• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 22:56
CEST 04:56
KST 11:56
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru3BGE Stara Zagora 2025: Info & Preview27Code S RO12 Preview: GuMiho, Bunny, SHIN, ByuN3The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL47Code S RO12 Preview: Cure, Zoun, Solar, Creator4
Community News
BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack2Weekly Cups (June 2-8): herO doubles down1[BSL20] ProLeague: Bracket Stage & Dates9GSL Ro4 and Finals moved to Sunday June 15th13Weekly Cups (May 27-June 1): ByuN goes back-to-back0
StarCraft 2
General
BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation StarCraft 1 & 2 Added to Xbox Game Pass
Tourneys
[GSL 2025] Code S:Season 2 - RO8 - Group A Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) Bellum Gens Elite: Stara Zagora 2025 $3,500 WardiTV European League 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
[G] Darkgrid Layout Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance
Brood War
General
BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion FlaSh Witnesses SCV Pull Off the Impossible vs Shu StarCraft & BroodWar Campaign Speedrun Quest Will foreigners ever be able to challenge Koreans?
Tourneys
[ASL19] Grand Finals RECOVER LOST BTC USDT FUNDS RECLAIMER COMPANY [BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET NA Team League 6/8/2025
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread What do you want from future RTS games? Armies of Exigo - YesYes? Nintendo Switch Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
LiquidLegends to reintegrate into TL.net
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Vape Nation Thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
Maru Fan Club Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
A Better Routine For Progame…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 30682 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2448

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 5017 Next
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!

NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.

Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.


If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread
Sr18
Profile Joined April 2006
Netherlands1141 Posts
June 24 2020 11:47 GMT
#48941
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.
If it ain't Dutch, it ain't Park Yeong Min - CJ fighting!
Sbrubbles
Profile Joined October 2010
Brazil5776 Posts
June 24 2020 11:49 GMT
#48942
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.
Bora Pain minha porra!
Zambrah
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
United States7241 Posts
June 24 2020 11:52 GMT
#48943
I mean, increasing wealth inequality wasn’t something mentioned that’s a problem for this, so
I guess just generating 50% more wealth and giving 99% of it to the top 3 earners counts as a win in a technical sense?
Incremental change is the Democrat version of Trickle Down economics.
Sbrubbles
Profile Joined October 2010
Brazil5776 Posts
June 24 2020 11:53 GMT
#48944
On June 24 2020 20:52 Zambrah wrote:
I mean, increasing wealth inequality wasn’t something mentioned that’s a problem for this, so
I guess just generating 50% more wealth and giving 99% of it to the top 3 earners counts as a win in a technical sense?

Math checks out.
Bora Pain minha porra!
Sr18
Profile Joined April 2006
Netherlands1141 Posts
June 24 2020 12:05 GMT
#48945
On June 24 2020 20:49 Sbrubbles wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.


Constant relative wealth inequality isn't the goal. Maximum wealth increase for the vast majority of the population is. Whether this increases or decreases wealth equality is irrelevant.

To put it bluntly, my happiness is much more influenced by my own wealth than it is by someone elses. I don't care much about how much money Bill Gates has. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Gates winning doesn't equate me losing. I propose we focus more on everyone winning and less on preventing some people from winning more than others.
If it ain't Dutch, it ain't Park Yeong Min - CJ fighting!
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18821 Posts
Last Edited: 2020-06-24 12:09:30
June 24 2020 12:09 GMT
#48946
On June 24 2020 21:05 Sr18 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2020 20:49 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.


Constant relative wealth inequality isn't the goal. Maximum wealth increase for the vast majority of the population is. Whether this increases or decreases wealth equality is irrelevant.

To put it bluntly, my happiness is much more influenced by my own wealth than it is by someone elses. I don't care much about how much money Bill Gates has. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Gates winning doesn't equate me losing. I propose we focus more on everyone winning and less on preventing some people from winning more than others.

Your own wealth is irreducibly tied to the wealth of other people, so you've created a sort of tautology here that is strikingly lacking in use aside from attacking one dimensional notions of wealth redistribution. You're going to have to account for the impact of other's people's wealth on the value of your wealth and what we do with wealth in society in order to actually say something substantive about whether inequality is or is not a problem.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Sbrubbles
Profile Joined October 2010
Brazil5776 Posts
June 24 2020 12:22 GMT
#48947
On June 24 2020 21:05 Sr18 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2020 20:49 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.


Constant relative wealth inequality isn't the goal. Maximum wealth increase for the vast majority of the population is. Whether this increases or decreases wealth equality is irrelevant.

To put it bluntly, my happiness is much more influenced by my own wealth than it is by someone elses. I don't care much about how much money Bill Gates has. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Gates winning doesn't equate me losing. I propose we focus more on everyone winning and less on preventing some people from winning more than others.


My goal was answering the question "How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?". Your answer to said question was insufficient and I pointed out how.

If you want to answer a different question, maybe one that wasn't asked, like "how do you maximize welfare?", you should make that clearer.
Bora Pain minha porra!
Zambrah
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
United States7241 Posts
June 24 2020 12:23 GMT
#48948
On June 24 2020 21:05 Sr18 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2020 20:49 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.


Constant relative wealth inequality isn't the goal. Maximum wealth increase for the vast majority of the population is. Whether this increases or decreases wealth equality is irrelevant.

To put it bluntly, my happiness is much more influenced by my own wealth than it is by someone elses. I don't care much about how much money Bill Gates has. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Gates winning doesn't equate me losing. I propose we focus more on everyone winning and less on preventing some people from winning more than others.


Would you care how much Bill Gates had if he was withdrawing money from your checking account once in a while?
Incremental change is the Democrat version of Trickle Down economics.
Sr18
Profile Joined April 2006
Netherlands1141 Posts
Last Edited: 2020-06-24 12:50:26
June 24 2020 12:49 GMT
#48949
On June 24 2020 21:22 Sbrubbles wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2020 21:05 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:49 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.


Constant relative wealth inequality isn't the goal. Maximum wealth increase for the vast majority of the population is. Whether this increases or decreases wealth equality is irrelevant.

To put it bluntly, my happiness is much more influenced by my own wealth than it is by someone elses. I don't care much about how much money Bill Gates has. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Gates winning doesn't equate me losing. I propose we focus more on everyone winning and less on preventing some people from winning more than others.


My goal was answering the question "How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?". Your answer to said question was insufficient and I pointed out how.

If you want to answer a different question, maybe one that wasn't asked, like "how do you maximize welfare?", you should make that clearer.


I think there is a misunderstanding. I'm not saying that we must preserve wealth inequality. I'm just saying that we should focus on making the average person wealthier. Zambrah's question implies that you can only achieve this goal by reducing wealth inequality. Which is wrong. If you increase the overall wealth, you can increase the wealth of the average person without neccessarily decreasing wealth inequality.

My point is that wealth inequality is only very loosely related to the wealth of the average person. Reducing wealth inequality should never be more than a means to increase the wealth of the average person. And if that goal can be better achieved without reducing (or maybe even increasing) wealth inequality, than that has my preference. So the focus should be on the goal (increasing wealth of the average person) and not on one loosely related means to get it (wealth redistribution).

On June 24 2020 21:09 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2020 21:05 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:49 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.


Constant relative wealth inequality isn't the goal. Maximum wealth increase for the vast majority of the population is. Whether this increases or decreases wealth equality is irrelevant.

To put it bluntly, my happiness is much more influenced by my own wealth than it is by someone elses. I don't care much about how much money Bill Gates has. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Gates winning doesn't equate me losing. I propose we focus more on everyone winning and less on preventing some people from winning more than others.

Your own wealth is irreducibly tied to the wealth of other people, so you've created a sort of tautology here that is strikingly lacking in use aside from attacking one dimensional notions of wealth redistribution. You're going to have to account for the impact of other's people's wealth on the value of your wealth and what we do with wealth in society in order to actually say something substantive about whether inequality is or is not a problem.


I don't agree with this. Let's distribute 10 marbles. You get 7, I get 3. If I can improve my situation to having 5 marbles, I'd be happy. Because 5 is more than 3. How many marbles you have in the new situation is irrelevant to me. You can have 5 as well, or 30. Either way, I'd have 2 more marbles than I had before.

And I'm not talking about money by the way, in which case my wealth is obviously tied to yours. I'm talking actual wealth: goods, services etc. You having many nice houses in no way devalues the worth of my house to me.

On June 24 2020 21:23 Zambrah wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2020 21:05 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:49 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.


Constant relative wealth inequality isn't the goal. Maximum wealth increase for the vast majority of the population is. Whether this increases or decreases wealth equality is irrelevant.

To put it bluntly, my happiness is much more influenced by my own wealth than it is by someone elses. I don't care much about how much money Bill Gates has. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Gates winning doesn't equate me losing. I propose we focus more on everyone winning and less on preventing some people from winning more than others.


Would you care how much Bill Gates had if he was withdrawing money from your checking account once in a while?


No? I would care about him withdrawing my money, not about how much money he already has. How are these things related?
If it ain't Dutch, it ain't Park Yeong Min - CJ fighting!
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18821 Posts
Last Edited: 2020-06-24 13:20:50
June 24 2020 13:20 GMT
#48950
Money and assets aren't sterilized variables qua marbles, so that's a poor comparison, and wealth does not exist in this world in a vacuum divorced from the means with which we account for it, so you're basically talking about a thing that doesn't exist in the real world, which is fine so long as you're only making a point about this imaginary world you've constructed. Assets don't have magically separable intrinsic properties of owner-adjudged value that can be used to attack indictments of wealth inequality. In other words, "value to me" is irreducibly connected with the societal and transactional notions of what value means as a general concept, and pretending otherwise doesn't change anything.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
June 24 2020 13:31 GMT
#48951
On June 24 2020 16:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2020 16:35 LegalLord wrote:
It does not escape notice that this program in particular is one of the key tools that is heavily used by that very capitalist class to drive down wages, employment, working conditions, and so on.

Perhaps the concern is that it’s ultimately misguided, that there’s a better way to achieve the end goal with less misdirection. If we want a fully leftist approach, the one that the French came up with at the end of the 18th century seems extremely topical. It’s not really viable right now, nor without its own fair bit of collateral damage, but definitely far more consistent with your desired end state. I’m admittedly not willing to support that right now.

In terms of what does and doesn’t empower the capitalist class to propagate the undesirable employment conditions mentioned herein, cutting off a source of cheap, highly exploitable labor seems to be a good step in the right direction. So I’m game; nice work from Team Trump.


Just like all the laws and concentration camps aren't there to actually stop immigrants doing farm/manual labor, neither is suspension of H1-Bs meant to stop the more educated immigrants from working. It's used as leverage/looming threat over the workers and individual businesses to further drive down wages and conditions.

Instead of "losing job slots to immigrants" or them accepting lesser wages and conditions at the workplaces you share, they'll be put into corrupt channels where they'll be exploited further and the job will disappear from your workplace and the workload outsourced to those less reputable enterprises.

This is actually one of Trump's specialties (to the degree he has any).

That is true - take away one tool of the wealthy, they have plenty more. That's one they've used plenty in the past.

But let's take this in a somewhat different direction. You've made the argument that it's not very left-wing, not very "correct" in a cosmic sort of way, what have you. Alright, so what if we move past the notion of "this is inconsistent with my meta-analysis of the situation" and ask, what's the policy alternative? Assert that there is no problem? The guillotine approach? Some other plan that has yet to be enumerated? None of the above, but "wise, vague philosopher" is a fun game to play? I'm interested in knowing what happens when you bring your entire line of argument back into the realm of the concrete and specific.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
June 24 2020 13:49 GMT
#48952
--- Nuked ---
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23071 Posts
Last Edited: 2020-06-24 14:30:43
June 24 2020 14:08 GMT
#48953
On June 24 2020 22:31 LegalLord wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2020 16:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
On June 24 2020 16:35 LegalLord wrote:
It does not escape notice that this program in particular is one of the key tools that is heavily used by that very capitalist class to drive down wages, employment, working conditions, and so on.

Perhaps the concern is that it’s ultimately misguided, that there’s a better way to achieve the end goal with less misdirection. If we want a fully leftist approach, the one that the French came up with at the end of the 18th century seems extremely topical. It’s not really viable right now, nor without its own fair bit of collateral damage, but definitely far more consistent with your desired end state. I’m admittedly not willing to support that right now.

In terms of what does and doesn’t empower the capitalist class to propagate the undesirable employment conditions mentioned herein, cutting off a source of cheap, highly exploitable labor seems to be a good step in the right direction. So I’m game; nice work from Team Trump.


Just like all the laws and concentration camps aren't there to actually stop immigrants doing farm/manual labor, neither is suspension of H1-Bs meant to stop the more educated immigrants from working. It's used as leverage/looming threat over the workers and individual businesses to further drive down wages and conditions.

Instead of "losing job slots to immigrants" or them accepting lesser wages and conditions at the workplaces you share, they'll be put into corrupt channels where they'll be exploited further and the job will disappear from your workplace and the workload outsourced to those less reputable enterprises.

This is actually one of Trump's specialties (to the degree he has any).

That is true - take away one tool of the wealthy, they have plenty more. That's one they've used plenty in the past.

But let's take this in a somewhat different direction. You've made the argument that it's not very left-wing, not very "correct" in a cosmic sort of way, what have you. Alright, so what if we move past the notion of "this is inconsistent with my meta-analysis of the situation" and ask, what's the policy alternative? Assert that there is no problem? The guillotine approach? Some other plan that has yet to be enumerated? None of the above, but "wise, vague philosopher" is a fun game to play? I'm interested in knowing what happens when you bring your entire line of argument back into the realm of the concrete and specific.


Ideally before we arrive back at the realm of the concrete and specific we've agreed on the meta-analysis which carries with it the implication that the "policy alternative" is one we have to construct together, not something I can prescribe (even if I could manifest a perfect policy in my head and articulate it perfectly). That's not how we become "more fully human" in Freireian sense.

With that in mind, the question is imo: what are some of our ideas to begin to address this in a substantial way.

Many people have considered this kind of quandary, I agree with a popular consensus that there must be a thoughtful plan capable of being amended according to conditions. That to achieve this plan it must be borne from the ether by the people for which the ensuing policy is intended to govern.

I have preferences but the notion that we could take one or more of them and dissect it with the intent of proving the exercise in changing policy fruitless misses the entire conceptual framework for what it is.

If the entirety of left thought could be summarized in a post concisely articulating a bulletproof plan to achieve a just society these people, many of which exponentially more knowledgeable than myself wouldn't have bothered turning it into countless pages of books, and countless hours of speaking/organizing actions.

Which is mostly to say if we are to explore potential avenues toward remedies we must have expectations based in our material conditions.

EDIT: To say this another way: Whatever ideas I have are just that, my (at least my interpretations) of ideas. Even if they were all totally trash, it would tell us virtually nothing about the potential for the process to yield our desired results.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17953 Posts
June 24 2020 14:16 GMT
#48954
On June 24 2020 21:49 Sr18 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2020 21:22 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 21:05 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:49 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.


Constant relative wealth inequality isn't the goal. Maximum wealth increase for the vast majority of the population is. Whether this increases or decreases wealth equality is irrelevant.

To put it bluntly, my happiness is much more influenced by my own wealth than it is by someone elses. I don't care much about how much money Bill Gates has. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Gates winning doesn't equate me losing. I propose we focus more on everyone winning and less on preventing some people from winning more than others.


My goal was answering the question "How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?". Your answer to said question was insufficient and I pointed out how.

If you want to answer a different question, maybe one that wasn't asked, like "how do you maximize welfare?", you should make that clearer.


I think there is a misunderstanding. I'm not saying that we must preserve wealth inequality. I'm just saying that we should focus on making the average person wealthier. Zambrah's question implies that you can only achieve this goal by reducing wealth inequality. Which is wrong. If you increase the overall wealth, you can increase the wealth of the average person without neccessarily decreasing wealth inequality.

My point is that wealth inequality is only very loosely related to the wealth of the average person. Reducing wealth inequality should never be more than a means to increase the wealth of the average person. And if that goal can be better achieved without reducing (or maybe even increasing) wealth inequality, than that has my preference. So the focus should be on the goal (increasing wealth of the average person) and not on one loosely related means to get it (wealth redistribution).

Show nested quote +
On June 24 2020 21:09 farvacola wrote:
On June 24 2020 21:05 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:49 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.


Constant relative wealth inequality isn't the goal. Maximum wealth increase for the vast majority of the population is. Whether this increases or decreases wealth equality is irrelevant.

To put it bluntly, my happiness is much more influenced by my own wealth than it is by someone elses. I don't care much about how much money Bill Gates has. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Gates winning doesn't equate me losing. I propose we focus more on everyone winning and less on preventing some people from winning more than others.

Your own wealth is irreducibly tied to the wealth of other people, so you've created a sort of tautology here that is strikingly lacking in use aside from attacking one dimensional notions of wealth redistribution. You're going to have to account for the impact of other's people's wealth on the value of your wealth and what we do with wealth in society in order to actually say something substantive about whether inequality is or is not a problem.


I don't agree with this. Let's distribute 10 marbles. You get 7, I get 3. If I can improve my situation to having 5 marbles, I'd be happy. Because 5 is more than 3. How many marbles you have in the new situation is irrelevant to me. You can have 5 as well, or 30. Either way, I'd have 2 more marbles than I had before.

And I'm not talking about money by the way, in which case my wealth is obviously tied to yours. I'm talking actual wealth: goods, services etc. You having many nice houses in no way devalues the worth of my house to me.

Show nested quote +
On June 24 2020 21:23 Zambrah wrote:
On June 24 2020 21:05 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:49 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.


Constant relative wealth inequality isn't the goal. Maximum wealth increase for the vast majority of the population is. Whether this increases or decreases wealth equality is irrelevant.

To put it bluntly, my happiness is much more influenced by my own wealth than it is by someone elses. I don't care much about how much money Bill Gates has. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Gates winning doesn't equate me losing. I propose we focus more on everyone winning and less on preventing some people from winning more than others.


Would you care how much Bill Gates had if he was withdrawing money from your checking account once in a while?


No? I would care about him withdrawing my money, not about how much money he already has. How are these things related?


Okay, but if everybody has 5 marbles on average all of a sudden, rather than 3, then initially they can use that to buy some nice stuff, which creates a scarcity, and the price of the nice stuff goes up accordingly. And suddenly they can all buy with their 5 marbles what they could before buy with 3 marbles. Meanwhile the rich guy has gone from 7 to 15 marbles... he used to be able to buy 2 1/3 times the nice stuff you could, but now he can buy 3x that, which further increases scarcity of that nice stuff, so the price actually goes up even further. Moreover, the people selling you food and other basic necessities also want nice stuff, and to pay for that, they now need to sell the food at a higher price, so you actually have *less* marbles left over to buy nice stuff as compared to when you had 3 marbles. GG. You just got wrecked by inflation.
thePunGun
Profile Blog Joined January 2016
598 Posts
Last Edited: 2020-06-24 14:20:02
June 24 2020 14:19 GMT
#48955
On June 24 2020 22:49 JimmiC wrote:
The Trump spin machine has made there choice and it is that the Tulsa rally was the most watched saturday night show ever and that the scary protesters not the virus kept people away. This article goes into it all in much more detail for those interested.



https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/trump-tries-to-recast-tulsa-rally-no-shows/ar-BB15TNJL?li=AAggNb9


Well, we humans are weird creatures..
We always have and always will believe whatever suits us best. The earth is flat, the moon landing didn't happen, 911 was an inside job, Columbus was a good guy and the first who discovered the new world are just some of the highlights..
"You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself."
WombaT
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Northern Ireland24839 Posts
June 24 2020 14:27 GMT
#48956
I must say I’m a little confused with the support here for aspects
of this visa restriction when weighing it with the positions of others.

Is this particular type of visa ripe with abuse or something I’m not getting or is it supplanting qualified graduates and rendering degrees less valuable or what?

Not being from the States I feel I’m missing some angle on this one.
'You'll always be the cuddly marsupial of my heart, despite the inherent flaws of your ancestry' - Squat
Sr18
Profile Joined April 2006
Netherlands1141 Posts
June 24 2020 14:32 GMT
#48957
On June 24 2020 23:16 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2020 21:49 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 21:22 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 21:05 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:49 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.


Constant relative wealth inequality isn't the goal. Maximum wealth increase for the vast majority of the population is. Whether this increases or decreases wealth equality is irrelevant.

To put it bluntly, my happiness is much more influenced by my own wealth than it is by someone elses. I don't care much about how much money Bill Gates has. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Gates winning doesn't equate me losing. I propose we focus more on everyone winning and less on preventing some people from winning more than others.


My goal was answering the question "How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?". Your answer to said question was insufficient and I pointed out how.

If you want to answer a different question, maybe one that wasn't asked, like "how do you maximize welfare?", you should make that clearer.


I think there is a misunderstanding. I'm not saying that we must preserve wealth inequality. I'm just saying that we should focus on making the average person wealthier. Zambrah's question implies that you can only achieve this goal by reducing wealth inequality. Which is wrong. If you increase the overall wealth, you can increase the wealth of the average person without neccessarily decreasing wealth inequality.

My point is that wealth inequality is only very loosely related to the wealth of the average person. Reducing wealth inequality should never be more than a means to increase the wealth of the average person. And if that goal can be better achieved without reducing (or maybe even increasing) wealth inequality, than that has my preference. So the focus should be on the goal (increasing wealth of the average person) and not on one loosely related means to get it (wealth redistribution).

On June 24 2020 21:09 farvacola wrote:
On June 24 2020 21:05 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:49 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.


Constant relative wealth inequality isn't the goal. Maximum wealth increase for the vast majority of the population is. Whether this increases or decreases wealth equality is irrelevant.

To put it bluntly, my happiness is much more influenced by my own wealth than it is by someone elses. I don't care much about how much money Bill Gates has. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Gates winning doesn't equate me losing. I propose we focus more on everyone winning and less on preventing some people from winning more than others.

Your own wealth is irreducibly tied to the wealth of other people, so you've created a sort of tautology here that is strikingly lacking in use aside from attacking one dimensional notions of wealth redistribution. You're going to have to account for the impact of other's people's wealth on the value of your wealth and what we do with wealth in society in order to actually say something substantive about whether inequality is or is not a problem.


I don't agree with this. Let's distribute 10 marbles. You get 7, I get 3. If I can improve my situation to having 5 marbles, I'd be happy. Because 5 is more than 3. How many marbles you have in the new situation is irrelevant to me. You can have 5 as well, or 30. Either way, I'd have 2 more marbles than I had before.

And I'm not talking about money by the way, in which case my wealth is obviously tied to yours. I'm talking actual wealth: goods, services etc. You having many nice houses in no way devalues the worth of my house to me.

On June 24 2020 21:23 Zambrah wrote:
On June 24 2020 21:05 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:49 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.


Constant relative wealth inequality isn't the goal. Maximum wealth increase for the vast majority of the population is. Whether this increases or decreases wealth equality is irrelevant.

To put it bluntly, my happiness is much more influenced by my own wealth than it is by someone elses. I don't care much about how much money Bill Gates has. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Gates winning doesn't equate me losing. I propose we focus more on everyone winning and less on preventing some people from winning more than others.


Would you care how much Bill Gates had if he was withdrawing money from your checking account once in a while?


No? I would care about him withdrawing my money, not about how much money he already has. How are these things related?


Okay, but if everybody has 5 marbles on average all of a sudden, rather than 3, then initially they can use that to buy some nice stuff, which creates a scarcity, and the price of the nice stuff goes up accordingly. And suddenly they can all buy with their 5 marbles what they could before buy with 3 marbles. Meanwhile the rich guy has gone from 7 to 15 marbles... he used to be able to buy 2 1/3 times the nice stuff you could, but now he can buy 3x that, which further increases scarcity of that nice stuff, so the price actually goes up even further. Moreover, the people selling you food and other basic necessities also want nice stuff, and to pay for that, they now need to sell the food at a higher price, so you actually have *less* marbles left over to buy nice stuff as compared to when you had 3 marbles. GG. You just got wrecked by inflation.


Like I said, the marbles do not represent money, they represent actual wealth. So it's not using the marbles to buy some nice stuff, the marbles are the nice stuff. There is simply more nice stuff to go around. It might not be distributed evenly, but everyone has more nice stuff than they had before. That's what increasing wealth is all about.

On June 24 2020 22:20 farvacola wrote:
Money and assets aren't sterilized variables qua marbles, so that's a poor comparison, and wealth does not exist in this world in a vacuum divorced from the means with which we account for it, so you're basically talking about a thing that doesn't exist in the real world, which is fine so long as you're only making a point about this imaginary world you've constructed. Assets don't have magically separable intrinsic properties of owner-adjudged value that can be used to attack indictments of wealth inequality. In other words, "value to me" is irreducibly connected with the societal and transactional notions of what value means as a general concept, and pretending otherwise doesn't change anything.


It's not a point about an imaginary world. It's a point about our world. This increase in wealth has happened throughout human history. We are wealthier than our cavemen ancesters, eventhough the wealth inequality is much larger than it was then. It's also a point about our more recent history. The average westerner is wealthier than his equivalent was in the 1950s, while at the same time the wealth inequality has increased. So I'm not sure what exactly you are disagreeing with.

If it ain't Dutch, it ain't Park Yeong Min - CJ fighting!
Salazarz
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
Korea (South)2591 Posts
June 24 2020 14:33 GMT
#48958
On June 24 2020 21:05 Sr18 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2020 20:49 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.


Constant relative wealth inequality isn't the goal. Maximum wealth increase for the vast majority of the population is. Whether this increases or decreases wealth equality is irrelevant.

To put it bluntly, my happiness is much more influenced by my own wealth than it is by someone elses. I don't care much about how much money Bill Gates has. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Gates winning doesn't equate me losing. I propose we focus more on everyone winning and less on preventing some people from winning more than others.


You have a very poor understanding of economics if you think that's how it works. Wealth is a zero sum game, because resources aren't infinite and inflation is a thing.
Salazarz
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
Korea (South)2591 Posts
June 24 2020 14:36 GMT
#48959
On June 24 2020 23:33 Salazarz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2020 21:05 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:49 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.


Constant relative wealth inequality isn't the goal. Maximum wealth increase for the vast majority of the population is. Whether this increases or decreases wealth equality is irrelevant.

To put it bluntly, my happiness is much more influenced by my own wealth than it is by someone elses. I don't care much about how much money Bill Gates has. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Gates winning doesn't equate me losing. I propose we focus more on everyone winning and less on preventing some people from winning more than others.


You have a very poor understanding of economics if you think that's how it works. Wealth is a zero sum game, because resources aren't infinite and inflation is a thing.


It's not a point about an imaginary world. It's a point about our world. This increase in wealth has happened throughout human history. We are wealthier than our cavemen ancesters, eventhough the wealth inequality is much larger than it was then. It's also a point about our more recent history. The average westerner is wealthier than his equivalent was in the 1950s, while at the same time the wealth inequality has increased. So I'm not sure what exactly you are disagreeing with.


See, this is a nice sentiment, except that the average westerner's productivity has increased significantly more than the average westerner's standard of living. In fact, over the last few decades income adjusted for inflation & cost of living has been stagnant or declining in most of the developed world. You're trying to say that the wealthy elites 'deserve' to benefit more from the productivity and technological innovation than the rest of the plebs, because that's how it always has been -- but that's a pretty hollow argument to make.
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17953 Posts
June 24 2020 15:20 GMT
#48960
On June 24 2020 23:32 Sr18 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2020 23:16 Acrofales wrote:
On June 24 2020 21:49 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 21:22 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 21:05 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:49 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.


Constant relative wealth inequality isn't the goal. Maximum wealth increase for the vast majority of the population is. Whether this increases or decreases wealth equality is irrelevant.

To put it bluntly, my happiness is much more influenced by my own wealth than it is by someone elses. I don't care much about how much money Bill Gates has. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Gates winning doesn't equate me losing. I propose we focus more on everyone winning and less on preventing some people from winning more than others.


My goal was answering the question "How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?". Your answer to said question was insufficient and I pointed out how.

If you want to answer a different question, maybe one that wasn't asked, like "how do you maximize welfare?", you should make that clearer.


I think there is a misunderstanding. I'm not saying that we must preserve wealth inequality. I'm just saying that we should focus on making the average person wealthier. Zambrah's question implies that you can only achieve this goal by reducing wealth inequality. Which is wrong. If you increase the overall wealth, you can increase the wealth of the average person without neccessarily decreasing wealth inequality.

My point is that wealth inequality is only very loosely related to the wealth of the average person. Reducing wealth inequality should never be more than a means to increase the wealth of the average person. And if that goal can be better achieved without reducing (or maybe even increasing) wealth inequality, than that has my preference. So the focus should be on the goal (increasing wealth of the average person) and not on one loosely related means to get it (wealth redistribution).

On June 24 2020 21:09 farvacola wrote:
On June 24 2020 21:05 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:49 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.


Constant relative wealth inequality isn't the goal. Maximum wealth increase for the vast majority of the population is. Whether this increases or decreases wealth equality is irrelevant.

To put it bluntly, my happiness is much more influenced by my own wealth than it is by someone elses. I don't care much about how much money Bill Gates has. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Gates winning doesn't equate me losing. I propose we focus more on everyone winning and less on preventing some people from winning more than others.

Your own wealth is irreducibly tied to the wealth of other people, so you've created a sort of tautology here that is strikingly lacking in use aside from attacking one dimensional notions of wealth redistribution. You're going to have to account for the impact of other's people's wealth on the value of your wealth and what we do with wealth in society in order to actually say something substantive about whether inequality is or is not a problem.


I don't agree with this. Let's distribute 10 marbles. You get 7, I get 3. If I can improve my situation to having 5 marbles, I'd be happy. Because 5 is more than 3. How many marbles you have in the new situation is irrelevant to me. You can have 5 as well, or 30. Either way, I'd have 2 more marbles than I had before.

And I'm not talking about money by the way, in which case my wealth is obviously tied to yours. I'm talking actual wealth: goods, services etc. You having many nice houses in no way devalues the worth of my house to me.

On June 24 2020 21:23 Zambrah wrote:
On June 24 2020 21:05 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:49 Sbrubbles wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:47 Sr18 wrote:
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote:
How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though?


By creating more wealth.


No, that is insufficient. If you want constant relative wealth inequality you have to create wealth for everyone in proportion to their current wealth.


Constant relative wealth inequality isn't the goal. Maximum wealth increase for the vast majority of the population is. Whether this increases or decreases wealth equality is irrelevant.

To put it bluntly, my happiness is much more influenced by my own wealth than it is by someone elses. I don't care much about how much money Bill Gates has. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Gates winning doesn't equate me losing. I propose we focus more on everyone winning and less on preventing some people from winning more than others.


Would you care how much Bill Gates had if he was withdrawing money from your checking account once in a while?


No? I would care about him withdrawing my money, not about how much money he already has. How are these things related?


Okay, but if everybody has 5 marbles on average all of a sudden, rather than 3, then initially they can use that to buy some nice stuff, which creates a scarcity, and the price of the nice stuff goes up accordingly. And suddenly they can all buy with their 5 marbles what they could before buy with 3 marbles. Meanwhile the rich guy has gone from 7 to 15 marbles... he used to be able to buy 2 1/3 times the nice stuff you could, but now he can buy 3x that, which further increases scarcity of that nice stuff, so the price actually goes up even further. Moreover, the people selling you food and other basic necessities also want nice stuff, and to pay for that, they now need to sell the food at a higher price, so you actually have *less* marbles left over to buy nice stuff as compared to when you had 3 marbles. GG. You just got wrecked by inflation.


Like I said, the marbles do not represent money, they represent actual wealth. So it's not using the marbles to buy some nice stuff, the marbles are the nice stuff. There is simply more nice stuff to go around. It might not be distributed evenly, but everyone has more nice stuff than they had before. That's what increasing wealth is all about.

Show nested quote +
On June 24 2020 22:20 farvacola wrote:
Money and assets aren't sterilized variables qua marbles, so that's a poor comparison, and wealth does not exist in this world in a vacuum divorced from the means with which we account for it, so you're basically talking about a thing that doesn't exist in the real world, which is fine so long as you're only making a point about this imaginary world you've constructed. Assets don't have magically separable intrinsic properties of owner-adjudged value that can be used to attack indictments of wealth inequality. In other words, "value to me" is irreducibly connected with the societal and transactional notions of what value means as a general concept, and pretending otherwise doesn't change anything.


It's not a point about an imaginary world. It's a point about our world. This increase in wealth has happened throughout human history. We are wealthier than our cavemen ancesters, eventhough the wealth inequality is much larger than it was then. It's also a point about our more recent history. The average westerner is wealthier than his equivalent was in the 1950s, while at the same time the wealth inequality has increased. So I'm not sure what exactly you are disagreeing with.



Depends a lot on how you measure wealth. I don't think you can compare wealth over time at all, because technology progresses, and with it productivity, but also what we consider essential to a comfortable life. In the middle ages, that would have been food on the table, a roof over your head, protection from highway men and a lord who doesn't rape your wife and daughters and take your sons off to fight in a pointless war against his neighbours (or worse yet, on a crusade). Getting sick was just part of the deal, and education was not something anybody really thought of at all.

Nowadays a "bare minimum" is all of the above (except that instead of gruel and vegetables, we want strawberries in the winter, mangos and avocados, and a good cut of meat every day), 6 years of primary school, a decent healthcare system, a car, broadband internet, and the capability to travel to a nice holiday destination once or twice a year. Oh, and instead of darning socks and having a washing day, we buy new socks and have a washing machine. So yes, wealth has quite obviously increased, but so has what we expect as the bare minimum for a life with dignity. Now the smaller the margin is between "average wealth" and that minimum expectation is a far more valuable measure of where we are as a society than whether we are wealthier than 50, 100 or 5000 years ago.

Moreover, we have realized that the wealth growth throughout history has actually come at a cost of destroying our planet. We are reducing biodiversity, pumping noxious gases into our air, turning the whole climate upside down and consuming all manner of minerals at an alarming rate. Blindly increasing wealth *overall* by pushing productivity increasingly upwards is not a long-term plan anymore. If you add "a pleasant living environment" to your minimum requirements, then turning our planet into a toxic hellhole for the sake of a few marbles is no longer an option.
Prev 1 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 5017 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
PiGosaur Monday
00:00
#35
PiGStarcraft622
CranKy Ducklings156
SteadfastSC143
davetesta36
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PiGStarcraft622
RuFF_SC2 158
SteadfastSC 143
Nina 140
Livibee 28
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 28901
Sea 2956
Nal_rA 115
Sharp 67
Icarus 8
Dota 2
LuMiX1
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor94
Other Games
summit1g8375
shahzam1155
WinterStarcraft415
ToD290
ViBE171
Maynarde136
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1050
BasetradeTV97
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH270
• Hupsaiya 40
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Migwel
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• Azhi_Dahaki11
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Shiphtur993
• Lourlo307
Other Games
• Scarra909
Upcoming Events
GSL Code S
6h 35m
Rogue vs GuMiho
Maru vs Solar
Online Event
21h 5m
Replay Cast
23h 5m
GSL Code S
1d 6h
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Bunny
The PondCast
1d 7h
Replay Cast
1d 21h
WardiTV Invitational
2 days
OSC
2 days
Korean StarCraft League
3 days
SOOP
3 days
[ Show More ]
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
WardiTV Invitational
3 days
Cheesadelphia
3 days
CSO Cup
3 days
GSL Code S
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Wardi Open
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Cure vs Percival
ByuN vs Spirit
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Season 17: Qualifier 2
BGE Stara Zagora 2025
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
2025 GSL S2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025

Upcoming

Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.