[ExI] it was the best times, it was the best of times

[Kelly Anderson]

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 09:36:33PM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> > I understand. I reserve the right to reject your reality and substitute
> my
> > own.
>
> If you keep doing that you'll wind up alone in a room.
>

As long as we aren't in the room together... ;-)


> > Other than advertising, I know of no really big revenue stream for
> Google.
> > Would you please enlighten me? My privacy?? Don't know how they monetize
> > that yet.
>
> How much is your freedom worth in a fascist state? Please put it that
> in exact dollar and cents values.
>

$2,350,000.00


> > There are rocket people here. They seem to be relatively optimistic...
> but
>
> I'm just an egg, but I understand the economics of mass transfer in
> the solar system, and our ability to boostrap autonomous fabrication
> capacities in remote locations, which is nonexistent. You want kilotons
> of cheap metal from lightminutes away deorbited and semi-soft landed
> in three decades.
>
> Sure, if Singularity lands. Should be any day now.
>

I'm not saying it will happen, but if there is a sufficiently painful
shortage of key metals, it could happen.


> > Sadly no, since we have so many clever monkeys who are busy caring for
> the
> > monkeys that won't get off their furry butts.
>
> So you agree that mere cleverness of a tiny fraction is insufficient,
> if the majority remain engaged in dysfunctional, long-term suicidal
> behavior.
>

Encouraged by their governments. Yes it is insufficient in the face of
widespread suicidal behavior. That being said, I don't see driving around
in cars to be widespread suicidal behavior.


> > Ooooh. I'm so scared. Wealth building in our past? Are you mad?
>
> Funny, I think you're stark hopping mad, but it seems the feeling is
> mutual. We can't be possibly both right. So one of us has a much
> greater disconnect from reality that the other.
>

This is CLEARLY the case.


> > I've known many rich people myself. None of them are sitting on their ass
>
> Anecdote.
>
> > or their money the way you seem to think they do. All of them are busy
> > investing or building something. Maybe there is something different about
> > rich people in Utah than in other places, but I rather doubt it. Would
> you
>
> Definitely anecdote.
>

Granted, its anecdotal.


>  like to pull a number out of your butt to back up your view of capital
> > amassment?
> >
> > Even rich people who do sit on their asses have money men who invest for
> > them. They don't buy millions of dollars worth of savings bonds for heck
>
> You're obviously clueless about basic mechanisms of wealth transfer
> and trends in social stratification.
>

I know the rich are getting richer. The poor are getting poorer. Give me a
republican president, senate and house, and we'll reverse that trend in
America. Give me Libertarian all three and it will explode!


> > sake. It is ridiculous to say that rich folk's money doesn't do anything.
> > Numbers please.
>
> No. You point me to peer-reviewed publications proving your point.
> Nature/Science should be a good first start. Put up, or shut up.
>

Ok, how stuff works isn't exactly peer reviewed, but I'm only using one
number, and even if it is off by a bit, it makes my point.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question241.htm
>From the headline, it states that the New York Stock Exchange has stocks
valued at $15 trillion total. That is $15 trillion dollars that is working
for the good of the economy. How much of that $15 trillion dollars do you
suppose belongs to rich people? A third, half? If the rich are getting
richer, then that number, whatever it is, is likely going up.

According to:
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or
families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris,
2010, for more details.

Norris, F. (2010, July 24). Off the Charts: In '08 Downturn, Some Managed
to Eke Out Millions.<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/business/economy/24charts.html>
 *New York Times*, p. B-3.
The New York Times isn't peer reviewed... but a pretty reliable source...

So we have to assume the rest is primarily capital gains. You  only get
capital gains if you have your money invested in SOMETHING. Clearly someone
is investing their money, not stuffing it into mattresses.

So the rich assist everyone by investing their money. If you don't think
they do, you're uninformed. If they don't invest it, they spend it. That
pumps the economy, which you claim they aren't doing. I just don't
understand your point that money belonging to the rich doesn't benefit the
economy.

-Kelly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20131009/c44d5ecd/attachment.html>