Are you a domestic terrorist?

[kandrathe]

I think there are still many countries were that is possible. And a country with a better social security system might actually help (but I am not sure about this....) because somebody that fails once doesn't have to drop into poverty....so you can take some risks.

There are at least three factors you didn't consider, off the top of my head. 1) If as an employee, you cannot build enough start up capital due to competition for wages, or 2) due to high taxes, or 3) more easily fail due to excessive regulation on your new venture (e.g. rules for companies grow 20x once you hire your first employee).

Also (and this has been discussed here lately) nowadays many people that are not able to do much, and rather use large quantities of drugs can 'make it' because of the entertainment business.....a kind of reversed American dream you might say.

Did you ever read Aldus Huxley's, "Brave New World"? In that world, Soma is the opiate of the masses. But, you are really just proposing that Opium (and other entertainments) should be the opiate of the masses. Because productivity is turned over to either machines or a minority of *real* workers, the bulk of society can just binge themselves into oblivion with various forms of entertainment.

[eppie]

But, you are really just proposing that Opium (and other entertainments) should be the opiate of the masses.

I am not proposing that, I am making an observation. The observation is that 'the american dream' (let's for simplicity define that as becoming so rich you and your children might not have to work anymore when you would choose so) is easier reached by becoming some moronic big brother character or untalented but pretty singer than by working hard, being smart and setting up your own business.
I don't think this is what they had in mind when the coined the expression ' the american dream'.

[weakwarrior]

I am not proposing that, I am making an observation. The observation is that 'the american dream' (let's for simplicity define that as becoming so rich you and your children might not have to work anymore when you would choose so) is easier reached by becoming some moronic big brother character or untalented but pretty singer than by working hard, being smart and setting up your own business.
I don't think this is what they had in mind when the coined the expression ' the american dream'.

There are some 300 million people in the U.S.. (what's the grammer rule about ending a sentence after an abbreviation - do you use 2 periods or just one, or are you not supposed to end a sentence with an abbreviation?) How many of them are on T.V.?
They may get more hype but that's nothing new. Benjamin Franklin wrote about how people would go out treasure hunting in his day because the few people who did find treasure got enormous amounts of publicity.
All this to say hoping to make it to T.V. is unlikely to get you money. It's like a lottery ticket.

[eppie]

There are some 300 million people in the U.S.. (what's the grammer rule about ending a sentence after an abbreviation - do you use 2 periods or just one, or are you not supposed to end a sentence with an abbreviation?) How many of them are on T.V.?
They may get more hype but that's nothing new. Benjamin Franklin wrote about how people would go out treasure hunting in his day because the few people who did find treasure got enormous amounts of publicity.
All this to say hoping to make it to T.V. is unlikely to get you money. It's like a lottery ticket.

I know...I was referring to a previous discussion I used to hijack thread with :blush:.

These are the examples that are mentioned when talking about the American dream....and these are the examples that children want to emulate.....even when they know chances are small.

Same applies for sports. Kandrathe often mentions the schools with little money to spend, but with a heated pool and state of the art sports fields. Nobody cares if you don't succeed in school as long as you are high schools best quarterback.......the fact that the NFL only has place for 30 quarterbacks in a given period doesn't bother most people.

[Nystul]

I am not proposing that, I am making an observation. The observation is that 'the american dream' (let's for simplicity define that as becoming so rich you and your children might not have to work anymore when you would choose so) is easier reached by becoming some moronic big brother character or untalented but pretty singer than by working hard, being smart and setting up your own business.
I don't think this is what they had in mind when the coined the expression ' the american dream'.

I don't think the American Dream is about being filthy rich and having trust funds for your kids. My siblings have nice homes, great families, fulfilling jobs, and many freedoms that people in some countries can now take for granted. To me, they've "made it". My oldest niece is in the Air National Guard, plus having a civilian job, to pay her own way to a public college that some might consider mediocre, but she has plenty of opportunity to make a nice life for herself.

I think about our ancestors (German immigrant farmers) and many of the immigrants still coming from Mexico or elsewhere. I'm sure some were after gold or trying to make millions in pro baseball or whatever. But I think the vast majority were trying to get out of poverty or oppression and get a decent life where there family had space to live and food on the table and freedom to do the things they wanted to do. To me, that's the American dream. It may be that a poor family in Germany today wouldn't have to travel halfway around the world to find that. There has been some progress in the past 200 years in Europe, I'd imagine. :whistling:

It does seem that there is some part of American culture in this age that is self-destructive in search of the dream. When I was a kid, I wanted to be an offensive lineman in the NFL. It turns out, I'm about 8 inches too short and 150 pounds too light. :lol: But fortunately I grew up in a family where you had to take your studies seriously, work hard, and respect authority. So when the football thing didn't work out, I wasn't a high school dropout selling drugs on the street corner. Maybe things haven't gone according to plan (and not just the football thing), but it's far from a bad life. In some communities, you've parents spending money they can't afford on the Super Lotto, while their kids are putting all of their effort into basketball, and it's all just one big gamble. Then there is a lot of blame on politicians, racism, bad public schools, etc. I can't help but feel like the kids' biggest disadvantage in many of these cases is having a bunch of really lousy role models.

[--Pete]

Hi,

But I think the vast majority were trying to get out of poverty or oppression and get a decent life where there family had space to live and food on the table and freedom to do the things they wanted to do. To me, that's the American dream.

I couldn't agree more. I think the aspirations of those who want to be the next Trump or Turner are perversions of the dream. Not that there's anything wrong with great expectations or even megalomania. :whistling:

--Pete

[kandrathe]

It does seem that there is some part of American culture in this age that is self-destructive in search of the dream.

If this is the American dream, somebody please pinch me.

[ShadowHM]

Hi,
I couldn't agree more. I think the aspirations of those who want to be the next Trump or Turner are perversions of the dream. Not that there's anything wrong with great expectations or even megalomania. :whistling:

--Pete

And, oddly, I couldn't disagree more. Our countries were built on the backs and corpses of the many who rushed in - searching for that 'get rich quick' opportunity. The California Gold Rush springs to mind. So does the hunt for the NorthWest Passage. And the efforts of those who opened new routes for the fur trade. They may, quite often, have been escaping penury, starvation or other dire things but they had fervent hopes for 'The BIG find'. Indeed, I would argue that is part of humanity. Why else have snake oil salesmen prospered so often? :(

[--Pete]

Hi,

And, oddly, I couldn't disagree more. Our countries were built on the backs and corpses of the many who rushed in - searching for that 'get rich quick' opportunity.

While what you say is true, I don't think it is representative of the American Dream.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

While what you say is true, I don't think it is representative of the American Dream.

It is interesting that that site links to an article by William Greider who I think does an OK job describing part of the problem, but a lousy job proposing a solution. He myopically views the ills of our nightmare as spawned by corporate greed, and that we are blindly seduced into its pursuit as well. The big fallacy though is that he sees the government as the "force" that will bring about the remedy. For me, I see the problem permeating government as well, such that the average person becomes the Beef Rouladen between a government counter top, and the corporate meat mallet.

The 2006 household income report by the Fed showed that median income from 2001 to 2004 only rose by 1.5% over that 4 year period (so, flat). For the previous 12 years household net worth grew by about 2.5% per year. And, of course, what happened was that the bottom 60% of households actually lost net worth from 2001 to 2004 (e.g. tech bubble). They also recently released a report that shows across the board loses of net worth in the US of between 20 and 30% since fall 2008 (now the housing bubble). It appears that we might have rolled back the household net worth in the USA to early 1999's or even 1980 levels. I don't view this as a malaise just with government, or corporations. I think we as a society also share blame for being too easily seduced, and for not electing the proper people who can reform our government. I'm pessimistic because I see no good choices, and we send clowns like Al Franken to Washington thinking he "gets it". :wacko:

Also, its not like *poof* the net worth just vanished. I don't believe it ever existed in the first place -- it was leveraged into place, and as soon as the leverage slipped, the illusory wealth vanished as well. Just as our nation cannot keep measuring its productivity by looking at consumer spending, we as individuals cannot keep looking at our wages as success. Financial security for too many Americans lies with having a paycheck, and therefore, we are forced to stay employed. For most, there really is no choice.

[Jester]

I'm pessimistic because I see no good choices, and we send clowns like Al Franken to Washington thinking he "gets it".

This is the same Al Franken you described not a week ago as a "bright person"? Say what you will about Sen. Franken, he's more on the ball ("gets it") than the vast majority of people in either house. The man is a lifelong policy wonk.

I am also curious as to how people are supposed to live without paycheques. Is there really an alternative form of security for most people? It's nice to have savings to live on, but a country is not going to live on them for more than a couple of years. Most people, in the long run, need their paycheques, always have, always will. You work for your supper. What other choice is there, unless manna rains from the heavens?

-Jester

[Hammerskjold]

I am also curious as to how people are supposed to live without paycheques.

Easy. Live free. Oh wait, lemme do that properly. Live Free. No, still not enough dammit. Hmm, maybe a pic will be better than mere words.



Palin-McClane 2012!

[DeeBye]

This is the same Al Franken you described not a week ago as a "bright person"? Say what you will about Sen. Franken, he's more on the ball ("gets it") than the vast majority of people in either house.

Al Franken is on the ball.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HfcrqXtxOM

Al Franken knows how to talk to people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCNs7Zpqo98

[kandrathe]

Al Franken knows how to talk to people.

And... A potato.

[DeeBye]

And... A potato.

Roffle :w00t:

[kandrathe]

This is the same Al Franken you described not a week ago as a "bright person"?

He is a bright person. I also think he will vote the party line, and he hasn't exhibited an ounce of independent thinking. He's still a clown.

You work for your supper. What other choice is there, unless manna rains from the heavens?

Yes, I work for my supper, and then I pay for 2 to 4 other people to have supper, and maybe 1/2 a days pay for some soldier suffering in Iraq, or maybe part of somebody's hip replacement surgery. I might also be paying for part of 10 bureaucrats to watch over 1 teacher. Then, with my take home pay, I also choose to donate money to charity and still have just enough left over to help the new grade school teacher buy pencils for her class. When do we get to stop working?

If we've sunk back to the 90's or 80's in terms of net worth, we still spend 2009 dollars. This means that that person who's 55, now is looking at adding another 20 years to their years of service before they can contemplate retiring. Me? I had saved a bundle and tucked it aside in a Schwab account to pay for my kids college in 10 years. Now, it's become hardly enough to pay for a single semester. You might sense that I'm discouraged. I look around me at the shattered lives, and the ruin and I have to get angry.

So, no, manna doesn't rain around here, although I believe I may be the source of it for others.

[Jester]

He is a bright person. I also think he will vote the party line, and he hasn't exhibited an ounce of independent thinking. He's still a clown.

Is this just you holding his past in comedy against him? Do you just not like people with a sense of humour? Just because someone didn't go the usual route in politics doesn't mean he isn't good at what he does. Tommy Banks may well be Canada's best senator, and he was a Jazz pianist for all his life. The important part is that he demonstrate he is dedicated, intelligent, and willing to work hard to understand the problems of the country. It looks to me like he's managed all that far better than most senators.

Franken will almost certainly vote very liberal, which if you call that "the party line", then yeah, I suppose you're right. But that would be true of anyone on the right end of the Republicans, or the left of the Democrats. I think you'll find that Bernie Sanders votes "the Democratic party line", and he isn't even a Democrat! There is a difference between ideology and partisanship.

When do we get to stop working?

When you can rewrite the second law of thermodynamics? As a species, we don't get to stop working, period. We're like a big shark, gotta keep on swimming. Living takes energy. Living in a society takes more. Living comfortably in a society takes more still. That energy isn't going to produce itself, no matter how you structure your society.

If we've sunk back to the 90's or 80's in terms of net worth, we still spend 2009 dollars.

I'd need to see some other numbers, but I believe you're comparing nominal to real figures here. In real terms, you're almost certainly back to the early '90s. But by calculating in real terms, you lose the ability to say "we still spend 2009 dollars." If you're calculating in nominal terms, then you're almost certainly much richer than in the 90s, but most of that is inflation. Take your pick how you want to describe it, but you can't control for inflation and then put it back in again on top.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

It looks to me like he's managed all that far better than most senators.

He's smart, but whether he uses that gift for helping the people, or for his own gain is yet to be seen.

There is a difference between ideology and partisanship.

Yes, to be blind to cognitive dissonance, or to be blinded by loyalty. For example, do you *really* believe we can spend our way to prosperity? Do you *really* think driving the US deficit another trillion or two a year deeper per year will help get us out of debt? Because that is the "crack" that party is smoking at the moment.

When you can rewrite the second law of thermodynamics? As a species, we don't get to stop working, period. We're like a big shark, gotta keep on swimming. Living takes energy. Living in a society takes more. Living comfortably in a society takes more still. That energy isn't going to produce itself, no matter how you structure your society.

Ok, then let me redefine the equation. I transform a cheese sandwich and some carrots into Kinetic Energy consumed by a Corporation. Through a complicated series of transformations, a small portion of that energy is returned to me in the form of Potential energy which I deposit in the bank. Along the way, stockholders who contribute potential energy, get a small return on their investment, and the government consumes a significant portion of everyone's potential energy.

My complaint is that due to how that equation is structured, there is not enough potential energy stored when I will no longer have the kinetic energy to get out of bed.

If you're calculating in nominal terms, then you're almost certainly much richer than in the 90s, but most of that is inflation.

The reality is that 20 years (and maybe 30 years) of savings and investments have vanished (or it never existed). But, we still are paying today's rates.

This is what is making the "Tea Party" crowd angry enough to crash the "Health Care" debate. Don't be confused (as are most in the press it seems) that the crowd is composed of Republicans.

The conversation on the one side is marching along with their 2006 campaign ideology about creating more government services, and the other side of that debate are the people freaking out about losing their likelihoods, homes, retirement savings, college educations for their children, and a ton of other stuff. The conversation for the latter group is much more along the lines of what we are talking about here, which is; how should the equation be written? You know that I'm on the side of seeing a bit more of my Kinetic Energy stored for my own Potential uses.

[eppie]

This is what is making the "Tea Party" crowd angry enough to crash the "Health Care" debate. Don't be confused (as are most in the press it seems) that the crowd is composed of Republicans.

The conversation on the one side is marching along with their 2006 campaign ideology about creating more government services, and the other side of that debate are the people freaking out about losing their likelihoods, homes, retirement savings, college educations for their children, and a ton of other stuff. The conversation for the latter group is much more along the lines of what we are talking about here, which is; how should the equation be written? You know that I'm on the side of seeing a bit more of my Kinetic Energy stored for my own Potential uses.

Jester was saying it correct when he wrote you will always have to put in effort to make a living.
The problems you are mentioning don't have anything to do with more government influence or higher taxes. They are cause by the fact that you and your countrymen (as well as many of us in western Europe) have for decades spend too much money (more than we had) and because we were in power we could use financial constructions to keep the rest of the world poor, and at the same time leach on there resources. The world has changed and America and Americans can only survive with a little more smart government control.

The libertarian way is fine if you live in the richest country in the world....but already now it wont work. A more prosperous India, China and other countries do mean a different division of wealth in the it this world.....sometimes you notice this directly (the crisis) other times it goes slower, but it will happen.


Not being a great Obama fan (for me he is also too right wing) these protests today (or yesterday) are just ridiculous.....you have been living on China's money for a long time and now that the government wants to do something people start protesting. Having some people pay a bit more taxes is too much government interference but when somebody spends billions on a war and lowers taxes it is all fine.....we just let the government bother money, just like we do.....at least they are not interfering with our lives. <_<

[Jester]

He's smart, but whether he uses that gift for helping the people, or for his own gain is yet to be seen.

Oh, hey, that's cool. Just toss out a random suggestion of corruption. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back this up? Or just musing? It sounds to me like you've already got him pegged, and he hasn't even been on the job for more than a couple months.

For example, do you *really* believe we can spend our way to prosperity? Do you *really* think driving the US deficit another trillion or two a year deeper per year will help get us out of debt? Because that is the "crack" that party is smoking at the moment.

Yes, I do. Without deficit spending to get the economy back in gear, the recession caused by the 2008 implosion would have been longer, more painful, and even more destructive to the economy than it has been. 'Real' production would have fallen even further, credit markets would not have recovered, and unemployment would have gone even further through the roof. Assets would have been liquidated at fire-sale rates, and would not have been put back into productive use for years, if ever. All those things damage not just the short-term welfare of the people, but the long-term productive capacity of the economy.

If government hadn't stepped in to fix the economy, you'd be substantially less able to pay down or even service your debt in the long run. Three cheers for John Maynard Keynes.

Or, hey, just listen to Nouriel Roubini, one of the blessed few who actually predicted this mess, smoking exactly the same crack.

My complaint is that due to how that equation is structured, there is not enough potential energy stored when I will no longer have the kinetic energy to get out of bed.The reality is that 20 years (and maybe 30 years) of savings and investments have vanished (or it never existed). But, we still are paying today's rates.

And my complaint with your complaint is that you are mixing real and nominal measures in a way that exaggerates in favour of your point. Either it is the case that 20 years' gains in net worth have vanished (which would be a real measure, because in nominal measures, you're still way ahead) or it is the case that the gains from 20 years ago are mostly illusory because you're still "paying today's rates". But not both -that would be double-counting the effect of inflation.

This is what is making the "Tea Party" crowd angry enough to crash the "Health Care" debate. Don't be confused (as are most in the press it seems) that the crowd is composed of Republicans.

Are you kidding me? That crowd has to be at least 75% Republican voters - and most of those who aren't are either to the right of the Republicans, right-Libertarians, or part of some undefinable fringe group like the LaRouchies.

Show me any evidence that these "tea parties" aren't overwhelmingly Republican voters. I'd be downright shocked.

-Jester