burden of proof.
Wow! This thread has proved to me that Americans do not understand science.
"I'm not claiming anything, therefor I don't bear the burden of proof."
Another straight up lie. You claim he made a logical fallacy. You claim he offered no proof. You have asserted nothing but dishonest claims and use babble to back it up. Where is your evidence?
and that it is nearly impossible to exclud the repeb or demos or obama or romney of GOP or left and write
out of the mindset of policy
You make a claim that someone else was wrong. Prove it.
Confusing association with causation
This is similar to the post-hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables simply because they occur together. This fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal interpretation. For example, during the 1990’s both religious attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are both increasing at the same time.
This fallacy, however, has a tendency to be abused, or applied inappropriately, to deny all statistical evidence. In fact this constitutes a logical fallacy in itself, the denial of causation. This abuse takes two basic forms. The first is to deny the significance of correlations that are demonstrated with prospective controlled data, such as would be acquired during a clinical experiment. The problem with assuming cause and effect from mere correlation is not that a causal relationship is impossible, it’s just that there are other variables that must be considered and not ruled out a-priori. A controlled trial, however, by its design attempts to control for as many variables as possible in order to maximize the probability that a positive correlation is in fact due to a causation.
Further, even with purely epidemiological, or statistical, evidence it is still possible to build a strong scientific case for a specific cause. The way to do this is to look at multiple independent correlations to see if they all point to the same causal relationship. For example, it was observed that cigarette smoking correlates with getting lung cancer. The tobacco industry, invoking the “correlation is not causation” logical fallacy, argued that this did not prove causation. They offered as an alternate explanation “factor x”, a third variable that causes both smoking and lung cancer. But we can make predictions based upon the smoking causes cancer hypothesis. If this is the correct causal relationship, then duration of smoking should correlate with cancer risk, quitting smoking should decrease cancer risk, smoking unfiltered cigarettes should have a higher cancer risk than filtered cigarettes, etc. If all of these correlations turn out to be true, which they are, then we can triangulate to the smoking causes cancer hypothesis as the most likely possible causal relationship and it is not a logical fallacy to conclude from this evidence that smoking probably causes lung cancer.
Professor Richard Wilson is an epidemiologist with decades of experience
You are committing the logical fallacy, Captain Ahab.
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/other/response-to-questions
This video shows possible correlations between wealth inequality and it's negative consequences. It does not provide a definite and provable link between the two.
The graph on the trust among the states is a good example. The southern states had much less trust than northern states. We could then draw the conclusion that colder climates makes people more trustworthy. It is an equally valid claim.
That is the problem with showing just the cause and effect, it can be easily manipulated to show whatever "facts" the presenter wishes. Without showing the unbroken chain of events between the cause and the effect, the link between the two can't be proven and the "fact" is really just a possiblity.
"This video shows possible correlations"
That is misleading. The correlations are not possibilities, they are facts backed up by verifiable data. He did not pull them out of his magic hat. The 'possibility' rests in working out what the correlations point to.
"It does not provide a definite and provable link between the two."
It provides strong evidence based on a large number of correlations that, when taken in their sum, all triangulate to wealth inequality.
"The southern states had much less trust than northern states. We could then draw the conclusion that colder climates makes people more trustworthy. It is an equally valid claim."
Taking only the one correlation would be committing a logical fallacy. One correlation could obviously be simple coincidence. The study provided nearly 30 correlations.
"It can be easily manipulated to show whatever "facts" the presenter wishes."
Yes, facts can be twisted and easily manipulated. Fox News does it all the time. It is up to the individual to make smart decisions on who is fact twisting and who is representing facts in an honest light. There are plenty of criticisms of Wilkinson's work, but take the tobacco industry as an example, both sides presented different findings. Who was right and who was wrong? I'll let you decide.
Correlation: mutual relation of two or more things. There is a correlation shown in one of the graphs between trust and more northerly latitudes. A correlation is not a fact.
The Tobacco industry is a good example of biased conclusions. Their financial interests skewed their research. People on the right and left also tend to come to biased conclusions.
That is why it is so important to honestly look at the facts only and not let personal views distort the view of truth. The only way to accomplish that is to remove all of the lenses of bias. If you are conservative, remove that lens, the same if you are liberal.
Once bias is removed, then it is a matter of linking the cause with the effect. Without that link, it can't be called a fact. It is circumstantial evidence. I'm not arguing against his conclusions, but the tendency of people here to view them as fact because they tend to agree with their own preconceived ideas.
Sorry, I was incorrect. I am trying to make the point that the evidence was gathered from statistical data which are factual and checkable.
I agree to an extent with looking at the facts only. If you are able to go through all the data - great. However, most people do not have the time, resources, or knowledge necessary to go through every fact and bit of data used in these studies. So realistically speaking, many rely on the conclusions of professional experts to inform us. At the least, I think everyone should look at both sides and seek out honest criticisms of a study before forming a strong opinion and be aware of their own bias. I am aware that I am biased against cheating, violence, and any other number of things I find immoral and harmful. So I try to be fair and objective when shaping my opinions.
Geo made a lot of contributions to the misuse of facts and I confess I was misusing the term myself. I am not interested in winning an argument with anyone, but in trying to find the best way forward. With all that said, I do agree it is wrong to call the conclusions of the study a fact, but it is, imo, after reading the book and looking into the criticisms and alternate studies, the best statistical study on the effects of income inequality on society.
Apology accepted. My intention here was not to discredit Wilkinson's conclusions, but to challenge people to think independently and critically, not blindly believing what they read. If we can't think for ourselves, we really aren't much more than sheep, led astray by anything that seems plausible.
The most important thing in life I have learned is this. That truth can only be seen from every point of view at every point in time.
As long as we continue to limit our view of truth to one small sweep of angle or one brief moment in time, we will never completely see what truth is, and without that vision, we will never know in which direction to move forward.
Words to live by. Peace.
[Removed]
Watch the video and notice how he makes correlations, but doesn't explain their cause. That's my evidence.
That is an opinion. You can do better than that. What facts dispute his findings?
No one is denying causation. What I'm saying is that he did not even talk about causation, never mind show that there is one.
Yes you are denying causation, Captian Ahab. He clearly shows high income gaps cause unhealthy societies. Either you lack the intelligence to understand this, or you have enough intelligence to see this and have an ulterior motive. My apples are on ulterior motive. Good night.
He does not show this. He only shows correlations between graphs, he DOES NOT show causation. Learn your logical fallacies.
I seen this presentation on TED a long time ago, excellent work by Wilkinson. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, the presentation is clear, concise, and provides good evidence supporting the hypothesis of the speaker (and there's numerous other studies that agree with Wilkinson's position).
The "fuss", as you put it, is because those who are opposed to the facts want to do everything in their power to discredit them. They not only wish to deny the facts, they want to suppress them, to destroy them, to do everything in their power to prevent these facts from becoming widely known. They are well aware of what these facts mean, and what it could mean to their status quo.
Right, and we can validly infer a pattern in the character of their posts. These people are obviously against the 99% (and are here only to disrupt, derail, obfuscate, etc.).
They are very sick, selfish, greedy, narcissistic psychopaths.
GDP (Gross Domestic Product)
should be calculated as a function of money exchanged for goods and services
and not for money exchanged that did not result in goods and services
After crashing your thread with random stuff, I did get around to watching the vid :) - very interesting! Not that many R's will give a damn about facts that contradict their bottomless greed.
Yeah, I know. But what can you do? I do find it incredible that we live on a planet where, suppossedly, we have risen to the top of the intelligence pyramid in the animal kingdom, and yet cannot even reason successfully within our own species using the only tool of common ground available (science/math). It is just really, really hard for me to understand the psychology/makeup of conservatives. Really hard.
Know there are biological reasons that have emerged in recent years of study, but that somehow doesn't really help the situation any. Kind of like knowing the weight of a large anvil hanging over your head ready to drop...does it really help? Wish that it did.
[Removed]
Your not gonna hurt me are you?
LOL. He might vote you down, that is scary, ooh.
He has threatened me before. Do you know gollygeo?
He is my personal troll, just joined today to follow me and give me grief... so he thinks.
Yeah he has been around a long time and today has used several logins as he is chased around by the moderators. Be careful.
Don't respond to the attacker. He is on a psychotic break and feeds off of attention. He also can attach crap to his comments so that if you hit reply you may experience some nastyness.
Thanks. I believe that his account has been deleted. All of his comments have been erased. At least in the other thread he followed me on.
He is being dogged by the moderators - and deleted as found - but if they do boot him he reincarnates. So just a word to the wise avoid when you spot him.
Much appreciated. Thanks.
No problem - see? - it is already back - [-] 1 points by KumbiaKings (0) 2 minutes ago
[Removed]
If he is in pain and you just posted this, and I was in front of you, I would show you what spineless is, by ripping your's out.
[Removed]
[Removed]
Not at all. I noticed he just joined today. Apparently he didn't like my greed comment. I'm going to take your suggestion and turn the other cheek. Kumbia ya!
He is an old time, angry guy who is currently on a psychotic rant. the bold repetitive cut & paste is emblematic of this break with reality. He has used 3 or 4login names just today and is being chased down by the moderators. He especially doesn't like me. But I wear that as a badge of honor. So if doesn't like 1 of your comments your probably on the right track.
[Removed]
A Fed branch talking about TBTF is like Dems and Reps talking about accountability.....Total hypocrisy.
[Removed]
[Removed]
Why? why do you want hurt me?. can't we all just get along? Love our enemies? turn the other cheek? "kumbia ya my lord, kumbia ya"
[Removed]
huh?
[Removed]
From Day One http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/15/from-day-one.html
Man I love the way he wraps up that article (where the R's got together in collusion to agree to oppose Obama on everthing he proposed) when he says:
"But this is not even the behavior of apes, who are far more socialized."
Priceless.
Truth - animals can be much more social than the greedy corrupt criminals.
I fear many in the population have devolved into something worse than apes.
Truth - a clear example of the sickness caused in society's due to abuse's of inequality. If one sees no viable future for oneself in the structure of society as it exists.
1) many will try to correct the deficiencies.
2) many will opt out to get what they want in any way they can.
Oppression - suppression - tyranny = the birthplace of criminals, fanatics, and terrorists.
So, just how social are you?
Fairly social I would say.
Dedicating my time to advocating positive change and growth in the USA and the World. Green Power/fuel implementation. Returning Government to THE PEOPLE.
YOU???????????
I work( non paying) with like minded people to get the current adminstration and its lackys and owners out of power. I have little patience with career politicians or those that disregard the constitution.
I believe you made an error ( you "have" patience ). At least I hope it was an error. My time is also volunteered.
[-] 1 points by salta (-104) 0 minutes ago
I work( non paying) with like minded people to get the current adminstration and its lackys and owners out of power. I have patience with career politicians or those that disregard the constitution. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
Now Mary, you know well and certain that the libe(R)tarians and (R)ight wingers trying to separate OWS from it's left wing supporters aren't going to give this a second look.
Other than that? A good, important and informative post.
You can expect it to be ignored.
I do. But just have to get my 2 cents in :).
Thanks, but they are far too busy creating wedge issues to notice, or admit to realities.
[Removed]
Still in denial that many libertarians and Ron Paul supporters are part of OWS?
No more than your denial that they have co-opted and destroyed this nascent movement with narcissistic BS.
All the while ignoring the results their (R)epelicant cohorts have wrought upon the States of this nation and it's people.
http://critiquesoflibertarianism.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-is-libertarianism.html
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
Let alone all the truth that has been posted here on Mr. P.
The only one in denial is YOU.
Consider that CATOs aim is to weaken and negate whatever it can of movements like this.
You are also in complete denial of the affects that neo-libertarianism and it's economic models have wrought upon the World and brought us to where we are.
You always have been a very negative poster.
GF was correct about you and your ideals.
Mr. P deserves his greatest backer. Alex Jones, and so do you.
Im voting for Rocky as of now, sorry you still jump to conclusions as usual.
Seems how you never go, Im not too worried about what you think about anything OWS, because you have no perspective to base it off of. Otherwise, we could have a decent conversation on the topic.
In typical hchc fashion, you're initial response had nothing to do with what Mary posted and I was responding to.
Your second response had close to nothing to do with what I posted.
You still ignore what goes on in the States, even yours.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/15/12241593-florida-woman-who-was-set-on-fire-now-hit-with-fees-to-have-cars-towed-from-gas-station#c67130223
So while you may actually vote for Rocky, I have little doubt that you will also vote for Scott.
Perhaps it is your negativity and hate of 99% ( you still think they are asses), that is affecting Occupy Tampa.
BTW, nice remake of the OT web site.
And as I have said before Shooz, this is national OWS site, not a Awake Florida site, so no, I dont focus on my own states issues too much. Duh.
I just get tired of you disrespecting what are some of the most hard working people of Occupy.
Glad to see you think I still vote for R (scott) nor D candidates. You need to pay more attention.
Stop disrespecting people who have different believes than you and quite frankly, do a HELL of a lot more for it than you ever thought about.
The bottom line is simply this.
If you don't understand the importance of what is happening in the States?
You haven't an accurate view of what is happening to the nation.
And you have ignored the States completely. Including your own.
You can accuse me of anything you want. It doesn't change that simple fact.
And I will repeat for the umpteenth time, Shoooooooz.
Just because Im not talking a lot about it on here, doesnt mean Im not at the rallies in Tampa. If you saw me at the hearing with Durbin and Nelson on voter registration rule changes, you would be singing a different tune.
You arent here in Tampa with us, so I dont expect you to understand whats up on a regular basis.
But I do get sick of your constant bashing of the RP contributors, because some of the coolest occupiers I have met are those guys, and they really helped to get this thing off the ground. They arent pro establishment guys.
Don't mind being co-opted by Mr. P then?
You never did comment when the truth about him was posted.
Co-opted by Mr P?
Occupy doesnt endorse any candidates. They support him, just like some support Obama, and some support Stein, Anderson, Johnsons, etc. But they dont bring that nonsense to the table, because they know at the end of the day, none of it matters enough to make any real change.... hence OWS.
Ive seen all the stuff on Paul, and on every other politician. What do you want me do? Jump on a thread where everyone is just patting each other on the back? Talk about stuff we all agree on until we are blue in the face?
Good article.
Nothing wrong with partisan politics?
Or is it CorpoRat politicians?
CorpoRats- they aspire to BE rats... I will admit that Obama has lost some of his sheen for me, I will never trust another politician. You guys have done your job well :). But I think for his presidency to be judged fairly and in context, articles like that expose the stifling environment he has tried to work in. Who knows what he could have done if not for those rabid lunatics.
I agree the level of obstruction, and historic use of the filibuster is unprecedented. I think Repubs have resolved to prevent any real recovery during the presidency of a democrat. So we would have gotten more progressive agenda items passed. With some compromise. I think also the Pres might have done more if he had a robust left wing protesting for the agenda of the 99%. We have been asleep for 30 years. We let the country drift further right. We woke up for a minute to elect Pres Obama then hit the snooze button. Went back to sleep and figured he would do everything for us. But we gotta get up, stay up. and pressure our pols to pass the policies that will help the working/middle class.
Exactly. Yea, that "keep your enemies closer" thing didn't work too well.
I suppose it's ok with "the Godfather" and mobsters (lol) but you cannot cave in and vote for right wing policies because they will hurt the 99% and benefit the 1%.
Truth.
Anyone who has not recognized the obstructionism for what it is - is in denial.
I do not like partisan politics as it leads to much fucking around and pointing of fingers.
Yes the repubs are fucking over the American people.
Some democrats are with them in this fucking over the people.
We need politicians in office that support or oppose issues regardless of politics - support issues for the good of the people ( all of the people ) oppose issues that are detrimental to the people, society the world.
Yes this BS in government must stop now. Get anti-people politicians out of office - clone Bernie Sanders - and lets get the government the country the world on track to health and prosperity - FOR ALL.
Since we can't clone Bernie, I'm sayin a little prayer for him. :)
Yes - please may he remain strong and healthy - may he inspire others to follow in his footsteps - may his support of the people and his opposition to corruption go viral.
Amen.
Yeah! I'm with you.
Cool - now only 299andsomeoddmilliontogo.
This outreach stuff is easy.
{:-D
Sanders should stop speaking in terms of war
[Removed]
[Removed]
IronButt? You still pursuing non-sense?
Your game of discredit is weak to say the least.
I am quite flattered by your attentions though.
But I like sane and good people - so - you can feel free to take a hike.
Pray for a moment of spiritual uplift - I hear that miracles sometimes happen.
[Removed]
Politico reporter admits the press is covering for Republican Obstructionism http://www.mediaite.com/tv/politico-reporter-admits-the-press-is-covering-for-republican-obstructionism/
Thanks for pointing that link out. This needs to become more widely known. It might already be widely known, but not officially (i.e. "responsible" journalism is suppossed to be objective, etc.)
the politico covers for obama. do you understand that there are 3 branches of govt for a reason.
very nice job - it is sad though how we have to demonstrate with facts what we should all know as common sense or even fairness
Thanks. Yes it is sad...very sad. But by now you should know that there are some people who don't really care about the facts no matter how plain and obvious they are presented. They only care about themselves...narcissists. It is like presenting scientific evidence to a mule.
Sometimes I don't know why I bother. But occasionally I still do.
i know the feeling. this site is often frustrating but there are many people who are open to your ideas - the trick is to find them - on the bus or subway or at the check out counter at the store. my experience is that average people are full of disinformation and much more open to good information than many people here.
Thanks for that little glimmer of hope. I needed that.
Sometimes I feel that a few posters are paid to troll on here.
That may very well be true. In fact, I would go so far as to guess that it IS true.
Some more facts for (R)epelican'ts!
Nixon was a traitor at least twice. Besides his B&Es and thievery, he destroyed the Viet Nam peace treaty.
Can you say treason, two times?
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/06/14/admissions-on-nixons-treason/
They still do these things today.
Yeah, not a great example of the American ideal is he? Well, Tricky Dicky earned his name in history. His arrogance was his downfall. Others learned from that and have learned to cover their tracks too well. But I'm pretty sure the same old same old still goes on. He was just too stupid/arrogant and got caught with his britches down.
I still have to find it, but there was something I heard the other day about Reagan doing the same thing to Carter with the hostages.
Treason is a way of life for the (R)epelicant's and libe(R)tarians.
True, "economic inequality harms societies", so we need a new constitution for new times, as follows:
We the peoples, in order to secure Freedom and Justice for All, do enact this Constitution for Strategic International Systems LLC (or SIS LLC) as summarized in the following Business Operations Forecast:
The customer value mission of SIS LLC is (1) to organize all customer-investors into 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties), and related internet investment legislatures of 50,000 friends (or virtual towns), requiring (2) a $20 weekly capital contribution for 1 year (or $1,000) to (3) create your investment club bank of 50,000 friends (or physical town) -- that is, having $50 million in initial assets -- which (4) due to the operation of today’s fractional banking system becomes (5) $500 million in new annual business loans (or $10,000 in new annual individual loans) from yourself as a new bank officer to yourself as a new business officer who (6) takes 75% employee business control as business officer-investors and 25% customer business control as bank officer-investors of (7) your specific 12 businesses (or investments) in your new bank investment account wherein (8) your investor voting power equals (9) your 1 of 12 levels of experience in (10) your 1 of 12 sectors in 1 of 50 industries in 1 of 200 occupations in 1 of 3,000 specialities which (11) votes-upon your purchasing (or investment) orders as (12) proposed by your employee-elected chain of command.
This means you will have 75% employee business control over your workplace as business officers and, as bank officers, 25% customer business control over all 12 investments (or businesses) in your new bank investment account. In turn, with this 100% town-level business control of your 3,000 workplaces, you can decrease your 12 customer consumption expenses by 75% for services, vehicles, education, retail, food, construction, technology, manufacturing, wholesale, health, justice, and banking expenses; that is, over your first 12 years of SIS LLC membership using a 75% more effective and efficient town design, and related 3,000 workplace designs (herein). Furthermore, while creating your new town & workplace design as described by this constitution, you will replace today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, with your new small investment club banks, and related small businesses (or investments), as proposed, financed, and patronized by your 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties) in your internet investment legislature of 50,000 friends (or virtual town).
Why? First, because today’s executive business income (mostly from bank or financial asset income) is 33% of all income which is a huge amount of upper 1% income to split among yourselves as new bank officers having 25% customer business control, right? Second, because today’s executive business wealth is 42% of all wealth which is a huge amount of upper 1% wealth to split among yourselves as new business officers having 75% employee business control; that is, only after becoming new bank officers (above) first, right?
For example, this means if you earn $12/hour today, then you will earn $36/hour tomorrow after adding (1) your old wage income, plus (2) your 33% (more and new) interest income as a new bank officer, plus (3) your 42% (more and new) dividend & gain income as a new business officer. Together, these 4 sources of wealth & income from your specific 12 businesses (or investments) will double your net worth every 6-12 years (until retirement); that is, from the compound interest decline of today's upper 1% executives whom you will replace as the new bank & business investor-officers. So, with this power, let’s end today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, okay? How? By helping to operate your own Business Operations Forecast (above) at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/ ; so help us help you, today!
(For those who prefer to read, transcript at http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html)
Job creation without higher government spending, inflation, or trade barriers: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/
Just putting it out there. If you are serious about wanting to reduce inequality, that is how it can be done.
Thanks for providing. A pretty long read. I have bookmarked it for later. Appreciate it.
I think it’s called synergy.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/breaking-you-know-that-ted-talk-you-werent-suppose/
That is a GREAT video and deserves a wide audience. Even though he states he is wealthy, he realizes the importance of a fair progressive tax system. I'm sure other wealthy class citizens would say he has betrayed his class by revealing this, but the man speaks the TRUTH.
There’s been some controversy over this TED talk here’s TED’s take:
https://tedchris.posterous.com/131417405
and Nick agrees I think
http://www.upworthy.com/breaking-you-know-that-nick-hanauer-ted-talk-you-werent-supposed-to-see-here-it-?g=3&c=dfa1
Synergy can also be a very very good thing. Oil + empty cylinder + metal rod = hydraulic jack.
So many more good synergy's.
Individual + individual + idea of common cause/benefit = support for good.
10,000,000 individuals + idea of common cause/benefit = movement of support in strength for good.
Synergy = the whole being greater then the sum of its parts.
Beer 16oz. = mild buzz?
Sedative I pill = relaxation or sleep through the night?
Beer 16oz. + Sedative I pill = possible loss of control.
Synergy.
Makes you wonder about other things in small doses coming into contact from other sources = FDA beware. People Beware.
I was thinking Steve Jobs playing some Atari, but yeah something like that.
"Evidence-based medicine" is used to describe current efforts that medical treatment is based on the best scientific evidence of what works and what does not. Wilkinson applied the same methodology to his work to prescribe a recommended treatment for a healthy society based on the best evidence of what works and what does not. His work is supported by other research that concur with his findings. It is a no-brainer to me that we should adopt social policies based on the best evidence of what works and what does not. Should we use the worst evidence instead?
[Deleted]
I do not blame Republicans for anything. I do believe that some of them are either in denial of the facts, or else entrenched in their positions because they are in love with the status quo. Additionally, many of them (but of course not all) do belong to the wealthier tier of our society, and that is why they are always singing the tax cut song.
The differences between R's and D's used to be philosophical, but now I think, because of all the social problems related to income inequality, that the differences are much more moral than they used to be.
Great Video, Here a couple of links for David Rosenberg who backs up data that we are in a depressive economic situation.
http://www.businessinsider.com/david-rosenberg-chart-economy-modern-day-depression-2012-6
http://www.businessinsider.com/david-rosenberg-charts-2012-6 (51 Signs that we are living in a total disaster)
Those are really good charts. Thanks for providing.
Thanks
I'm missing front teeth
those are government fund charts
if we had no government, the inequalities would be worse
Perhaps I should include the link in my next open letter to the President and the seated members of government and the public/people of the USA.
Perhaps a visual presentation may help with their understanding.
Perhaps you should...great idea!!!
Good Morning and Thanks.
Perhaps you should just STFU and go take your meds you whining Leftist crap hole.
Another intelligently reasoned and thoughtful response from one of our favorite trolls.
Hey 'Ud', good post & hope you are well + ... "See You at the Club : Fed Fat Cats Dip Into the Till - Fed members gave their own banks $4 trillion during bailout", by Robert Scheer :
Taken from the linked article above : "On Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders, acting under authority of the Dodd-Frank financial regulations, released the conclusions of a Government Accountability Office report [ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31590.htm ] showing that ” ... during the financial crisis, at least 18 former and current directors from Federal Reserve Banks worked in banks and corporations that collectively received over $4 trillion in low-interest loans from the Federal Reserve.”
“Americans saw wealth plummet 40% from 2007 to 2010, Federal Reserve says,” is how The Washington Post headlined the startling news that all of the economic gain of the past two decades had been destroyed by the banking meltdown. And with housing values—the bulk of middle-class savings—indefinitely moribund, the situation will not get better anytime soon.
“The recession caused the greatest upheaval among the middle class,” the Post noted. “... Their median net worth ... suffered the biggest drops. By contrast, the wealthiest families’ median net worth rose slightly.”
"That outcome, disastrous to the American ideal of a nation of mostly middle-class stakeholders competing on a relatively equal economic playing field, was preordained. When tens of millions lost their jobs and homes as a result of financial swindles that the Federal Reserve failed to prevent, this ostensibly public agency, with strong bipartisan support in the White House and Congress, adroitly directed the flow of public funds to save the bankers while abandoning their victims."
radix omnium malorum est cupiditas ...
That is a GREAT article worthy of a post in it's own right.
Is there no end to greed? No end to the psychopathic, Darwinistic, A-Type personality bent on selfishness no matter the cost to humanity? These people are totally devoid of humanity and compassion. MONSTERS!!!!
Check this out shadz.
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm
Nice to see you back, Underdog!
Thanks for the video. Wilkinson does a great job at showing the deep social costs of an unfair economic system. He goes beyond mere material matters to very profound quality of life issues. Very important stuff.
I recommend his book "The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger."
Thanks...good to be back. I don't know how often I'll be contributing. Busier now.
'Ud', also for you : "The Biggest Myth Preventing an Economic Recovery" -
e tenebris lux ...
Thanks for providing that shadz. It has some very good stuff in it. Of course, FRB is an insane practice based on the equally insane concept of infinite money expansion that reduces the value of money to practically zero (followed to its logically absurd conclusion). Those "in the know" rationalize this as irrelevant by pointing out the abstract nature of money in our modern world, and that since 98% of all money "exists" as binary data in computers, it posses no practical problem of convenience of exchange (they point out that even under hyper-inflation people do not have to lug wheelbarrows of physical paper around anymore just to buy a loaf of bread, for example), They argue that in the age of digital money and debit/credit card swipe, the value of money is irrelevant since no more effort is involved in swiping a card to pay $5 for a beer than would be required if the beer would cost $5 million (billion, trillion, etc.).
The above is, of course, insane and points to the dangerously stupid practice of FRB in devaluing money. But since fiat money is not backed up by real-world valuables like gold/silver that are relatively rare and finite (thus representing true value), they get away with this idea since money is just a number now, and there is no limit to a number.
Completely stupid and insane.
In the face of all that is "stupid and insane", please smile but probably wearily at :
Re. The Specious twaddle below eg "Value is value." - LOL !!
e tenebris ...
Yes shadz...the man speaks the truth. This world is heading for some kind of showdown of some sort (Armeggedon???). I am not a religious nut, but I know one thing -- "The LOVE of money is the root of ALL evil."
'Ud' : I agree wholeheartedly and also feel that there something about the times that feels like a "Quickening to a Reckoning" but with 'hope in my heart and a smile on my face', I append this clip which I saw broadcast live 20 years ago ;-)-: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrLC7LDFX6s .
Also, I thoroughly recommend this article which is itself a primer and synopsis of a book of the same title by the same author and a book I own and am about to try to read :
dum spiro, spero ...
That's looks like a great read shadz. Don't know if I will ever get the time or not since I have less time, but I bookmarked it.
One thing really stuck out in that link:
"...the combined wealth of the world's richest 225 people is now equal to the combined annual income of the poorest 2.5 billion of the world's people (47 percent of the global population). The three richest people have assets that exceed the combined GDP of the 48 least developed countries."
Those are mind-numbing, jaw-dropping, nervous-system-shocking statistics. If statistics like that can't move people to action and change, then they are the walking dead.
Btw, did you read/glance at that link I sent you on psychopaths? It reveals a lot...shocking actually...that about 4% of the general population are at least genetic psychopaths. About 1 in 25 people you would meet at random. Some of them appear to be perfectly normal, even nice. Think we're probably dealing with some on this site :-)
A great read if you get the chance.
'Ud' : The book is quite a tome but that article is a good synopsis. Also, yes that stuff re 'Psychopaths' was very interesting & i meant to reply but was a bit weirded out by it and forgot to do so. Thus, I now append as I had meant to then :
ipse scientia potestas est ...
shadz, I just watched "I, Psychopath". After seeing it, I immediately tried to place it into context with people I have known in my life, both personally and professionally. Fortunately, I would say that I have been lucky not to have known too many of them personally, but I think I have met a few here and there as would be expected with such a comparatively large amount of them in the general population.
Regarding my contact with them in a professional environment, I think they are much more prevalent only in the sense that I can pick and choose my friends in my personal life, but cannot do that in a professional environment. In my position as a middle-management pro, I definitely came into contact with quite a number of them -- selfish, demanding, selfish, domineering, selfish, egomaniacal,...oh, did I mention selfish?
The film profiles Sam as this "Boardroom Psychopath", not a Ted Bundy killer type, but every bit as dangerous in a different way to normal people. These people are social predators, supreme egoists, possessing no concious, and ruthlessly focused on getting what they want at all costs without any consideration for others.
I thought it was interesting that the film talked about this being something that, under Darwinistic principles, has given them a distinct advantage over the rest of us. Not being hindered by a concious, they can do whatever they want and feel no remorse whatsoever in doing harm to others. Naturally, this would literally put them at the "top of the food chain", which is where we find the 1%. It all makes perfect sense now.
I think the most important takeaway from this film is being able to spot them. It is very difficult because they are experts at making themselves appear as something they are not, thereby disarming you and gaining your confidence. But over time, the more you are around them, I think a person can become more aware of their "tells" (to use a poker term).
This knowledge doesn't really give me any hope for the world. In fact, it confirms very concretely that these 1% maniacs can never be convinced or reformed as to their personality disorder. I'm quite confident in speculating that the Illuminati is composed primarily (or even completely) of these deviants, although they would never think (or even be able) to see themselves in this way. You'll notice that Sam, in the movie, wore his psychopathy as a badge of honor. Really, really, sick.
In terms of spotting them on sites like OWS, not being able to see the person or hear voice inflections is a disadvantage, but I still think it is possible to figure them out (at least in a very general sense). Certainly the more well known trolls on this site probably fall in that category (at least that is my personal unprofessional opinion).
A GREAT film shadz --- thanks VERY much for providing. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, should watch this film.
"I Robot" is a set of short stories by Asimov
And a damn good movie starring Will Smith.
the book explores the logic in robots imperative to help humans
Thanks shadz...I'll try to make time to watch it.
And here's one right back at ya....
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/are-you-good-or-evil/
better than the 1 in 10 bet newsweek sited on those willing to use violence
Do you have a link or something on that?
sorry
my browser is blocked from following google search by a redirect pirate
the article asked the questions if OWS members were willing to use violence to achieve their ends
So Newsweek says 1 in 10 OWS protestors would use violence, has used violence, or what? How did they come up with that data? Thin air? Observational estimate?
by poll supposedly
Ohh...ok, thx.
Gold and Silver don't represent "true value". The expression "true value" means nothing. Value is value. Their value is subject to market variations like anything else. When buyers are rare, price goes down. It's offer and demand. The only difference is that gold and silver last long and that's why people see it has a good investment. People used to invest in stuff like grains, but then animals can eat those.
In a time of real crisis, no one's going to want to buy your gold.
Further to the above, "Chris Hayes : 1% Pathologies" :
fiat lux ...
47 million americans on welfare/foodstamps is why we're a second rate country. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year on public education, just to have teachers unions and shitty fucking teachers squander it and allow our children to pass because "it makes them feel good" is making this a 2nd rate country. Having 20 million americans without a job is making us a 2nd rate country. Having a government that spends more money than we make and running us into a debt hole no one can bail us out of is making us a 2nd rate country. This country is a 2nd rate country due to much more than just what the Republicans "have done". If you're a partisan sheep that thinks that only the other side is to blame, then you're also making this a 2nd rate country, because our citizens are more and more 2nd rate dipshits.
There goes our liberty.
This reminds me of the true, huge battle ahead. If we do not address the wealth inequality then nothing we do will last. They will not give up billions of dollars without a fight, and there is no other way. Unions are losing the battle to fix this on the income side, so taxes are the path available to us, we must support huge tax increases, now. Thank you for posting.
My pleasure. And I am encouraged by all the positive responses received in support of this post. It appears that the trolls are particularly vehement on this issue, and I am greatly surprised at the amount of attempts to denounce the data. As I said elsewhere, they know full well what this info Wilkinson has presented means, and they will do ANYTHING to discredit it, obfuscate it, minimize it, etc. because they know if this data becomes widely known to the general population that it could possibly eventually have an impact on their beloved status quo.
The whole concept of efficiency through concentration is false, or at least it can go too far. The wealthy send their cronies (the GOP) out to tell Americans that the only way the avg. joe gets anything is to give everything to the wealthy and hope they drop some. We can win elections with the truth and realization that elections matter, (till they don’t). The right has maybe ten or twenty years before the wedge issues catch up with them, look for some serious election rigging before then.
Agree. Actually, I think they have less than 10 to 20 years if things continue to erode at the pace they are now. There are some areas of the media (like Young Turks, Bill Maher, etc.) who are ALL over their ass. The message is gradually being disseminated.
But these people (Illuminati) are so rich and powerful that I fear they will economically enslave the entire world before the people can take back control. We are involved in a race to free ourselves before they completely own the entire planet (actually, we may have already lost that race).
That’s the thing it is a race, technology works for and against us. I also agree that we can speed this process by spreading truth (in digestible sound bites IMHO), I know it’s been used for bad purpose but I feel it is a method that been proven to work. In any case they have got to move quick because demographics and issues such as gay marriage are all against them in the years to come. If you want to see how we fight back against them owning it all look at this, I know it’s plugging my post:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-smartest-guy-in-the-world-today-this-is-how-we/
Thanks for providing. I watched it and commented on your post.
GREAT video.
ok so this is just a thank you bump, saw your comment, this guy is really working on some good stuff, it's hard to believe TED talks have been around for like 30 years but we're still doing some of the stuff we are, inequality hurts the rich and poor alike, and giving tax breaks to rich guys is the worst thing you can do to create jobs, well when people change their minds they will change the world...
you may already know but it looks like this is his source
http://www.gapminder.org/
they do great work
Share understanding.
To identify a troll - look at issues that benefit all of society - and see them standing in the way.
To identify a troll look at issues that benefit special interest groups - quite often to the detriment of society/humanity/world - and see them cheering on the issue for the special interest.
We ALL move forward to Health and Prosperity united.
Question those who speak out against unity.
hey dk did you see this
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-smartest-guy-in-the-world-today-this-is-how-we/
it's about this
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/marcin_jakubowski.html
Yes I did. I thought it was a very good TED talk and Post. People have to realize that they are not stuck inside of a box if they can band together support each other.
Yes - there is more than one way to get a job done. open source looks to free individuals from corpoRat enslavement through educational sharing.
Thanks - frf
People need to learn to think outside the Box.
Shifting paradigm. Together.
hey found it, gf had posted already on this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIhOXCgSunc&feature=related
here's the post http://occupywallst.org/forum/breaking-you-know-that-ted-talk-you-werent-suppose/
one of the things I like about the designs is they are DiY and repairable by the user, hey do you know if the TED talk Sam Seder is talking about available anywhere? Nick Hanauer did it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVO73NLmSkQ&feature=related
That TED talk you are looking for has been posted here on this forum - I believe if I am rememberizing correctly that GF posted it.
I will take a quick look and see if I can find it again.
Another good dose of reality for all to see.
Here it is someone else already brought it to the top of the list.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/breaking-you-know-that-ted-talk-you-werent-suppose/
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
I hope it is ok if I contribute this as a furthering of your worthy post.
A thought on common cause/need/benefit.
Of course you can, and I just read it. Excellent logic (I could almost say irrefutable, but some jerk will try with some BS like "logical fallacy", and completely miss the point b/c there is a hole where his heart should be).
Didn't comment on it though. Sure it will generate many, or it should.
Thanks for your kind words. Today looks to be a truly dismal day on the forum - a lot of negativity - I just wanted to contribute to a Post that was positive and contained "good" food for thoughtful consideration.
This video shows possible correlations between wealth inequality and it's negative consequences. It does not provide a definite and provable link between the two.
The graph on the trust among the states is a good example. The southern states had much less trust than northern states. We could then draw the conclusion that colder climates makes people more trustworthy. It is an equally valid claim.
That is the problem with showing just the cause and effect, it can be easily manipulated to show whatever "facts" the presenter wishes. Without showing the unbroken chain of events between the cause and the effect, the link between the two can't be proven and the "fact" is really just a possiblity.
The presenter did not wish to manipulate anything, and was adamant that the only cause and effect being shown was the relationship between wealth inequality gap and social problems. You are not arguing with me now. You are arguing with Wilkinson.
When he shows the link between the cause and effect I will quit arguing.
centralized power neglects those not in power?
Let's use the human body as an example. The brain (wealthy) requires a constant blood supply (money). It will cutoff the blood supply to the limbs (the people) in an emergency to save itself.
But it makes no sense to store huge reservoirs of blood (money) for the brain (wealthy) that is necessary for the health of the rest of the body. The whole body suffers as a result.
We are at that point now. When the wealthy wish to increase their fortunes ever higher without considering the heath of the economy that produces it, eventually that economy will become weak due to low blood volume which has been shunted to the wealthy. That low blood volume will continue to be decreased as the number of bank bailouts worldwide increases.
We have been shunting blood around the globe for nearly 5 years. The body continues to lose blood volume as the volume for the brain grows. There is one result. Collapse of portions of the body that support the wealthy. And when the use of just one limb is lost, the whole body feels it's effect.
So where are your counter-metrics that disprove the metrics presented?
The burden of proof is up to the person in the video. He presents a set of symptoms and a set of causes. What he does not provide is evidence that links the two.
Here is an example. (The cause) The supreme court ruled that prayer in schools is unconstitutional. (The effect) Our country has gone steadily downhill ever since.
There is no evidence linking these two statements. A christian might believe the statements are linked because his bias favors that conclusion, but that conclusion is erroneous.
The person on the video presented causes and effects, but it is the viewers own preconceived ideas that link the two, not any facts.
Questions.....Who led this country for last four years? Who controlled Congress and the White Huose for first two years? Who did nothing to promote job growth while throwing money at political supporters? Who? I voted for Obama last time..Never again the lying bastard gets my vote.
And why did you vote for Obama? Could it have been that he offered hope? Was the flaming fire of economic meltdown that he walked into his fault? Isn't it true that Bush 2 was asleep at the switch and didn't keep an eye on what the Financial System was doing and how the housing bubble burst and wrecked the economy and threw millions out of work (including me)? Did you really expect that any one person, man or woman, regardless of party, would be able to turn the economy around as fast as you want it to?
Look at the closest thing we have had to compare to...the Great Depression of the 1930s. How long did it take to get out of that mess? A whole decade!!!
Do you really think that Romney, an elitest mega-millionare, has the best interests of We The People in his sites? Do you really think that?
You imply that Obama is not an elitest? I'm not really "for" either. Although Gitmo is still open. Drone strikes happen evey 4 days on average. Your man Obama signed a law allowing military detention of U.S. citizens. He has a kill list with no legal basis. His trade negotiators are giving American sovereignty to foreign corporations. My vote was based on the words of someone "new" to the system who might make changes. What we got was a warmongering corporatist dilitant . So you vote for that murdering lying bastard
Obama is not "my man". He has done many things that I do not agree with.
Many.
But at this point our government is completely broken in all 3 branches (well, maybe not Judicial as much as Legislative and Administrative). We really are left at this point with a choice of the lesser of evils. I do not vote for someone anymore as much as against someone else. And I mearly assert that Obama is a lesser evil than Romney, that's all.
Question.
Where do the prisoners go if Gitmo is shut down?
DK, I would assume a maximum security Federal pen. But then they might mingle with other prisoners, some of whom may be highly patriotic, despite being dangerous prisoners. So to keep them from murdering Allah's boys, the Feds have rightly decided not to move them there. That's my guess.
No - but a good guess as to what would likely happen.
They can't go to a federal penitentiary until they have been processed through the courts system.
No one wants to do that.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
Its not only Republican, all political organizations currently run on the ideology that serves the highest bidder.
First to be elected next to return favors. What do we the people get?
Less income, less value of Real Estate decreased value of Capital, no Interest rates, No vacation, fear of loosing jobs, unaffordable insurance cost, elimination of equity, bad media coverage, stupid advertising, non affordable education, student loans that should not even exist since education is for the benefit of the economy and national wealth... I can go on and on and on... like affordable protection of legal rights what is it worth, if you can not effort a lawyers at 500$ hr?
bye bye humanity,
Yeah, things are really, really broken in this country. Think it all boils down to the lesser of evils at this point.
Elections are not a solution anymore. It reminds me of the elections in Russia during the cold war:
two equal choices with the same outcome.
[Removed]
Great video - a great look at reality - common sense shows this. Only the the greedy corrupt would deny it.
Save this video and share it out - circulate it - this is food for thought - this is food for realization - this is food for awakening.
This is food for uniting in common cause to create a healthy and prosperous world for all.
Good to see you Underdog - you have been missed - hope that you and yours are doing good. I hope to see you here - but I make no claims on your time - you are just a very intelligent individual and most welcome.
Thanks DK. I don't know how much time I will have to be "back in the saddle" again. Busier now. But still believe in the cause of truth being propagated on this site, in spite of all the troll mud getting slung around as usual (nothing changes much does it?).
Well even if you are not here on a regular basis - it is good to have you drop in when you can find the time.
Trolls? They have gotten much worse. I like to think because we are experiencing success as a communications hub and idea center. Also as the Occupy movements in the streets are much more successful than anyone in office would like to admit. We have changed the dialog of this country and of the world - this is no small thing.
We must take heart - and realize we are making a difference - Occupy may never get the credit it deserves - but it is truly a driving force for change.
An answer to a prayer i hope, because I don't know what else is going to turn this country around.
Amen.
Glad to hear you ( text you ) say that. I pray for us all every night - though there are some who adamantly do not believe - as is their right.
This journey we are on is ultimately a personal journey.
[Removed]
Thought you might appreciate this. This is my latest open letter to government and the people.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/dose-of-reality-an-open-letter-letter-to-the-presi/
Well DK, I am honored that you thought enough to include the video I recently posted. All the credit really goes to Wilkinson, but thanks.
Good that you are continuing to try and chip away at the governmental level. Quite frankly, I have become a bit cynical with our government. Just seems like it is all so broken systemically that I have my doubts that anything significant can ever get done. I really and truly believe that we do elect some representatives/senators who try to do the right thing by us (I see this on C-SPAN), but just feel like they are hopelessly trapped, and also frustrated like us, inside a completely broken system in great need of revision. And they know, just like we know, what those revisions should be (term limits, campaign finance reform, PAC reform, etc.) but they can't/won't do the right thing by We The People. Know it's all about keeping power, but they are doing it to the detriment of the country.
Real bummer, huh?
You provided the video - so - truly - Thank you.
This is not going to be an easy system of operation to change but like another post of mine states - Society fails when the people are removed from the process. any social structure any form of government - no exclusions.
The people have to take back government and then own it. Or it really does not matter.
So I try to do my bumbling best to share and spread awareness.
With the information being shared by concerned and awake individuals - well you never know - we could see unity in common cause.
Gotta dream - gotta have a goal - or you will absolutely go nowhere. Not under your own volition anyway.
Thanks for the encouraging words regarding this issue. I need to hear them more often. Actually, we ALL do... thanks again!
Well that's what I am here for - Dedicating my time to advocating positive change and growth in the USA and the World. Green Power/fuel implementation. Returning Government to THE PEOPLE.
Thanks for being open to my cheer-leading.
Gotta think positive. {:-])
and your model is what?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/sweden-should-be-our-model/
How are the economies in those countries doing? Worse than ours in many cases.
What Wilkinson is saying is not about how economies are doing overall, it is about income inequality.
And even with negligible military budgets and confiscatory tax rates at the high end, they're still collapsing and in worse shape than us. So what is his point? That we have a larger gap? And?
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
This video shows correlations, but it does not show causation. It is based on a logical fallacy - correlation without a cause - and thus proves nothing.
Any idiot with half a brain already knows the causes if you live in this country, UNLESS you're in the uppercrust of our society, in which case you are even more clueless because you are insulated from the reality that everyone who is struggling has to face every day.. It wasn't necessary for Wilkinson to go into that, and he was likely under time constraint in his presentation as TED talks are generally limited to about 15-20 minutes. How is math -- the purest of all sciences -- fallacious?
Why do you try to defend the indefensible?
So, if you are "any idiot with half a brain", why don't you use your idiotic half bran to earn more money than the clueless uppercrust of our society and use your vast, idiotic, half brain fortune to change things to be more the way you would like them?
And you actually think that one person, even if I became a multi-billionare, could turn this country around...it's laws, it's entrenched powerful special interest class, it's population that is asleep on the couch? Do you actually believe that? If you do, you need to get off whatever meds you're taking.
Yes, one person can change the world... Mother Teresa, Thomas Edison, Jonas Salk, Adolph Hitler, Bill Gates, Jesus Christ...
None of those people, with the possible exception of Gates, would be in a position to effectuate the changes needed. He does good work with his foundations, but even he knows, with his vast wealth, that he can't do anything even if he wanted to.
And, btw, you have committed a logical fallacy called Existential Fallacy where a particular conclusion is drawn from universal premises. It is universally believed that one person can change the world (premise) but it does not logically follow that all individuals can change the world. If that were true our reality would be much different.
Those are just examples that everyone would know. Each and every one of us does change the world. Some for the good, some for the bad.
As far as the people there who could effectuate the changes needed, Jesus Christ and Mother Teresa is the only ones there who could because they lived to change hearts. The rest are just men with power or money.
Yes, they did good work. Unfortunately (very unfortunately) Madonna says we live in a material world. In the modern era, chasing all those little green pieces of paper is essential for survival. Everyone knows that. Like a friend of mine's dad said "Money may not be everything, but try to buy a hamburger without it."
So that's what the majority of the discussions are all about on this Forum. The type of idealism you are refering to really belongs on a different forum.
It think it's important to point out logical fallacies and separate science from pseudo-science. There's no other way to isolate the real problems and find the proper solutions in order to build a better world.
Time limit is not an excuse for pseudoscience, and even if we allowed this excuse, Mr. Wilkinson had plenty of time to create a proper scientific presentation. He either consciously chose to spread a logical fallacy, or he doesn't know better.
My instinct tells me that that wage inequality is a problem, but I don't know for sure after watching this video, an I certainly don't know why.
For those searching for truth, this video provides none since it is not scientific. It can serve as entertainment for the easily entertained.
Yes it is important to point out logical fallacies, and I do it all the time. You can see that if you read some of my old posts on this site. One of the most frequent I have noted in my observations here is Attacking the Person instead of the argument/evidence. I try very hard to put up science/math to support positions, and not just throw out random insults and stupidity.
I'm sure the causes can be found if you really want to know them. It doesn't take a genius to gather that up. As a matter of fact, those very causes are discussed/debated ad naseum all over this site. I haven't been here for several months, but I doubt little has changed, if anything.
So here are all the fallacies, btw, that I refer to on a frequent basis in responding to people. http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm
But in the end, this is not about lawyers trying to win a case in court, where logical fallacies are employed for win/lose purposes. This is about debating how to fix this terribly broken country, and I don't see a lot of Conservatives/Repubs offering up very many constructive suggestions.
If we don't push logical fallacies aside even when they can help us, then truth will escape. We must be disciplined and choose science over pseudoscience even though it might seem more attractive to choose the latter. Even though I instinctively agree with the claims of Mr. Wilkinson, I demand much more of him. We cannot build a better world any other way. Enough of these graphics showing correlations, but not causations. Enough of these logical fallacies. Surely, there exists smarter men, more scientifically inclined men that can show what Mr. Wilkinson is trying to show with a much more rigorous method and presentation.
Are you a scientist by profession or training? If so, could you possibly contribute some of your time to the betterment of our broken country? Yes, we need the men you refered to to come forward. Why don't they? Could it possibly be that they are too smart and already realize the causes, and that the entrenched power-elite are going to see to it that through power and influence the status quo is maintained at all costs?
For what it's worth, my personal opinion (not based on scientific research, just a hunch based on quick logical thinking which could very well be wrong), is that wealth inequality is a false problematic.
I feel that the only thing that is important is that the poorest people have enough to live decent and prosperous lives. They should have enough to eat, get proper housing, be able to buy a computer, be able to start a business if they want, etc...
Wealth is not static. It is created when resources are created. In a perfect economy, the amount of money in circulation would equal the amount of resources. So, you don't need to take money from the rich to make the poor richer.
And, it's entirely possible that fixing wealth inequality doesn't do anything good. There are countries where wealth is nearly equal amongst all citizens, but they are all equally poor! The problem is they don't have enough to live decent and prosperous lives.
Unless you have some kind of perfect communist system, there will always be the 99% vs the 1%. There will always be people richer than others. I personally think this is good as it drives people to take risks. If I have enough to live decently, then I'm OK, but if I can make even more money by starting a business, then maybe I will in order to afford luxuries. I'll be motivated to risk spending my time on a venture because I will perhaps make more money.
I personally have just enough to live, and I'm quite happy. It doesn't bother me one bit that some people in the world are millionaires. I wouldn't even trade places with them since I feel that big money often brings big problems.
Yes, there will always be rich and poor in all countries. All of recorded history shows that. I am not an idealist and know that...and accept it. What is hard to accept, however, is the size of that gap in this country compared to the other developed nations. If you go back and look at the video, one of the graphs clearly shows the USA has a much bigger gap than the others. To me, this is a complete insult and just shouts of Survival of the Fittest. There is no real reason that in a country with this much wealth that the gap could not be lessened. And it was back in the 60s-70s. I know, because of my age, and experienced it personally back then. But things started to change when Reagan came in in 1980, and hasn't significantly reversed since then.
And that, imho, along with the banking insults and crashing of the economy, is why Occupy exists and why we are having this discussion. Hell, this site wouldn't even exist if people were doing well. It exists because things are very, very bad in this country and people are trying, and least trying, to do something about it.
Truth.
The size of the gap is of no consequence, and your video does not explain why the gap is larger in US than any other countries anyhow.
The problem is not whether guys like Bill Gates have billions or only millions in the bank. The problem is that there are poor people in America who can barely afford to eat. Even if you cut the salaries of all the CEO, you'd still have the poor problem. It doesn't follow that the only way to address the problem of the poor is to take from the rich. Money is simply not static.
There were poor people in the 60s even though the gap was smaller. And, the middle class has more purchasing power than back then.
The size of the gap is of no consequence? That is total BS!!! There is an inverse relationship between the prosperity of the middle class and the 1%, particularly the ultra-rich top 1000 households. Go to Wikipedia and type in Occupy Wall Street and look at the "Annual U.S. Income share of the Top 1%." Study that graph carefully.
And do we not agree that there will always be those in need (poor)? In the past, those people were assisted in various ways, both public and private (they still are to some degree). But my point is that when things continue to get worse, and the amount of poor people becomes dramatically larger, then this great wealth disparity has to be addressed in some way (like here as a very meager example),
You can never get totally rid of all the poor, but you CAN reduce the AMOUNT of the poor by making some changes.
I don't think it has been shown that increase in wealth inequality equals an increase in the number of poor people, and I don't see why it should. Wealth inequality alone can be caused by many factors and can mean many things. For example, if you gave billions and billions more to the 1% tomorrow, it wouldn't create more poor people, it would just make the rich richer and increase wealth inequality. And, when we compare wealth inequality today with yesteryears, we have to look at the total amount of wealth. For example, 200 years ago wealth was better distributed amongst people, but there were much more poor people than today because there was much less overall wealth before the industrial age.
I definitely think we need to reduce the amount of poor people, but I don't think wealth inequality is the important issue.
There is a finite amount of money in the economy. Wealth inequality means that an incredible amout of money is concentrated at the top of the pyramid in the hands of a few, incredibly rich people. Those at the bottom of the pyramid, the vast majority, have to struggle greatly for a very limited amount of available money. For some, this is a losing struggle.
Every excess 1 dollar that is in the hands of the excessively rich could be the 1 dollar needed in the hands of the poor. For some of those poor, this means the difference between survival and not surviving.
No, there is not. New money is created every single day, just like you can grow more tomatoes. Money is related to our resources
Mathematically speaking, there is no reason why increasing wealth inequality would increase the number of poor people unless we are talking about an instant increase, but over many years, it depends on how the total wealth as differed.
There are fewer poor people in US compared to India even though the wealth inequality is much higher in US.
Seriously, wealth inequality is not the problem. The problem is that there are people who are too poor to afford the necessities of life. There's a major different. If everyone in the 99% made 50k a year there would still be a huge wealth disparity with the 1% but nobody would be poor. Contrastingly, if everyone in US made 1k a year, then wealth would be perfectly equal, but everyone would pretty much be poor; at least compared to other countries.
Ahh yes. The beloved monetary easing, which is just Fedspeak for pumping more money into the economy and devaluing the currency (inflation). And I know all about how money is created every day through Fractional Reserve Banking, etc. I read.
But this discussion is not about the Fed, and I diverge.
Even if new money is created, it is still a finite amount (so far) and people are still clamoring for it. They always have and always will. But they have to clamor harder for it now because more of it is concentrated at the top than there used to be.
What is it you are trying to defend and/or convince me of? If wealth inequality is not "the problem" (and I agree it is only one of many, many problems that are discussed on this site), then why are all of the OWS folks on this site refusing to quietly walk away and forget about it? Are they all wrong to be up in arms about it? Do you know better than they?
This is false. Wealth is finite, but not static. It's quite possible to increase wealth inequality and decrease the number of poor at the same time. There's no relation between the two.
I believe OWS is extremely important for many reasons. I'm not against rich people though, I'm against those that do corruption and I believe the system needs to be fixed to make corruption near impossible.
A new study provides the best evidence to date that higher levels of income inequality in the United States actually lead to more deaths in the country over a period of years
ScienceDaily is best known for showcasing the top science news stories from the world’s leading universities and research organizations. These stories are selected from among dozens of press releases and other materials submitted to ScienceDaily every day, and then edited to ensure high quality and relevance
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120508142542.htm
Thanks for the link!
No, I am not a scientist by profession.
I don't think so. This seems like conspiracy theory type thinking. There are serious anthropologists, sociologists, and economists who are talking about these problems in a serious manner, but they don't publish on youtube. They publish in serious journals and most people are either too scared or lazy to read those. The problem is to really understand these problems you have to go deep. They are complex problems, not simple ones.
What I can offer is criticism in the method of identifying problems and solutions. I cannot talk about economic and justice problems in any depth because it is not my field.
We need to be highly disciplined and sharp. We must relinquish any temptation to use logical fallacies. Else, we cannot criticize the government or mass media when they do. And, really, the government, mass media, and rich corrupted bankers have their hands so dirty that we can report the dirt as is, there is no reason to spice it up with logical fallacies.
Note: I also razzed the writer's of OWS news articles with this same criticism in the following posting: http://occupywallst.org/article/sunday-nyc-silent-march-end-stop-and-frisk/#comments
as long as you are fighting along dem or repub lines you are a pathetic loser. look to who offers the smallest government which offers the least corruption & the most freedom. unless you consider freedom the one who can give you the most free stuff.
Dear sir or madam:
I don't care about any of that shit. I only care about what works. Tell me honestly, is the USA working for the majority of people? Did you actually watch all of the video? Do you know what those statistics mean? It is clearly obvious to anyone who can correctly interpret a basic line graph that the USA is broken compared to other industrialized countries, especially the Scandinavian countries.
Math is math. I'm sorry if you don't like the facts. But big boys and girls have to face the truth no matter how ugly it is.
What's the Swedish immigration policy? Do they support all comers? also a tiny country of 9 million people - smaller than the New York metro area.
Sweden began slowing the expansion of the welfare state in the 1980s, or even trimming it back, and according to the OECD and McKinsey, Sweden has recently been relatively quick to adopt neo-liberal policies, such as deregulation, compared to countries such as France.[107][122] The current Swedish government is continuing the trend of moderate rollbacks of previous social reforms.[107][123] Growth has been higher than in many other EU-15 countries.
Look. My son, who is a doctor, has a friend who lived in the US for years, but was born in Sweden and spent his early childhood there. A few years ago, he went back and is a Physics major there. So he is aware of what it is like to live in both countries. It is not perfect in either, but he indicates it is a hell of a lot better there than here. Plus, my son went with him about 6-7 years ago (something like that) for 2 months during summer break from school, and was completely blown away by how much fairer and more egalitarian their country is. No poverty -- NONE. Very, very low crime. High taxes, yes. But EVERYONE lives well there. Medical, schools, daycare, unemployement. education, everything government supported -- and VERY strong unions. The government there ACTUALLY CARES about it's people. Not like ours. Not like every man/woman for him/her self here.
This place has devolved into pure Darwinism -- and some people are so stupid as to be PROUD of that. They actually prefer a dog-eat-dog existence as they are predators in their own right with no conception of what humanity and compassion really is.
As far as size comparison goes, I've heard that many times before. Ever hear of scaling? It is all a matter of applied mathematics. Small population has nothing to do with it. We have a much larger population, but that means we have a potentially much larger tax base. I would GLADLY pay more taxes if I knew that money was being used for the betterment of ALL who live here. That's what Sweden does. Their taxes don't go down a black hole or get siphoned off for some stupid, greedy defense contract in the MIC. Their country WORKS... ours doesn't. Period!!!
Yes, Sweden isn't trying to control, police, or be the Military Super Power around the world (yup, were going to surround China next). Someone said we have been trying to be a global force since around 1900, and we become the global force after WWII. And we have been trying to hold on to a kind of Empire ever since.
But in the end - all empires fall due to over-reach or simply have to give it up at some point. All that PMIC, BMIC, or MIC money could be doing some good in the world....
So it is a Choice: 1) Be a Global Military Force and Financial Powerhouse 2) Be a Democratic Society, that aids other countries, helps to establish world progress and peace, and provide social programs and safety nets for its own people while looking at new possible progressive ideas.
Maybe....
Good comment. The opposition obviously doesn't want to think about this because they WANT that power and control (and the trillions that go along with it in the MIC).
Damn Illuminati is going to flush this world down the crapper.
3) be a nation that is helped and helps other nations
Why would anyone choose number 1?
We are already there by default. But globally our finanical hubs have a bad reputation from the global financial crisis.
a species that helps each other survives
As long as you are a predator at the top of the food chain, the U.S. is a great place to live!
Yeah, that's correct from the predator's standpoint. Is that something to be proud of that humans are becoming more animal than human every day? Is that what you are defending, or do you just get your rocks off by stiring up shit on this site and offering nothing constructive in return?
The problem with text is that sarcasm is not always apparent.
Sorry if i misinterpreted your remarks.
No problem.
Our predatory nature in regards to political and economic darwinism shows we are still more like animals than human beings. What we should take pride in is how well those on the bottom rungs live, not the top. That is the measure of how civilized we truly are.
And just how well do you think they live? Do they live as well as they used to? Since the Reagan era forward to now, wages have failed to keep up with cost of living, thus resulting in a lower standard of living for more, not less, of the so-called middle-class. We are now approaching a two-tier society -- rich and poor -- with middle-class headed for extinction if the trend isn't reversed.
The trend shows stagnant growth for all but the upper tiers. The only thing that will limit the upper tier growth is the supply of lower tier persons that they feed on.
This trend can only be reversed by the people. If we can't mobilize them to stop allowing the rich to feed on them and their children, we will become slaves.
Many don't realize that you don't need to be physically chained to be a slave. Economic chains bind more tightly and are more difficult to break.
The ultimate question? Do we work for our own gain or for those of others? When more than 50% of our labor goes to others we have become slaves.
Well, at least we have reached agreement on something.
True how much of our labor is thrown away?
Not given away - thrown away.
How much of our labor is thrown away as money given to foreign regimes as aid for their people which their people never receive?
How much of our labor is reinvested here at home? Upgrading and maintaining our infrastructure. Investing in new business to make energy and industry clean? Seeing that our environment is not poisoned.
These are issues to be faced for a healthy government, business, population, country, world.
The amount of money that is spent on disposable items, packaging, Etc. is tremendous. Now add bombs dropped, cruise missles fired, bullets shot, fuel to propel the vehicles that carry the weapons, and the energy required to manufacture them, it boggles the mind.
If we take the GDP for one year, how much of that remains in productive use after say 10 years? 50%? Of the products we import from China, less than 10% would be functioning after 10 years.
Wealth is not just what we produce, it's what lasts.
YES - WTF - is up with a disposable economy?
I remember when I was a kid - we used to go around collecting empty bottles and bring em to the store for the deposit money.
Hell we even had a repairman visit the house a couple of times to fix the TV. Now a days I think it is less expensive to throw it out and get a new one.
Cars - used to be worth repairing or replacing piece by piece from the ground on up - the old parts were often rebuilt and reused. Now a days you get in much more then a fender bender and the insurance company is totaling it out, not on a used car but on a brand new car.
No wonder peoples thinking can be so fucked up - they are brought up not to care.
Ah - HELL - just go get a new one.
Yeah, I repair laptop computers. The new ones are relatively cheap, so when they break, they throw them out like they were toasters. We are conditioned by the media to buy new. Oh, the thrill of having a shiny new laptop in your hands, capable of processing umpteen gigabytes of data in a fraction of a second, but is mainly used for text, email, and facebook. Like using a jet fighter to taxi down to the market to pick up a pack of cigarettes.
And even if a consumer wins - there is no change in the practice because the penalties are so small - it is more lucrative for the CorpoRation to continue doing the same.
[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (1397) from Sun City, CA 0 minutes ago
Some Toshiba products are not just obsolescent, they are designed to fail. A simple thing like the DC jack. Once the solder joints breaks, the entire computer must be disassembled, motherboard taken out and repaired.
Of course after the factory repair center gives the customers the run around on what should be a simple repair, they are forced to buy a new laptop with a significant loss of money and a significant increase in frustration. All of this so a large corporation can grow larger.
Toshiba had a multi billion class action lawsuit filed against them. Just a cost of doing business. In the long run they still make more money by making inferior products that break because the competitors do the same. The consumer has no choice but to keep filing lawsuits, but most give up by then.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Electronics built-in obsolescence. There are very few repairmen anymore.
Do people ever stop to wonder why a good and honest trade is disappearing?
Business can't sell new if your not throwing away the old.
Some Toshiba products are not just obsolescent, they are designed to fail. A simple thing like the DC jack. Once the solder joints breaks, the entire computer must be disassembled, motherboard taken out and repaired.
Of course after the factory repair center gives the customers the run around on what should be a simple repair, they are forced to buy a new laptop with a significant loss of money and a significant increase in frustration. All of this so a large corporation can grow larger.
Toshiba had a multi billion class action lawsuit filed against them. Just a cost of doing business. In the long run they still make more money by making inferior products that break because the competitors do the same. The consumer has no choice but to keep filing lawsuits, but most give up by then.
You could say the reps and dems are like two competing corporations producing inferior products. Year after year we complain about the quality but nothing changes. They remind us daily there are no other manufacturers to buy from.
We will just have to start manufacturing our own products if we really want quality.
This is due to the integrated chip. Cheap to mass produce, but very difficult to fix when one of the parts breaks.
why not have one class ?
human nature does not allow for that.
human nature is flexible
granted, no one wants to give up what they got
there will always be people that are more ambitious than others, have more drive. There will always be thieves and hustlers. there will always be poeple that have certain talents and gifts that others are not born with.
I think humans tend to be more herd like
to protect and provide to each other
important for survival
Herd like as in sheep protected by wolves.
And who - or what - are your mind-numbing one-liners intended to protect?
Great comment, and it's good to see you back. When i went to Sweden with one of my daughters, and sister last summer, I did not see anyone protesting, or camping out in parks for political reasons.
Gee I wonder why? Could it have been that things are actually good there? :-)
Good to be back. I'm a lot busier now, so don't know how much time I can spend here, but still believe in what Occupy is trying to do.
I know that my good friend there who is a third generation blacksmith, and now also does steel fabrication is going gang-busters. He told me when Scania trucks slowed down they sent some their workers to school (at 2/3 or 3/4 pay) to be retrained, and retooled some of their plants. When the economy picked up which it had then, they were ready to go. We were there for the 80th anniversary of my dad's first trip to America on the sailor's training ship Chapman which is today tied up in Stockhom harbor, and is a youth hostel and eatery.
And that is how a decent people take care of each other (we could learn many things from Scandinavians). They don't have a neurotic obsession with quarterly profits, they're actually able to look forward to the next year, two years, decade, etc. They realized, Scania was not doing poorly because there's any fundamental problem with the company, it's products didn't become obsolete, there was just a recession (a temporary downturn). If governments are going to exist, they should exist for just this reason. In Germany they reacted to the financial crisis in a similar way. Instead of laying off workers, the German government provided subsidies to companies like BMW (to keep workers on the payroll); and what do you know, demand picked back up, those workers are back to building cars, and thousands of lives were spared the disruption and despair that we have here in the United States.
That long range outlook, and a concern for people is definitely something that is missing here
That's a really cool story. Regarding the Scania trucks, I doubt seriously if most American companies would have done something like that (though maybe some would). Most would just lay people off.
See the difference in the mentality? American corps suck.
Yes it is a good story, and one that should be emulated more over here. One of my great uncles helped develop their first car, and i have a picture of him with that car. They have since gone out of the car business, and mfg trucks only now.
That's not necessarily a good sign.
In my opinion, it is a really good "sign."
Usually, countries that protest the most get the most. Once you sit on your laurels, then progress stops. There's always something to protest about.
Well, we have certainly sat on our "laurels" long enough. In the early part of the 20th century Sweden was in real political turmoil, before turning itself around. Unlike our country the rate of social decline doesn't seem to have been so encompassing.
so - move to Sweden
Instead of moving maybe we can make this country better! force it to serve the 99%, whose labor and taxes built it. Why should we leave.? We created the country. We're just tired of the !% getting all the benefits. Maybe you should move out if you don't like the 99% getting some benefit for our hard work. For our continued sacrifice, For our never ending struggle so that the 1% can have 3 houses golden parachutes and obscene untaxed income.
define "better" Better to me is do away with social security, medicare, everyone gets a school voucher. reduce the federal government back to 10% of GDP. STOP the madness of government control over every aspect of our lives. So obviously we have opposing views. I want to be left alone & you want to suck on the teet of the federal government. Free stuff for all!!!
Better is not sending our jobs overseas so that maybe 50% can make enough money to pay taxes. Better is not fighting unnecessary wars to support industry. Better is putting the banks back in their cages.... when the Financial Industry makes up over 40% of our GDP, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out things are fucked up.
and why do jobs get sent over seas?
Free Trade, Globalism, Free Market ideals gone nuts. American companies who feel no nationalistic or patriotic commitment to this country and what it stands for. We are being sold out for a dollar.
because capital is being chased out by the blood suckers. capital moves to the safest haven and if necessary underground. Always has & always will.
Yeah capitalists are cowards aren't they. They will run and hide and sell their mother if it benefits them. Everyone else becomes the bloodsucker, when they are themselves the vampires.
they are behaving like any rational human being does. you'd do the same thing. More out of necessity than anything else. Does the word competition mean anything to you? Additionally - the economy grows when you have more money from buying things more cheaply. Walmart is great for the economy. But you just don't get it.
"so - prove me wrong, build your own company and be the all benevolent employer and pay everyone equally including yourself. Put your money where your mouth is."
Been there done that. You are not dealing with a kid. I made my first million before I was 25 back in 1980. Everyone in the company got an equal percentage of the profits.
It didn't kill me to do it. It won't harm others to do the same.
ok - great - just dont impose your values on me. force is not freedom.
"they are behaving like any rational human being does. you'd do the same thing. More out of necessity than anything else."
You don't know me, so don't speak for me.
"Additionally - the economy grows when you have more money from buying things more cheaply. Walmart is great for the economy."
Because buying from Walmart is buying cheap Chinese made goods.... YOU don't get it. How does that help the American worker? How anti-American are you going to get over a dollar saved?
What does Walmart do? What type of jobs do they support? What type of employee abuse record have they had? Buying from Walmart is great for Walmart and their Communist work force.
"Does the word competition mean anything to you?"
Competition is great for the consumer, but business really despises competition. The natural strategy for business is to eliminate it.
Keeping on supporting the Communist Chinese with your support of Walmart..... and don't forget to wave your American Flag this July 4th and pretend to be patriotic. Have a BBQ, shoot off fireworks, and praise your Communist Chinese buddies. Thank them for that wonderful new BBQ grill and outdoor furniture set you bought there.
china is starting to unionize and companies are moving to vietnam for cheap labor
so - prove me wrong, build your own company and be the all benevolent employer and pay everyone equally including yourself. Put your money where your mouth is.
I don't want free stuff. Just want our money back from the 1% criminals who have rigged the system to implement right wing policies that have created the largest transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1%. As a human being I believe in helping my fellow humans. You appear to the greedy, selfish right wing type that believes I got mine f%$k everyone else. Dog eat dog, economic darwinism! except the wealthy them you are willing to help. You want more tax cuts for the wealthy, less regulation for the corp criminals that crashed the world economy. Yeah we disagree. I support working Americans you betray your class!
good luck - I suggest you keep up the occupation. sorry to waste your time.
Stop being a hindrance to meaningful change. You are not part of the solution, therefore, a major part of the problem.
that's your opinion.
great response - well thought out - typical of too many on this site. they have no thought beyond "america, love it or leave it" - oh, i guess that was from a different time - that was "move to russia you commie draft dodger." sad linker - very sad.
if you like Sweden you should move there. Do they have an open border policy like the U.S.? You are comparing apples & oranges. You say we have a lager potential for a larger tax base yet 50% of the population pay no federal income tax. Geez!
not exactly true - check your facts and get back to me as to percentages etc (what year was that and are other years different - like non crash years?) -then check out payroll taxes and sales, gas taxes along with tolls and fees and then try to figure out the percentage they pay in tax. and while you are at it how about letting me know what they make in household income then compare that to the top 10 hedge fund managers who make on average 900k per hour - that's right - it is not a typo - 900k per hour and tell me what they end up with. 80% of the population lives on 32k per year on average - what is your take home pay? care to tell us? as to sweden it is not perfect (been there many times) but they better than us and i would like to move in that direction - you don't, fine - how about you move to haiti - they seem to be more your style.
I referenced federal income tax. If you want to reduce or eliminate any other taxes - I am all for it.
don't want to - want to raise them like in sweden - provide better services to the general population. would you like to go through the numbers i mentioned - no probably not - move to haiti
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2666950/posts
you are a fool
I am a fool why precisely ?
because you read idiots like reinfelt - believe what you want - suck up to the rich - here is black elk on the subject - “I did not see anything [New York 1886] to help my people. I could see that the Wasichus [white man] did not care for each other the way our people did before the nation's hoop was broken. They would take everything from each other if they could, and so there were some who had more of everything than they could use, while crowds of people had nothing at all and maybe were starving. This could not be better than the old ways of my people.”
Don't want to be part of a society? Go live in a cave.
I'd love too ! The only reason you want to be "part of society" is so you can take out more than you put in. The productive members of "society are sick of you freeloaders. you know this is true ! or you are a dim wit or a rich white liberal who feel guilty for your good fortune.
Try to understand the phrase the whole is greater then the sum of its parts.
Just like in Europe. Hows that working out? Greeks dragging down the whole Euro. Strong expected to bail out the reckless & irresponsible greedy weak.
The EU was a poorly conceived plan. The economies and cultures of the different member countries are too vast to be covered by one currency. I predicted the failure of this system years ago. If the Greeks had their own currency they would be in far better shape.
'Strong expected to bail out the reckless & irresponsible greedy weak.'
Sounds like US Taxpayers and the Financial Institutions here in America.... don't you think?
Yep...good response geo, especially the bailout reference in the end.
I wish I could understand what it is like to be inside these people's brains for just 5 minutes...5 minutes is all. Their motivations...their all consumining focus on themselves. I just don't get it, and I doubt I ever will.
If you ever do get in there, be sure and look for a kill switch.
Brahahahahah!!!!!!!
"You say we have a larger potential for a larger tax base yet 50% of the population pay no federal income tax."
That is an incredible assertion that you better be prepared to provide factual hard data in support of. Where do you get the 50% figure? Where? Please provide it.
look it up at the IRS this is not a disputable fact . maybe its 47% at best.
No, you provided the assertion, so you must present the facts. My time is too valuable for that. The burden of proof is on you sir, not me.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0#table1
I read through the text and looked through the tables and didn't see the 50% figure. I may have simply overlooked it. Assuming you are familiar with the page provided, could you kindly point out where the 50% figure is located on the page?
Sorry, but this old man needs help sometimes. Appreciate it.
right when you click on the link - the table - go to the bottom 50% share and see they pay 2.3% income tax. I was not being truthful - the bottom 50% pay 2.3% of all federal income taxes while the top 50% pay 97.8%
Thanks for clarifying that. The key takeaway is that 50% of the population earn less than $32k per year, and this is a very significant metric, so it is appropriate that they pay 2.3% of taxes. Actually, this is a strong indicator of a need for tax reform, as the top 50%, especially the highest top percentages, could contribute significantly more in taxes without significantly affecting lifestyle, whereas any increase in the bottom 50% would have a much more significant impact on lifestyle. This table clearly shows the severity of the income gap in the USA.
everyone should have skin in the game. the top percentages ALREADY do contribute a LOT more. the key is to get congress to stop spending like drunken sailors giving out free stuff to get elected. increasing taxes on the so called"rich" via the Buffet rule for example - only brings in 5 billion a year. Hardly a dent in the problem. It solves nothing except makes envious people feel vindicated somehow.
[Removed]
How much does it cost to move to Sweden?
[Removed]
How Robin Hoods men really treated the poor
I'll believe anything that confirms my predetermined conclusions! Anything that conflicts with them is bias!
Is science pre-determined?
The video does not make use of the scientific method. It makes use of a logical fallacy - showing correlations without explaining the causation.
You keep saying that all over this post in other places. Statistics, a branch of mathematics, is Science -- the most pure form of Science. Unless Wilkinson was intentionally trying to deceive his audience, which includes millions around the world since it was posted on YouTube, he was sincere and accurately presented the FACTS. Additionally, he stands to jeopardize his career and reputation if he presented anything that wasn't true. And all he presented was the Scientific EVIDENCE that there is a direct correlation between size of Income Inequality gap and degree/amount of related social problems.
Science doesn't always have all the answers at once. It can have evidence, but not necessarily know the cause. YOU have committed a logical fallacy of Style over Substance -- the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT ISN'T TRUE!!! Because you don't like Wilkinson's presentation, and because to YOU (others would certainly disagree with you) he did not present a cause for the evidence, you label it pseudo-science. Now you have committed TWO fallacies. The other is Attacking the Person instead of the argument. Is it not true that the evidence is pure science regardless of how it is presented? Are these not FACTS?
SCIENCE must report the FACTS even when causes are a subject of debate. Statistics is not pseudo-science, unless they have been intentionally manipulated to present a false conclusion. Then it would be FRAUD. That means Wilkinson would be EVIL, and I don't think any reasonable person would draw that conclusion.
To top it off, you have committed a 3rd logical fallacy called Slothful Induction which is that the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary. Evidence to the contrary. EVIDENCE to the contrary.
So go away and study up more on your beloved logical fallacies that you throw around. Trying to defeat someone on these forums amounts to nothing more than a sick mental chess game, and people are trying to seriously discuss things here about how to heal our sick country. Labeling Science as pseudo-science is an insult. It is also easy to pull one over like that on the unknowledgeable.
I do not fall in that category.
Showing that there is correlation between two things does not mean that one causes the other. Mr. Wilkinson shows correlation with his graphs, but he does not show causation.
I would be doing the same thing if I presented a graph showing the decrease in the number of pirates in the last 200 years, then another graph showing the increase in life expectancy in the last 200 years. Both graphs would show a correlation between the two types of data. I could show evidence that the data is correct. Yet, unless I show causation, we do not know if the decrease in the number of pirates caused the increase in life expectancy.
At the end of his presentation, we still have no evidence that wealth inequality has anything to do with creating more poor people. He shows correlation, but not causation. This is a known logical fallacy, look it up!
If he hasn't shown the cause (he hasn't, he only shows correlation which is all but meaningless), then we don't know that wealth inequality causes more people to be poor. Since we don't know what the cause is, we can't pronounce ourselves on the effects of wealth inequality vis a vis poor people.
confusing association with causation logical fallacy
This fallacy, however, has a tendency to be abused, or applied inappropriately, to deny all statistical evidence. In fact this constitutes a logical fallacy in itself, the denial of causation.
The Professor used the scientific method, you used the bullshit method, and committed the fallacy of denial of causation, Captain Ahab.
No, the professor did not use the scientific method. If he had, then providing proof for causation would have been the cornerstone of his talk. Without showing causation (and he doesn't), correlations are pointless.
The number of pirates in the world has decreased at the same time that wealth inequality has increased. Does that mean that the number of pirates has anything to do with wealth inequality? No. That's correlation without showing causation.
I never said there was no causation, I said that he didn't show there was.
when power is centralize
there's no cause to make sure it gets to someone that does not have it
You're not looking deep enough.
It's quite possible to have nearly no wealth inequality, but have everyone equally poor. It's also possible to increase wealth inequality, but to also decrease the number of poor people. There's no law that stipulates or no causation shown that an increase in wealth inequality means an increase in the number of poor people.
We can use a reduced example to show this. Let's say we are 5 people, some with 1 tomato and some with 2, and that we are poor until we have 3 tomatoes each. If we give each person with 1 tomato 1 more tomato, we have achieved perfect equality in wealth (reduced wealth inequality), but everyone still has only 2 tomatoes; everyone is equally poor. If we give 4 people 100 tomatoes and the fifth 1 billion tomatoes, then we have increased wealth inequality but everyone is rich with one being extra rich.
What's really important is that everyone has enough to live and prosper, not that wealth be divided equally. The total amount of wealth is key here.
Capitalism produces wealth inequality, but it also drives the creation of wealth. Communism produces wealth equality, but does not drive wealth creation that much. That's why Russia failed.
The problem with those pushing wealth inequality as the problem is that they view wealth as being static. They don't understand that new wealth is created each day.
a matter of the people having a choice to work on what they please
Yes, if everyone had enough to live and prosper, they would have that choice. The problem is that some people don't have enough, not that some people are billionaires. It does not follow that the only way to make poor people richer is to steal from the rich. You can create more wealth.
High income inequality.
Point?
Show causation between the various graphs Mr. Wilkinson brings up and we might start going somewhere. Correlations are meaningless even if you have thousands.
discussion
repeatable results are a fecundation of the scientific process
There were no experiments with repeatable results, there were only a number of correlations shown. You can show zillions of correlations, without showing causation you have nothing but a logical fallacy.
building bombs 'til bunkers boil
getting paid for shell filled toil
if I am to work tomorrow
lobe the load on foreign soil
yep US only pays 41% of the total world military budget
World Military budget in Billions (percent total) by Nation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations
39% United States
18% Russia
8% France
7% United Kingdom
5% Germany
3% China
3% Italy
11% Other European
5% Others
http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesBySupplierNations
TOP 10 Arms Produces
Notes: An S denotes a subsidiary company. A dash (–) indicates that the company did not rank among the SIPRI Top 100 for 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/02/arms-sales-top-100-producers
[Removed]