|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 04 2014 11:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 11:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2014 10:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2014 09:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2014 08:22 GreenHorizons wrote:The claim is supposed to be in this book: Gates: How Microsoft's Mogul Reinvented an Industry--and Made Himself the Richest Man in America Though I didn't read it myself so I can't say for sure. I'll accept that I can't prove he had a $1 million trust fund but it's rather irrelevant to my points. The ~$250,000 dollar private secondary schooling and the opportunity for a full ride to Harvard from his father is pretty sufficient to put him in the 1% The Bill Gates story has a lot of exactly what I and others talk about regarding the advantages of wealth. Lawyer pays well, serving on a board of directors not so much Well serving on a generic board and serving on a board of a bank your father started are pretty different... And with the equivalent of a quarter million dollar education and a free ride to Harvard it's not like they were pinching pennies... convincing them that he and his company could meet their needs. The only problem was that Microsoft had not developed the basic operating system that would run IBM's new computers. Not to be stopped, Gates bought an operating system that was developed to run on computers similar to IBM's PC. He made a deal with the software's developer, making Microsoft the exclusive licensing agent and later full owner of the software but not telling them of the IBM deal. The company later sued Microsoft and Gates for withholding important information. Microsoft settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, but neither Gates nor Microsoft admitted to any wrong doing. My personal favorite part of his story is the old 'I made a shit ton of money off of a shady deal with you, and since you are suing me I will give you an undisclosed amount of the money if we agree that I had no reason to give it to you'. I don't begrudge hard work but there being less separation (score wise) between Lampert and Oprah than Lampert and Murdoch says a lot... I think you're defining 'self-made' quite a bit differently. It makes more sense to me to define 'self-made' as in 'how much of your wealth comes from your own efforts' rather than 'did you grow up middle class or lower or not'. Like I said before, there's a lot of subjectivity here. But I really don't see how 'private HS' translates into 'ofc he's a multi-billionaire' as if private school is an auto ticket to the top 0.000001%. I don't think it's the self part that we are caught on, it's the 'made'. For all intents and purposes he was already 'made' (albeit not a billionaire) long before he even touched a computer. He's obviously a smart and talented person so even had he been born poor he probably would of done fine for himself. But we're lying to ourselves if we think the Bill Gates story happens if he goes to a typical High School instead of Lakeside. It's not that Bill Gates suddenly would be stripped of the raw talents and work ethic, just that he wouldn't have had the opportunities that led him to be able to capitalize on them. If he goes to an average school he never even has access (in school) to the systems that led to his success. Somewhere out there are more 'Bill Gates' that just didn't happen to be born to well off parents, and they won't have access to some tech or service that could of led them to be the next 'Bill Gates'. Instead someone who may or may not be as talented but was born to parents with access will beat him/her to it. The difference in the level of their success will not be their talents or work ethic but simply where they started the race to their success. I'm pretty sure more people would be on board with removing social programs for adults if children didn't start from such disparate starting points beyond their control. How many great minds have we lost because they were just in shitty situations out of their control? The problem I have with this argument is that you're preventing the term from ever being used. The whole point is to draw a distinction from someone who is rich because he / she inherited their wealth vs someone who earned it themselves. But you seem to be using the term to make broader points about inequality and privilege. Well for clarifications sake I think it's important to have words to separate Someone like the Walton heirs from someone like Gates. I just don't think 'self made' carries the appropriate connotations or common interpretations when used to describe someone who went from the top 1% to the top .000001% But having a scale where 1-9 are children of 1%ers then everyone from the top 2%ers (parents) to the poorest persons (parents) on the list all get the same score it kind of makes the scoring pretty ridiculous.
Well you haven't really demonstrated that Gates was a 1%-er growing up. What you've said points more towards upper middle class than 1%. Same goes for scale 1-9. You're writing things of dubious validity and then extrapolating off of them.
But parents income has a lot to do with success? The picture and the numbers just help further dispel the 'my slice of pie doesn't make yours smaller' One kid doesn't deserve a better education than another, yet we have a system where some kids get an education that under no circumstances could every other student (who is just as entitled) possibly receive.
Define 'a lot' along with the causal factor. Like, do kids have higher incomes because they inherit money or because their parents taught them well and they inherited good traits.
That picture doesn't show either of those things.
|
I dont understand this obsession with Bill Gates as the epitome of the self-made billionaire. To my knowledge, he has never claimed to be that and has never denied the enormous privilege and luck that enabled the conditions of his success.
He bends over backwards as a philanthropist to urge rich people to help society, so much so that you could argue to the contrary that it is condescending, that the masses could never crawl out of the morass of their own poverty and misery without redistributions of his wealth.
|
On October 04 2014 12:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 11:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2014 11:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2014 10:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2014 09:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 04 2014 08:22 GreenHorizons wrote:The claim is supposed to be in this book: Gates: How Microsoft's Mogul Reinvented an Industry--and Made Himself the Richest Man in America Though I didn't read it myself so I can't say for sure. I'll accept that I can't prove he had a $1 million trust fund but it's rather irrelevant to my points. The ~$250,000 dollar private secondary schooling and the opportunity for a full ride to Harvard from his father is pretty sufficient to put him in the 1% The Bill Gates story has a lot of exactly what I and others talk about regarding the advantages of wealth. Lawyer pays well, serving on a board of directors not so much Well serving on a generic board and serving on a board of a bank your father started are pretty different... And with the equivalent of a quarter million dollar education and a free ride to Harvard it's not like they were pinching pennies... convincing them that he and his company could meet their needs. The only problem was that Microsoft had not developed the basic operating system that would run IBM's new computers. Not to be stopped, Gates bought an operating system that was developed to run on computers similar to IBM's PC. He made a deal with the software's developer, making Microsoft the exclusive licensing agent and later full owner of the software but not telling them of the IBM deal. The company later sued Microsoft and Gates for withholding important information. Microsoft settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, but neither Gates nor Microsoft admitted to any wrong doing. My personal favorite part of his story is the old 'I made a shit ton of money off of a shady deal with you, and since you are suing me I will give you an undisclosed amount of the money if we agree that I had no reason to give it to you'. I don't begrudge hard work but there being less separation (score wise) between Lampert and Oprah than Lampert and Murdoch says a lot... I think you're defining 'self-made' quite a bit differently. It makes more sense to me to define 'self-made' as in 'how much of your wealth comes from your own efforts' rather than 'did you grow up middle class or lower or not'. Like I said before, there's a lot of subjectivity here. But I really don't see how 'private HS' translates into 'ofc he's a multi-billionaire' as if private school is an auto ticket to the top 0.000001%. I don't think it's the self part that we are caught on, it's the 'made'. For all intents and purposes he was already 'made' (albeit not a billionaire) long before he even touched a computer. He's obviously a smart and talented person so even had he been born poor he probably would of done fine for himself. But we're lying to ourselves if we think the Bill Gates story happens if he goes to a typical High School instead of Lakeside. It's not that Bill Gates suddenly would be stripped of the raw talents and work ethic, just that he wouldn't have had the opportunities that led him to be able to capitalize on them. If he goes to an average school he never even has access (in school) to the systems that led to his success. Somewhere out there are more 'Bill Gates' that just didn't happen to be born to well off parents, and they won't have access to some tech or service that could of led them to be the next 'Bill Gates'. Instead someone who may or may not be as talented but was born to parents with access will beat him/her to it. The difference in the level of their success will not be their talents or work ethic but simply where they started the race to their success. I'm pretty sure more people would be on board with removing social programs for adults if children didn't start from such disparate starting points beyond their control. How many great minds have we lost because they were just in shitty situations out of their control? The problem I have with this argument is that you're preventing the term from ever being used. The whole point is to draw a distinction from someone who is rich because he / she inherited their wealth vs someone who earned it themselves. But you seem to be using the term to make broader points about inequality and privilege. Well for clarifications sake I think it's important to have words to separate Someone like the Walton heirs from someone like Gates. I just don't think 'self made' carries the appropriate connotations or common interpretations when used to describe someone who went from the top 1% to the top .000001% But having a scale where 1-9 are children of 1%ers then everyone from the top 2%ers (parents) to the poorest persons (parents) on the list all get the same score it kind of makes the scoring pretty ridiculous. Well you haven't really demonstrated that Gates was a 1%-er growing up. What you've said points more towards upper middle class than 1%. Same goes for scale 1-9. You're writing things of dubious validity and then extrapolating off of them. Show nested quote +Spending per pupil has little to do with student performance. But parents income has a lot to do with success? The picture and the numbers just help further dispel the 'my slice of pie doesn't make yours smaller' One kid doesn't deserve a better education than another, yet we have a system where some kids get an education that under no circumstances could every other student (who is just as entitled) possibly receive. Define 'a lot' along with the causal factor. Like, do kids have higher incomes because they inherit money or because their parents taught them well and they inherited good traits. That picture doesn't show either of those things.
Before I bother going further, you want to help me out with where you would roughly put the limits for upper and lower middle class?
|
Bill Gates is a talented monopolist but, on balance, he's probably been a net negative influence on the world. But I don't begrudge microbrain a nice life, just the extra $100B (rounding errors you know, maybe a couple million would have suited him if we are generous) he skimmed peddling junk software. No one thinks you shouldn't work hard and value education Dangles, but no one deserves to be a billionaire.
|
On October 04 2014 13:44 IgnE wrote:
Bill Gates is a talented monopolist but, on balance, he's probably been a net negative influence on the world. But I don't begrudge microbrain a nice life, just the extra $100B (rounding errors you know, maybe a couple million would have suited him if we are generous) he skimmed peddling junk software. No one thinks you shouldn't work hard and value education Dangles, but no one deserves to be a billionaire.
Eh, I'm not as far as Igne... yet haha. But I can agree (and I think we all should) that no one deserves to be born a billionaire...?
|
On October 03 2014 02:50 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2014 02:38 bookwyrm wrote:
by structural reforms you mean austerity? that's not structural reform, that's just abandoning the old structural reform half-measures (social democracy) without any replacement.
our country is full of people who believe that there are magic, monetary solutions to real world problems. Like... kwizach and sub40
Well there's reformation of the banking sector, the public sector, taxation and ideas to improve the education systems and mobility, there's certainly a lot more happening than just "austerity".
No there is not. Structural reform is nothing but austerity.
What kind of public system is more efficient with less money ? That's an absurdity. In fact in reality, to make anything better you need to invest more - losing money in the short run but gaining in the long run with more efficiency.
QE is still flawed from an ideological standpoint. Why does it have no impact on inflation ? Because it's only money, and somehow central bank of the world refuse to monetize the debt so they just give money to banks.... Seriously it baffle me. Why not directly using the money ?
|
On October 04 2014 13:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 13:44 IgnE wrote:
Bill Gates is a talented monopolist but, on balance, he's probably been a net negative influence on the world. But I don't begrudge microbrain a nice life, just the extra $100B (rounding errors you know, maybe a couple million would have suited him if we are generous) he skimmed peddling junk software. No one thinks you shouldn't work hard and value education Dangles, but no one deserves to be a billionaire. Eh, I'm not as far as Igne... yet haha. But I can agree (and I think we all should) that no one deserves to be born a billionaire...?
No one deserves to be born anything. Its all chance. You shouldn't hold that against people who are born billionaires.
|
When others point to those billionaires as imitable examples of success without a qualification as to their background's good fortune, yes, yes we should.
|
State Sen. Joni Ernst, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Iowa, once said she would support legislation that would allow "local law enforcement to arrest federal officials attempting to implement" Obamacare.
Ernst voiced her support for that, as well as supporting legislation that would "nullify" Obamacare in a Iowa State Legislative Candidates survey for Ron Paul's libertarian-aligned Campaign for Liberty in 2012. It can be viewed here.
The question was: "Will you support legislation to nullify ObamaCare and authorize state and local law enforcement to arrest federal officials attempting to implement the unconstitutional health care scheme known as ObamaCare?" Ernst answered that question as "yes."
Campaign for Liberty Communications Director Megan Stiles told TPM on Friday that the "yes" answer is what the group is looking for in candidates. Stiles, however, cautioned that the group does not endorse candidates.
"States nullifying federal laws is one way of a check on the balance of federal power," Stiles said. "So that's an additional way to fight Obamacare. That's what we're looking for."
Ideally though, Campaign for Liberty is looking for candidates that sponsor legislation (hence the +/- option on the survey).
Stiles, who wasn't with the the Campaign for Liberty in 2012, said she would have to get back to TPM on how arrests would be made. She said it would depend on whether what's being implemented is a state run or federal run healthcare exchange.
"The general idea is that if leaders in the state don't want to participate in Obamacare then they would nullify the law —as another check on federal power," Stiles said.
Source
|
No one deserves to be a billionaire.
|
On October 05 2014 00:01 farvacola wrote:
When others point to those billionaires as imitable examples of success without a qualification as to their background's good fortune, yes, yes we should.
So hold those others accountable. Its not the billionaire's fault that idiots hold them up as examples of success.
On October 05 2014 01:12 IgnE wrote:
No one deserves to be a billionaire.
No one deserves anything. "Deserve" is a social construct.
|
On October 05 2014 02:12 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 00:01 farvacola wrote:
When others point to those billionaires as imitable examples of success without a qualification as to their background's good fortune, yes, yes we should. So hold those others accountable. Its not the billionaire's fault that idiots hold them up as examples of success. No one deserves anything. "Deserve" is a social construct.
No one is blaming the rich folk... people are blaming the Forbes article for being disingenuous. Stop putting words into peoples mouths.
|
On October 05 2014 02:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 02:12 Millitron wrote:On October 05 2014 00:01 farvacola wrote:
When others point to those billionaires as imitable examples of success without a qualification as to their background's good fortune, yes, yes we should. So hold those others accountable. Its not the billionaire's fault that idiots hold them up as examples of success. On October 05 2014 01:12 IgnE wrote:
No one deserves to be a billionaire. No one deserves anything. "Deserve" is a social construct. No one is blaming the rich folk... people are blaming the Forbes article for being disingenuous. Stop putting words into peoples mouths.
IgnE is.
|
why is this always being dragged into the "blame and envy" direction? That kids of affluent and academic parents have a much higher chance to succeed in life is a statistical fact, no matter what someone's reason for pointing that out is. The discussion should resolve around whether that is okay (which most people probably don't think it is) and if it's not what we're going to do about it. These "You're just salty" accusations are just stupid.
|
On ISIL, I'm broadly fine with the current strategy, but i am bitterly disappointed with Obama for not intervening early on in Syria and allowing the civil war to rage and provide the basis for ISIL's development (to say nothing of the human cost). So now instead of nipping it in the bud we need to spend more treasure on a necessary intervention now.
I am alternating between facepalming at Obama's handling of Ukraine and cynically wondering if, in the event we chose to abandon Ukraine for not being a US national interest, the Europeans would finally be motivated to close the capabilities gap, so the US can complete its Asia strategic pivot. But probably not.
|
In short they sent him home because he didn't have Insurance and did not want to be stuck with the bill of treating him.
Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas, which is currently treating patient Thomas Eric Duncan for the Ebola virus, has revised the explanation it offered earlier this week as to why it had initially released Duncan after his first visit to the hospital on Sept. 25. Duncan later had to be brought back to the hospital by ambulance on Sept. 28.
In a statement released Thursday, the hospital said that Duncan had told a nurse that he had traveled to Africa within the last four weeks, and that the nurse followed protocols by entering that information into the hospital's electronic health records system.
According to the hospital's statement, the lapse was due to "a flaw in the way the physician and nursing portions of our electronic health records (EHR) interacted in this specific case. In our electronic health records, there are separate physician and nursing workflows." The statement went on to say that, "As designed, the travel history would not automatically appear in the physician's standard workflow."
Source
|
On October 05 2014 02:43 Nyxisto wrote:
why is this always being dragged into the "blame and envy" direction? That kids of affluent and academic parents have a much higher chance to succeed in life is a statistical fact, no matter what someone's reason for pointing that out is. The discussion should resolve around whether that is okay (which most people probably don't think it is) and if it's not what we're going to do about it. These "You're just salty" accusations are just stupid.
lol because it's a lot easier to talk about emotion and subjective opinions than it is to talk about realistic public policy.
|
On October 05 2014 02:35 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2014 02:14 Gorsameth wrote:On October 05 2014 02:12 Millitron wrote:On October 05 2014 00:01 farvacola wrote:
When others point to those billionaires as imitable examples of success without a qualification as to their background's good fortune, yes, yes we should. So hold those others accountable. Its not the billionaire's fault that idiots hold them up as examples of success. On October 05 2014 01:12 IgnE wrote:
No one deserves to be a billionaire. No one deserves anything. "Deserve" is a social construct. No one is blaming the rich folk... people are blaming the Forbes article for being disingenuous. Stop putting words into peoples mouths. IgnE is.
No one deserves anything. Everything is a social construct. Nothing matters. I am millitron.
|
Rich people want to opress. Saying that they deserve their position, that they are "self made", is another way to oppress, from a symbolical perspective, but it's still oppression.
Saying that 60 % rich are "self made" is such a fraud. In those 60 %, I wonder how many came from wealthy familly in the top 5 % income. My guess is more than 90 %.
|
On October 05 2014 04:34 WhiteDog wrote:
Rich people want to opress. Saying that they deserve their position, that they are "self made", is another way to oppress, from a symbolical perspective, but it's still oppression.
Saying that 60 % rich are "self made" is such a fraud. In those 60 %, I wonder how many came from wealthy familly in the top 5 % income. My guess is more than 90 %.
That's about right, only those with a score of 10 would have been outside the top 2-10% Kind of hard to get hard numbers on some of the older peoples parents who were not particularly famous.
But Senior partners in NYC law firms and wall street big shots was enough to still get you a score of 8-9
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
