Inside the summer camps for the 1%

Tanta stultitia mortalium est. They assume that their deeds go unnoticed. That the gold they bath in is fair and square. But time after time has shown that as the elite rise higher, so does the hate towards them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unfortunately, this thread seem to be degenerating into mainly posts attacking others posting here, not a discussion of the questions suggested by the OP and explicitly asked in post 2. Such attacks are against sciforum's rules and silly when based only on assumptions about other poster's motives and character.

If this continues, I will be forced to close the thread and perhaps issue a few warnings.

By edit a day and half later:
Arne Saknussemm's posts 10, 12, & 14 were obviously the main concern I had with personal attacks. She has not tried to defend them or removed them, so with my typical light hand, I'll not give official warning, red card etc. nor even delete them for the present, just edit them to smallest type and let threat sink into the archives as it seems inclined to do.

I think it best that they are sill available as "evidence" if making personal attacks is her common Mod of Operation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think most don't care whether their deeds are noticed. It may seem the hate rises yet I don't see much changing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Would anyone claim reducing infant mortality in Europe, Australia or the USA was exactly the wrong thing to do?

 

I bet you think that is a rhetorical question, with the obvious answer: NO.

If one loves all forms of life, not just human, the correct answer may be Yes. I assume that there is more selection for intelligence or at least education, in those areas than in most of Africa and a large part of Asia, so fewer surviving in the more developed world - the only part that is capable of modifying the climate significantly as your list plus mainly China and Japan can would slowly become less numerous, as in fact they already are.

So the correct answer depends on how sustainable is intelligence at the level is has now reached in some parts of the world. I think the answer to that is not very sustainable. So to explain that POV, I'll just quote a recent post made in another forum:

Mother nature does seem to correct her mistakes, but extinction of man will not happen alone, unfortunately.

If you read some of the thread the quote is from you will learn that, methane is powerful green house gas, which is now bubbling up in the Arctic Ocean. Every Kilogram of which, during the first decade after it reaches the air, will do the same global heating as 104 kilograms of CO2 release at the same time. Also that until recently (for last 800,000 years at least) that flux of CH4 was quickly destroyed in a chemical reaction with the OH radical, destroying it too. Now the OH is being destroyed faster than natural processes can replenish it.

I. e. OH concentration in air is falling, so on average each CH4 molecule last longer. In 2003 the half-life of CH4 in the air was 9.6 years. In 2013 it was 12.6 years. That is the half life is increasing 0.3 years per year now and that is soon to be 0.5 years/ per year, then one / year etc. as OH concentration continue to decrease.

More CH4 released each year lasting more year as more than 100 times more maker of global warming is not good for life on Earth. Unfortunately the supply if CH4 is enormous. There is more carbon in the stored CH4 than all the earth's coal, (including even that fraction man has already burned.) Thus the essentially vertical spike you see in the left graph above has just started it clime to the sky. Man (and most life forms) is almost certain not going to see year 3000, and quite possibly not even year 2100. That is why "yes" it the correct answer to your question.

For more on how bad it is Read: http://www.carolynbaker.net/2014/06/13/climate-change-summary-and-update-june-2014-by-guy-mcpherson/
and visit a few of the scientific studies with links in that summary. Or any link Google will give you with search on: "near term extinction"

 

It isn't a difficult question. There should be no such wealth. If the actions of the powerful are commendable, then they should be commended for their foresight and diligence. If malicious, appropriate legal redress.

 

No it isn't. The answer for the 1% is exactly the same as for the 99%: None of your damn business.

And considering that their first example only costs $2150 (and the highest was $8,500) a week compared with Space Camp at $979, that's hardly a big enough difference to call this a camp for the 1%. The OP's article is just terrible sensationalism.

 

So when the super-wealthy start using this wealth and power to be "above the law"... it's none of our damn business?

Interesting.

 

Where in the article does it describe them being above the law?

 

Well actually it is. No one here lives in a vacuum. We live in a community and we are deeply dependent upon each other. If we existed alone and totally independent of each other like wolverines well then you would have a case to make. But that isn't how humans live, that isn't how we work. So while your commentary would rally the fools, it really isn't true and it's rather stupid.

Well actually that isn't so either, the highest cost was 12,500 (the discounted price for an eight-week stay totals $12,500) and then you need to add in transportation costs. For the 1% the expenses quoted is nothing but pocket change, but for those outside the 1%, that is about 10% or more of their after tax earnings per child per year for a few weeks of fun. That is expensive.

 

When anyone breaks the law it is our business -- again, that has nothing to do with whether they are in the 1% or the 99%. But that isn't what this thread is about: sending your kid to a summer camp, whether it costs $3,000 a week or $300,000 a week is nobody else's business.

 

Yes sending your kid to summer camp is a private decision. However, everyone has an interest in how our resources are allocated and to whom, and how those resources are used.

 

No where, it's just what you see in everyday life; the wealthy and celebrities tend to get away with a lot more than what Joe Average could ever get away with, and when they are punished, it's a slap on the wrist.

 

While that may sound all kumbayaish, but has nothing to do with the context of the thread. You are not entitled any say into what summer camp anyone else sends their kids to with their own money.

Read my quote again and try again.

I'm not sure you know what the income brackets are. The 1% starts at about $395,000. The median income is $51,000. Assuming equal travel costs of $500, that means a week of space camp for a median income earner's kid is 2.9% while the week of horse camp for a 1%ers kid is 0.7%. Even setting aside that 1%ers have more disposable income, space camp costs much more for a median earner than horse camp for a 1%er. To be equivalent, horse camp would have to cost at $5600/week.

Going the other way, horse camp is 3.8x more than space camp, so that's $194,000 or roughly the top 5%, not the top 1%. But 1% vs 99% makes for a better license plate slogan, so people just go with it even though it is usually used wrong.

Or, if you guys prefer that we should be able to tell people how much they are allowed to spend on camp, we can tell a median income earner that they are only allowed to spend at most .7% of their income (your limit for the 1%ers) on camp for a kid, or $357, which means median income earners are excluded from most camps and especially those that require a plane ride. Because we should be forcing them to spend their money on better things than camp, right?

 

Nice straw man

 

Does that mean you reread my post, found your error in reading it the first time, but are too proud to admit a simple reading error and thus are just dodging the entire thing?

Or are you saying that the strawman is that you believe that there are, in reality, different rules for the 1% and the 99%, so I shouldn't have compared them? That the 99% have the freedom to spend their money as they see fit, but the 99% are not similarly free and are not entitled to make such decisions?

 

Post 34 gives some data on the 1% wealth. Here is more from Bloomberg released today (article at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-06/the-1-may-be-richer-than-you-think-research-shows.html )

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Right column is percent of nation's wealth held by top 1%. but text below gives it for top 0.1%. - Since GWB gave tax relief for the very rich US wealth has been concentrating, so now US has the worst Gini rating of all advanced nations. (and with economy based 67% on consumer spending, is on the road to collapse, IMO. The 1%ers can't buy enough cars or eat enough steaks, etc. to keep economy's 67% consumption going and we can not sell much to the rest of the world either. = only "Big Mac" jobs for most, that cannot pay off student loans, which are now greater than total credit card debt!)

"The richest of America’s rich -- the top 0.1 percent with at least $20 million in net wealth -- held 23.5 percent of all U.S. wealth in 2012 after adding in estimates of how much was hidden in offshore tax havens, said Zucman, a visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley. That compares with his previous estimate of 21.5 percent."

Also note US is doing well, with only 3% "hidden" from IRS, etc. especially compared to Australia's 13%. The requirement, now in effect after some delays, that US citizen's report their foreign assets or pay ~30% of them in fines, has helped, but also made more that 1500 turn in their US passports in each for the last two years. I considered doing that, but don't mind (much) paying my taxes as I never paid a dime for an excellent education, that allowed me to earn salary of slightly more than $100,000, back when that was real money, just before I retired 20 years ago.

 

Stossel often makes public appearances and speeches, advocating his brand of libertarian thought. Stossel explained at the end of the December 30, 2010, episode of Stossel that he gives away his earnings from these engagements to charity; they contribute 25% of his income. The three main groups he supports with his donations are the The Doe Fund; the Central Park Conservancy (on whose board he sits); and Student Sponsor Partners (SSP), which partners low-income high school students with donors who mentor the students and pay tuition for the students to attend private school (usually Catholic schools), which Stossel says have higher graduation rates than public schools.

The Doe Fund is a nonprofit organization in the United States that provides paid transitional work, housing, educational opportunities, counseling, and career training to people with histories of homelessness, incarceration, and substance abuse.
Graduates of The Doe Fund’s flagship Ready, Willing & Able "work first" program secure permanent housing and employment and become taxpaying members of their communities, fulfilling the group’s mission to break the cycles of homelessness, addiction and criminal recidivism

 

Hmm. I see both effects - sometimes a celebrity gets off lightly because he's a celebrity, and sometimes a celebrity gets the book thrown at him because people don't like celebrities, the judge wants to make an example of him, the jury doesn't want to be seen as showing favoritism etc.

 

You lose the bet. What do I win?

Earth is a dangerous place to live. Should we live as if civilization is about to end?