Solutions?

[Sarkus]

This is a double edged sword. If you rely on the government to take care of you, you save less. If you have to take care of yourself, you are forced to save more.

I would have thought in the US that more would feel they have to take care of themselves, than is the case in the UK? Therefore, from what you're saying here, you should expect more people in the US to have savings - at least above the $500 level, right? But that's not what we're seeing, is it.

Or are you saying that more people in the US feel they can rely on the gov't, and therefore don't feel they need to save?
If so, is there anything to support that? Or are you just inferring that from the larger % with low savings?

Is the cause of low savings, therefore, because they feel they can rely on the government, or is it because they don't get paid sufficiently to be able to save anything?

 

[Tiassa]

Parmalee can tell someone they are a fucking idiot, are functionally illiterate and rather than saying, "hey dude, let's not do that" you will jump in and lecture me even though you basically agree with 99% of what I say.

This is actually an interesting consideration of its own: The flip-side of this is being in a room where lying and defamation are protected speech because without it one thinks political views will be suppressed. That is to say, the underlying worry is that if certain arguments are obliged to reasonable honesty, they are de facto silenced.

I've long wondered about people who have trouble with the next step: If expectation of integrity is what silences an argument, then the argument lacked integrity.

And in a place like Sciforums, that's been going on so long that it seems just silly for people to keep pretending anew.

The basic problem your conduct presents is whether it is actually sinister or merely stupid. And since you're so awful at explaining yourself, other people have to do a certain amount of your thinking for you if they intend to carry on a discussion. To the one, sometimes it's obvious; to the other, it's not the best of practices; to the ski-boxer's third, at the point that other people need to write so many excuses for you or anyone else, some will inevitably wonder why. Idiocy, functional illiteracy, stupidity; the flip-side is the sinister, the prospect that one knows perfectly well what they are doing when behaving so poorly.

One of the reasons people like you find yourselves bawling about superficial comparatives is that that you're being so superficial. It's one thing if you can't do any better, but if that's the case, then no, people should not take what you say seriously; if we're supposed to forgive the mean spirit per noncompetency of the offender, then that noncompetency is a substantial consideration in understanding their argument.

So, is the problem that you can't help yourself, or that you can?

 

[Seattle]

I would have thought in the US that more would feel they have to take care of themselves, than is the case in the UK? Therefore, from what you're saying here, you should expect more people in the US to have savings - at least above the $500 level, right? But that's not what we're seeing, is it.

Or are you saying that more people in the US feel they can rely on the gov't, and therefore don't feel they need to save?
If so, is there anything to support that? Or are you just inferring that from the larger % with low savings?

Is the cause of low savings, therefore, because they feel they can rely on the government, or is it because they don't get paid sufficiently to be able to save anything?

I don't know. Do you have data to support that?

Anyway, I'm saying it seems the attitude in the UK is to rely more on the government. Am I wrong? If not, then, as I said, it's a two edged sword.

In the US, there is less reliance on the government so some will have to rely on themselves more. Do you disagree with that logic?

There are many people with poor financial planning skills. Do you disagree with that? There are many people who make enough to save (the majority) and if they don't, it's a personal issue. They either don't save for a rainy day (what's new) or they literally respond that they have no "savings" when it's all put way in investment accounts.

I haven't had a "savings" account since I was 6 years old. We know, in the US, that unemployment is low and the economy is "good" so what is the problem?

Is the solution in the UK, for example, that taxes need to be higher so that those without savings can be provided with savings? What exactly is your position on this? Will there ever be a situation involving a human society where those at the bottom all have plenty of savings for emergencies?

Why do you think things are so expensive? Is it because of the government debasing the currency due to overspending? What would the solution be? If it's because things are so expensive as you seem to suggest, should be lower prices or give people more money?

 

[Tiassa]

I would have thought in the US that more would feel they have to take care of themselves, than is the case in the UK? Therefore, from what you're saying here, you should expect more people in the US to have savings - at least above the $500 level, right? But that's not what we're seeing, is it ....

.... Is the cause of low savings, therefore, because they feel they can rely on the government, or is it because they don't get paid sufficiently to be able to save anything?

Here's a rough-hewn comparison: American private-sector sensibilities are a bit like those of the software industry are a bit like those of that one (every) teacher in school.

• The student laments tonight's reading: "Don't they understand, their class isn't the only one I have homework in!"

• The user laments bloat and lag: "Do they really think their product is the only one running on my computer?"

• The private sector addresses stability: "If the working class has discretionary income, then living necessities aren't expensive enough."​

Additionally: For decades, now, our economy has depended extraordinarily on consumer spending and debt. If consumers stopped buying as much discretionary produce in order to pay down their debts and save money, the American economy would tremble and stumble and careen toward collapse.

(There's an ad spot running in the U.S., these days, for a streaming service, in which neighbors celebrate being able to pay to shut out news sources they don't like by trying to murder the grown-ass man reduced to delivering newspapers in order to make rent. That's the American private-sector ethic, and for the sake of the economy, consumers are supposed to enthusiastically gobble it up.)

 

[Seattle]

​

• The private sector addresses stability: "If the working class has discretionary income, then living necessities aren't expensive enough."​

Is anyone supposed to take this seriously?

 

[parmalee]

The bottom 20% probably would have that problem but not "most" Americans. It's a matter of making a poor choice or a matter of poor wording on a poll in many cases. Do you disagree?

I'll answer after you've addressed my questions:

Define "addicts". Are you talking about those addicted to substances, ranging from nicotine and alcohol to pharmaceuticals and illicit drugs? Food addicts? Gambling or online sports betting addicts? How are you distinguishing between those regarded (rather vaguely, usually) as "high functioning" and "low functioning"? And what exactly are the "problems" associated with such--or, rather, how are they "the problem"? Define "critical thinking" and "transparency". It's apparent from reading the responses within this thread that most readers regard such rather differently from how you regard these notions. Explain to me how it is that, in your view, most "criminals" and "addicts" seem to be in the bottom 20 or 30 percent (whatever it is that you mean by that).

 

[billvon]

In the long run the answer is going to be UBI, as problematic as that is.

At some point the economy is going to switch from a scarcity model to an abundance model as the combination of cheap renewable energy, a plateauing population and AI+robotics starts producing more than we need. That will mean deflation, which carries its own raft of problems (debt based economies don't work well under deflation.)

And as the economy becomes less dependent on labor (due to automation) there simply won't be enough jobs to go around. At that point you could start public works (or even busywork) programs to keep people employed, or you could start a UBI program. And UBI will, in the long run, be easier.

 

[Sarkus]

I don't know. Do you have data to support that?

No, just that we're a more left-leaning society, so seems reasonable to assume.

Anyway, I'm saying it seems the attitude in the UK is to rely more on the government. Am I wrong? If not, then, as I said, it's a two edged sword.

It wouldn't seem to be a two-edged sword rather than seemingly being irrelevant to the level of savings: in the UK we have more reliance on the government, yet we see higher savings among the less wealthy than in the US where there is less reliance on the government. So either the idea is wrong that higher reliance on government reduces ones tendency to save as much, and actually it increases the amount (*) - or it's simply irrelevant.
(*) - For example, if someone knows that the government will provide for a basic level, they may save more knowing that it will be for the luxuries (holidays etc). Whereas if someone thinks the government won't provide for the basic, or, say, that a small level of savings will make not the blindest bit of difference to their standard of living, then why save anything at all.

There are many people with poor financial planning skills. Do you disagree with that? There are many people who make enough to save (the majority) and if they don't, it's a personal issue. They either don't save for a rainy day (what's new) or they literally respond that they have no "savings" when it's all put way in investment accounts.

Sure, but now you've moved it to one of financial planning skills, not of government reliance.

I haven't had a "savings" account since I was 6 years old. We know, in the US, that unemployment is low and the economy is "good" so what is the problem?

The problem is that a large number of people can't seem to earn enough to have more than $500 in savings. A larger proportion in the US than in the UK when, as you've argued above, due to reliance on government it should be the other way round.
If the unemployment is low, and the economy is good, then why is it that so many people are unable to save even $500? So what is the problem? There clearly is one. Sure, education. But then if the average IQ is 100, roughly 50% of the population are going to be lower than that. And what does the IQ need to be to be able to save? Or maybe it's the lack of jobs that pay well enough to save, compared to the cost of living?

Is the solution in the UK, for example, that taxes need to be higher so that those without savings can be provided with savings? What exactly is your position on this?

Solution to what? We are certainly not averse to raising taxes for the higher paid while reducing them for the lower paid.

Will there ever be a situation involving a human society where those at the bottom all have plenty of savings for emergencies?

Who can say what the future will bring.

Why do you think things are so expensive? Is it because of the government debasing the currency due to overspending? What would the solution be? If it's because things are so expensive as you seem to suggest, should be lower prices or give people more money?

I would favour cutting their taxes, and increasing the tax burden on the higher earners to compensate. This wouldn't resolve the issue of savings, though. If you even see it as an issue, that such a large proportion of your country, where you argue that there is less reliance on the gov't, have less than $500 in savings.

 

[exchemist]

And there are a lot of people who actually want the majority of society to be living hand-to-mouth and desperate. Why? That's kind of a rhetorical question--I mean, there are like a million Bertolt Brecht songs precisely about this.

The thing is, even if you are antisocial, it just doesn't make sense for a society to function this way. You go to places with pretty extreme inequities--even more extreme than the US--and the affluent classes often live in these compounds that impart a whole new meaning to the notion of gated communities. Armed security and all that. Wouldn't it be easier not to have to constantly worry about being besieged by the proles and the rabble, even if you do in fact detest them?

This was a feature of US life that shocked me when I lived in Houston for 2 years , in 1999-2000. The comfortably off people often felt the need to erect high fences or railings, with electronic remote-controlled locks. That is relatively rare in Europe. I recall our landlord wanted to put railings like that up around the house we were renting, which was in a conservation area called Westmoreland with old-style wooden houses with porch swings etc. We asked him not to, as we liked sitting out on the porch with the strip of lawn going down to the tree-lined street. He thought we were taking a risk, I think.

 

[Seattle]

I'll answer after you've addressed my questions:

parmalee said:

Define "addicts". Are you talking about those addicted to substances, ranging from nicotine and alcohol to pharmaceuticals and illicit drugs? Food addicts? Gambling or online sports betting addicts? How are you distinguishing between those regarded (rather vaguely, usually) as "high functioning" and "low functioning"? And what exactly are the "problems" associated with such--or, rather, how are they "the problem"? Define "critical thinking" and "transparency". It's apparent from reading the responses within this thread that most readers regard such rather differently from how you regard these notions. Explain to me how it is that, in your view, most "criminals" and "addicts" seem to be in the bottom 20 or 30 percent (whatever it is that you mean by that).

Seattle said:

Addicts, drug or alcohol, living on the streets. That's what I was referring to. That's not everyone but that's the group I was referring to.

Critical thinking can mean splitting a problem up into smaller parts and addressing those. It can be Baysian analyses, it can be just critically looking at an issue to define it without emotion. People talk about the rich not paying their fair share but unless "fair" means "everyone has the same" then the rich are paying more than their fair share if you look at it critically.

Regarding looking at a problem from the government's point of view and putting people into groups or percentages for the sake of a thought experiment you could look at 70% as working, paying taxes and all benefiting from more or less the same policies and the same system. 10% or less need to be taken care of in any society and the other 20% are criminals or anarchists (or screw ups) who are trying to take the system down. They need other policies to address them.

You never really addressed my point that tax receipts have been remarkably stable from the 1960's on as a percentage of the GDP. The spending and therefore debt has not been stable in the least. Yet, you disagree with my comments suggesting that tax rates are not the issue but excessive spending is.

 

[parmalee]

Addicts, drug or alcohol, living on the streets. That's what I was referring to. That's not everyone but that's the group I was referring to.

But this is what you said:

The problem is really between the productive and the criminals and addicts

The number of addicts living on the streets is but a very, very small percentage of the US populace--like a tiny fraction of a single percent. How is that "the problem?" Conversely, consider food addiction. Nearly half (45%) of Americans are obese, and while food addiction is but one of many factors here, it's a rather significant one. What are the economic costs of the multitude of health complications associated with obesity? Consider gambling addiction, especially with the emergence of all this online gambling and sports betting bs. This is fast becoming an enormous problems and the costs and societal implications are rather unsettling. Moreover, with both of these examples, the vast majority of individuals would be regarded as high functioning--they're not living on the streets and they're not dropping dead from overdoses--and yet the societal costs are enormous.

Critical thinking can mean splitting a problem up into smaller parts and addressing those. It can be Baysian analyses, it can be just critically looking at an issue to define it without emotion. People talk about the rich not paying their fair share but unless "fair" means "everyone has the same" then the rich are paying more than their fair share if you look at it critically.

The first two sentences are fine, but with the third the problem is the bolded portion--no one has ever said that and therefore it's got nothing to do with looking at it "critically".

Regarding looking at a problem from the government's point of view and putting people into groups or percentages for the sake of a thought experiment you could look at 70% as working, paying taxes and all benefiting from more or less the same policies and the same system. 10% or less need to be taken care of in any society and the other 20% are criminals or anarchists (or screw ups) who are trying to take the system down. They need other policies to address them.

Where are you getting these numbers? 20% are criminals or... anarchists (?!)--what?

You never really addressed my point that tax receipts have been remarkably stable from the 1960's on as a percentage of the GDP. The spending and therefore debt has not been stable in the least. Yet, you disagree with my comments suggesting that tax rates are not the issue but excessive spending is.

Because my point was that a very high marginal tax rate--90%--does not in any way disincentivize innovation nor inhibit production. Moreover, this point is established by innumerable OECD studies.

 

[Seattle]

But this is what you said:

The number of addicts living on the streets is but a very, very small percentage of the US populace--like a tiny fraction of a single percent. How is that "the problem?" Conversely, consider food addiction. Nearly half (45%) of Americans are obese, and while food addiction is but one of many factors here, it's a rather significant one. What are the economic costs of the multitude of health complications associated with obesity? Consider gambling addiction, especially with the emergence of all this online gambling and sports betting bs. This is fast becoming an enormous problems and the costs and societal implications are rather unsettling. Moreover, with both of these examples, the vast majority of individuals would be regarded as high functioning--they're not living on the streets and they're not dropping dead from overdoses--and yet the societal costs are enormous.


The first two sentences are fine, but with the third the problem is the bolded portion--no one has ever said that and therefore it's got nothing to do with looking at it "critically".


Where are you getting these numbers? 20% are criminals or... anarchists (?!)--what?


Because my point was that a very high marginal tax rate--90%--does not in any way disincentivize innovation nor inhibit production. Moreover, this point is established by innumerable OECD studies.

You're cherry picking here. The 90% rate didn't have those effects because no one paid them. The tax receipts are roughly the same throughout all tax rates. On the other hand, spending is way up. That's the fact.

 

[parmalee]

You're cherry picking here. The 90% rate didn't have those effects because no one paid them. The tax receipts are roughly the same throughout all tax rates. On the other hand, spending is way up. That's the fact.

So? Then implement a 90% top marginal rate now and make them pay it. Also, implement a wealth tax. And continue to take 6-odd percent for Social Security beyond whatever the cutoff is now (nothing beyond 200 or 400 thousand, don't recall).

 

[Seattle]

So? Then implement a 90% top marginal rate now and make them pay it. Also, implement a wealth tax. And continue to take 6-odd percent for Social Security beyond whatever the cutoff is now (nothing beyond 200 or 400 thousand, don't recall).

It isn't the answer. Clearly you don't understand wealth either or disincentives but the issue is the scale of what we are talking about.

If you took all of their money it's wouldn't make a dent. That's why it's a spending problem.

 

[parmalee]

It isn't the answer. Clearly you don't understand wealth either or disincentives but the issue is the scale of what we are talking about.

Unless fair means that pigs can fly then clearly the rich do not pay their fair share if you think about it critically. Clearly you don't know how to think critically.

If you took all of their money it's wouldn't make a dent. That's why it's a spending problem.

Already disproven innumerable times. Stop saying stupid shit.

Also, answer my questions. I answered yours.

 

[billvon]

If the unemployment is low, and the economy is good, then why is it that so many people are unable to save even $500? So what is the problem? There clearly is one. Sure, education. But then if the average IQ is 100, roughly 50% of the population are going to be lower than that.

It should be noted that education does raise IQ.

IQ is, of course, centered around 100. But using education to raise the average (even if it's 'curved back' to 100 being the average) is a good thing overall IMO.

 

[billvon]

If you took all of their money it's wouldn't make a dent. That's why it's a spending problem.

If you took only 20% of their money per year you could pay off the entire deficit each year. Balanced budget.

 

[Seattle]

Unless fair means that pigs can fly then clearly the rich do not pay their fair share if you think about it critically. Clearly you don't know how to think critically.

Already disproven innumerable times. Stop saying stupid shit.

Also, answer my questions. I answered yours.

All the billionaires in the US don't have $35 trillion which is how much out debt is.

 

[Seattle]

If you took only 20% of their money per year you could pay off the entire deficit each year. Balanced budget.

For 5 years and then they are broke and we still have $35 trillion in debt.

 

[parmalee]

All the billionaires in the US don't have $35 trillion which is how much out debt is.

The net worth of the top one percent in the US is 45 trillion dollars. Debt is gone and ten trillion dollars for trans surgeries, abortions and crack.