What is Occupy Wallstreet?

[Lissa]

Again I call bull. It's more about who you know and what you have then it is about equal opportunity.

Perhaps, in some places, but not generally, and not everywhere. The law is more than merely the rules as enforced, but it also involves the ability to bring a case to trial if you feel you have been wronged. Much of that access is predicated on having money to hire a lawyer, or in getting the attention of the right people, like the ACLU, or some pro-bono lawyer looking to get some renown.

You miss the point. With enough money and/or influence, you can get away with murder (which some people have). Equal opportunity is not there, it's all about what influence you can exert through your money and/or connections. This means their is not equal opportunity for everyone.

The American Dream is dead, no longer is it a matter of how hard you work, but instead of who you know and who's feet you kiss.

I don't see how this relates specifically to equal opportunity. It seems to be a general statement applicable across the entire middle, and lower classes. I would agree (e.g. the beetle climbing the bowl metaphor) that it is increasingly difficult to "get ahead" due to a number of factors, including the growing number of McJobs, competition from globalization, outsourcing, the 300% increase (adjusted for inflation) in the price of college (over the past 30 years), and the growing limitations on entrepreneurial freedom (as I've mentioned previously as well). I would say the "American Dream" of improving your lot, and that of your children, is becoming more out of reach. But, not quite dead yet. Ok, I'm an optimist.

It has everything to do with equal opportunity. There are barriers to entry and no matter how hard you work, if you do not have someone their to recognize you and move you along, you'll be stuck. I've seen too many times where the person that doesn't do anything, but has the connections gets moved up the pipeline, but people that work hard that don't have the connections get ignored. The whole point of the American Dream™ was that if you worked hard you could move up, that isn't the case anymore. Effectively, the American Dream™ is dead and you do not have an equal opportunity to move up because you worked hard, instead you now move up based on who you know which is more along the lines of nepotism instead of a good work ethic.

[kandrathe]

You miss the point. With enough money and/or influence, you can get away with murder (which some people have). Equal opportunity is not there, it's all about what influence you can exert through your money and/or connections. This means their is not equal opportunity for everyone.

Well, I do know what you are saying. I just disagree. Business *must* comply with EEO, OSHA, ADA, and any number of other laws requiring equality of opportunity. If you violate them, you *will* get slapped with a court case eventually, and the history of court action is in favor of plaintiffs.

It has everything to do with equal opportunity. There are barriers to entry and no matter how hard you work, if you do not have someone their to recognize you and move you along, you'll be stuck. I've seen too many times where the person that doesn't do anything, but has the connections gets moved up the pipeline, but people that work hard that don't have the connections get ignored. The whole point of the American Dream™ was that if you worked hard you could move up, that isn't the case anymore. Effectively, the American Dream™ is dead and you do not have an equal opportunity to move up because you worked hard, instead you now move up based on who you know which is more along the lines of nepotism instead of a good work ethic.

I think you may be putting too much burden on just what the *American Dream* is... From James Truslow Adams, Epic of America in 1931, "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" -- regardless of social class or circumstances of birth.

There is no promise that if you work hard you will "move up", get promoted, or be rich. Just that you will have an equal chance to improve your station. Barring pure servitude, we all do have the opportunity to save our earnings, invest them as we see fit, own a home, gain new skills and market them. What prevents this?

My experience, and that of my siblings has been exactly this. My grandfathers were farmers, my dad was a truck driver (in the Teamster's union), and I was a computer programmer, then highly paid IT consultant, until I joined non-profit Academia. My younger sister has a Ph.D. in genetics with numerous patents, and my older sister is a Chemist researching polymers, also with numerous patents. Yes, there is nepotism (or favoritism) at times, or corruption and the world isn't entirely fair. Sometimes it's down right cruel, and evil (if you believe in that sort of thing). But, part of getting "The American Dream", is also learning how to avoid the bad roads. For me, the philosophy is simple. I don't get beat up in biker bars, because I don't go to biker bars. I don't get in trouble with the cops, because I try not to break any laws. I don't lose money on investments, because I do *alot* of research before I invest. When I "win" I'm pleased, but when I lose, I move on. If I find myself working in a company where there is nepotism, corruption, or seedy bosses, I quit and find a new job. In fact, I was pretty tired over 30 years of working for high stress, fortune 50 jobs, where I eventually had to fly 3 times a week, wear a $500 suit (and strangle myself with a tie), work 80 hours per week, and never see my wife and kids. So, for me, the "pursuit of happiness" had little to do with position, or income. I'm living *my" American Dream.

[FireIceTalon]

You can disagree all you want. But You ARE wrong, clearly in denial, and the history of our material conditions show this is self-evident. It's the same thing as the people who swear the Holocaust never happened, despite all the evidence to the contrary. There is NOT equal opportunity anywhere, I don't even see how this can be debated. Nor does hard work really mean much to be honest, it can help but it certainly isn't cracked up to what we make it to be. Lissa is right, it is all about being born from the "right" parents, who you know, being in the right place at the right time, knowing the right people, and a little bit of sheer dumb luck here and there. Statistics are not even needed here to prove it either, this is all just common sense. If we truly had equal opportunity, poverty would be nearly non-existent. Not to mention the class system would be far less pronounced. If hard work was a measuring stick of how far we go in life or how successful we become, my mom would be a billionaire easily, as would almost every starving woman or child in Africa, and all the speculators on Wall Street wouldn't be shit.

Capitalism is one big casino that chooses winners and losers at the roll of dice or flip of a coin, and for every winner there is 10's of millions of losers. It has very little, almost nothing, to do with merit or talent. The American Dream is a sham. Sure, you have someone once in a while that rises up and makes it through the various barriers, but this is the great exception, and not the rule.

[kandrathe]

You can disagree all you want. But You ARE wrong, and the history of our material conditions show this is self-evident. It's the same thing as the people who swear the Holocaust never happened, despite all the evidence to the contrary. There is NOT equal opportunity anywhere, I don't even see how this can be debated. Nor does hard work really mean much to be honest, it can help but it certainly isn't cracked up to what we make it to be. Lissa is right, it is all about being born from "the right" parents, who you know, being in the right place at the right time, knowing the right people, and a little bit of sheer dumb luck here and there. Statistics are not even needed here, just common sense. If we truly had equal opportunity, poverty would be nearly non-existent. Not to mention the class system would be far less pronounced. If hard work was a measuring stick of how far we go in life or how successful we become, my mom would be a billionaire easily, as would almost every starving woman or child in Africa.

Capitalism is one big casino that chooses winners and losers at the roll of dice or flip of a coin, for every winner there is 10's of millions of losers. It has very little, almost nothing, to do with merit or talent. The American Dream is a sham. Sure, you have someone once in a while that rises up and makes it through the various barriers, but this is the great exception, and not the rule.

100% opinion. 0% facts or evidence. You even dismiss the need for facts, or "statistics". There is really nothing more to say, other than I disagree with you on so many points.

[FireIceTalon]

More like: You wish it was opinion. Self-evident conditions do not carry the burden of proof. You say there is equal opportunity, I say there isn't. Burden of proof is on YOU homie, not me. I'm claiming a negative, and a negative never has to be proven. The person making the claim of a positive, existing fact has the duty to prove his or her claim. It's the same thing with those of faith, and atheists.....burden of proof is on believers, not on atheists. Fact, end of story.

Edit* And as far as Statistics or facts go, you don't want to go there anyway, cause they most certainly do not help your case. The class you are born into largely determines where you will end up in life (50%+ for the very top and bottom, somewhat less in between). Other factors I named before, such as knowing certain people, being in the right place at the right time, and just plain luck come into play also. Hard work can help in exceptional cases but it is NOT the rule, or most of us would be millionaires. Chances are, if you are born into wealth, you will be wealthy for most or all of your life and probably never have to lift a finger again. Likewise, if you are born into poverty, chances are you will be poor most of your life. And further, when social mobility does occur (in either direction), it usually is a change of one socio-economic class, not a complete swing from one end of the spectrum to the other. So if you are super rich and have a stroke of bad luck, you might be only just "plain" rich (however that is defined) then, or if you were born into poverty, you may get lucky and become working class (in rare cases you will reach middle class and in even more rare cases, the top).

Lastly, once again, you are wrong, and this proves everything I said above to be true (go to the income mobility tab to see what I mean). My ultimate point is that we do NOT have equality of opportunity, and indeed we do not. This is an undeniable fact, and it shouldn't even be up for debate as far as I or any other half-way rational person with conventional wisdom is concerned. What's more, those numbers are from 1988-1998. From 1998-present, I bet the mobility is even less given the austerity that has occurred the last decade coupled with broken system of capitalism, once again, falling into crises (partially due to reactionary policies). You wanted evidence, now you got it. Good game, thanks for playing, better luck next time.

Horatio Alger fantasies are truly some of the most carcinogenic philosophies ever.

[Jester]

More like: You wish it was opinion. Self-evident conditions do not carry the burden of proof. You say there is equal opportunity, I say there isn't. Burden of proof is on YOU homie, not me. Fact, end of story.

You are not merely claiming there isn't perfect equality of opportunity. You are claiming something like the opposite, that success is almost entirely a function of your birth - and that is an extraordinary claim, requiring, as Sagan said, extraordinary evidence. Certainly it is not self-evident, and it is not a reasonable null hypothesis.

Indeed, if you look at the studies behind the website you link us to, you actually find that quite a lot of people move from the bottom quartile to the top quartile, and vice versa. Income at birth matters, but it hardly determines your future status in an entirely deterministic way. The coefficients of correlation show neither a trivial effect, nor a dominating one. These are aggregate statistics, not anecdotes.

But, then, you supposedly have me on ignore, so I guess this is for the peanut gallery.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Good game, thanks for playing, better luck next time.

Sometimes you are such an arrogant pr*ck. You really do try hard to alienate just about everyone.

Ok, here is some evidence. It's just a real study, performed by real scholars, who really know what they are doing.

Now, why don't you talk like an adult for a change?

Edit: "And as far as Statistics or facts go, you don't want to go there anyway, cause they most certainly do not help your case." And, they don't make your case either. The graph has no dimensions, and so we don't know the scale. Beyond that, it is a measure of the top 20% in each country compared with the bottom 20% in each country. Not a measure of social mobility, or the ease of social mobility. Factors to consider... Who has higher immigration? Ok, now let's compare the USA to the EU, rather than just the richest parts of the EU. How about the richest 20% in all the EU, versus the poorest 20% in the EU. That would change the picture completely.

Edit2: "go to the income mobility tab to see what I mean" Ok, I did and it proves what I said, not what you said. Sure, some people move down. There is no guarantee of only upward mobility, or that your hard working mom is going to eventually be a billionaire. That is not what the "American Dream" encapsulates. It means you have an equal (or at least a more equal) opportunity, to improve your position through hard work, good choices, intelligence and a little luck. It also doesn't mean there isn't a Danish Dream, or a Scandinavian Dream as well.

[FireIceTalon]

Only sometimes? Guess I'm slacking then, lol.

Anyways, looking at the first couple pages of the document you provided, it seems to more or less be echoing the same stats as what I posted, but attempts to turn it around into a positive thing by saying "hey look, 50% of people experienced social mobility!" Basically, the parents you are born from will factor 50% to where you end up in life. Maybe that isn't a lot to you, but from my perspective, it most certainly is. To be born from the "right" parents being that much of a factor in determining your place in life, before taking everything else into account, is not a good look. Then comes everything else I mentioned before (right place or time, connections, luck, and merit/talent). And this doesn't take into account that those who have a staggered start not only have less opportunity to start with, but are born into conditions where achieving the necessary capital to even get a chance for having equal opportunity is extremely difficult.

No matter how you look at it, we do not have equal opportunity, and never did. And to think otherwise is very naive IMO. Your logic implies that those born into poverty or working class proletarians have the same life chances as those born into the middle class or those in capitalist class, which is simply not true. Again, if it were, 40% of the US population wouldn't live in poverty, and the class disparities would be far less pronounced than they are. Nations with a more egalitarian society like the Social Democratic nations of Europe have more equality of opportunity than nations with more class disparity, this is hardly a coincidence. My mom works hard as hell, and has for 25 years, much harder than many people who have more money than her who never lifted a finger in their life. Hard work means much less than having the right parents or connections. Again, capitalism chooses winners and losers at random, it is like flipping a coin to determine who gets what and when.

This is why I have serious issues with the politics and views of right-wingers, and why I cannot take them seriously: you guys live in some lovey-dovey Horatio Alger fantasy world that completely flies in the face of the material conditions of the world around you. You are an optimist, I am a REALIST. Meaning I see the world for how it really is, and I don't have rose colored glasses distorting my vision. It is easy and convenient to ignore, deny, or downplay these problems, but just because you choose to do so doesn't mean you can sweep them under the rug and pretend they don't exist, because they most certainly do.

[kandrathe]

...looking at the first couple pages of the document you provided, it seems to more or less be echoing...

Yeah, no. Maybe reading comprehension is more difficult after midnight.

As an example, "Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups."

I underlined the portions you may have missed in that bullet point.

Also you might note, "Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period." and "Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005."

If you look at Table 1, it is "Self Evident" that you are more likely to go up, rather than go down.

To be born from the "right" parents being that much of a factor in determining your place in life, before taking everything else into account, is not a good look.

Right, like say Herman Cain's parents who instilled in him a work ethic, and themselves worked very hard to get him the right education, and opportunities to be successful. As opposed to an addict, who has 20 children to collect the AFDC to support her meth habit.

Your logic implies that those born into poverty have the same life chances as those born into the middle class or those in capitalist class, which is simply not true.

Wouldn't you say that by implementing structures, such as free public education, Pell grants, and need based financial aid, that we are doing quite a bit to level the playing field?

Again, if it were, our poverty rate wouldn't be 40%, and the class disparities would be far less pronounced than they are.

The poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1%. In 2009, it was 14.3%. In 2000, it was 11.3%. In 1993, it was 15.1%. Where do you get your numbers? Moreover, for comparison, our darling Denmark had a 12.1% poverty rate in 2007.

My mom works hard as hell, and has for 25 years, much harder than many people who have more money than her who never lifted a finger in their life. Again, capitalism chooses winners and losers at random, it is like flipping a coin to determine who gets what and when.

No, it's not random. Your mom maybe isn't investing her earnings in those things that would lift her station. My dad was the same. He drove long haul semi-trucks 5 days a week, and ran a farm. He just never invested in anything that grew in value (except our farm, and that was just luck).

Blah, blah, blah... Meaning I see the world for how it really is, and I don't have rose colored glasses distorting my vision.

Or, facts to back up your rantings. You have the certainty of your convictions, without the frivolity of any solid evidential foundations to base them upon.

[FireIceTalon]

We can argue all day, fact is, when it's all said and done, the material conditions (meaning reality) do NOT support your hypothesis and in fact, very much reflect its contrary. I KNOW there isn't equality of opportunity, and I think it is completely asinine that I have to try and prove this to you when it is so blatantly obvious. I suppose you will want me to disprove God's existence next, right? Or that the Holocaust never happened.

[kandrathe]

We can argue all day, fact is, when it's all said and done, the material conditions (meaning reality) do NOT support your hypothesis and in fact, very much reflect its contrary. I KNOW there isn't equality of opportunity, and I think it is completely asinine that I have to try and prove this to you when it is so blatantly obvious. I suppose you will want me to disprove God's existence next, right?

That's a great tactic. Let me try...

No, no. You are wrong, and I'm right. I don't need to look at any of the data, or facts that you've presented, because reality isn't measured with actual yardsticks anymore. In fact, reality bends to my will, and my will alone. I alone know what is correct, and so I don't need to prove that to anyone. If you weren't so thick, you'd know that I am right, and any effort by you to disprove my absolute correctness only portrays you as more of a wanker. Here, now, let me dig into my bag of straw men... I suppose you want me to prove that black is white, and get myself killed at the next zebra crossing?

edit: "Or that the Holocaust never happened." <-- be careful where you tread. One of my families best friends survived internment for a year at Bergen-Belson.

[FireIceTalon]

I do not deny the Holocaust, only a fool would. My point was, your argument about equality of opportunity existing is as ridiculous as saying the Holocaust didn't happen. Both claims are intellectually dishonest, much in the same way that the popular revisionism of Civil War History being centered around states rights rather than slavery, that CSA sympathizers push forward nowadays is.

[eppie]

Well, kandrathe; FIT is right actually.
First because of the examples he mentioned which don't (as you do so often) are single cases that you personally know of but really represent the majority of people on the globe.
You can say that in another system, another political system things would be equal or worse but saying that the american dream exists is just nonsense.
In the Netherlands we were also doing really good in the 17th century...you know why? We got us some colonies emptied them of what was valuable and sold it.

Your type of american dream existed for what? 50 years, and now already things seem to be changing a lot (energy crisis, food crisis, economic crisis).....I mean I know of many empire in the history of men that laste longer.

I think that instead of being happy what you have (because you were born in a good place) and telling it is the best of the best you better look into the future and see how we can make things better.
On the other hand, of you just keep repeating the capitalist mantra (because it works so great for us now) you always have chance to win the 'nobel price' in economics.

---

You are not merely claiming there isn't perfect equality of opportunity. You are claiming something like the opposite, that success is almost entirely a function of your birth - and that is an extraordinary claim, requiring, as Sagan said, extraordinary evidence. Certainly it is not self-evident, and it is not a reasonable null hypothesis.

Indeed, if you look at the studies behind the website you link us to, you actually find that quite a lot of people move from the bottom quartile to the top quartile, and vice versa. Income at birth matters, but it hardly determines your future status in an entirely deterministic way. The coefficients of correlation show neither a trivial effect, nor a dominating one. These are aggregate statistics, not anecdotes.

But, then, you supposedly have me on ignore, so I guess this is for the peanut gallery.

-Jester

And to add to that. The american dream only works if for every winner you have a whole bunch of losers. So yes, of course there are people climbing up the socioeconomic ladder. But for every person that clims up, several fall down.

Let's take the case of warren buffet. I would like to see some probability calculation of how many people started of just like him, and then had his succes rate in choices made. (so simply, buy cheap sell for more). To become Warren you have to have say a 65% succesrate of buying/selling.

So first besides warren, how many are there that tried the same but just missed that little bit of luck that he had?
And lets say there were anothe million besides Warren that had exactlt the same intelligence, work ethics and luck.....would they all be multibiljonair as well? No of course not that is not how the system works. If one person makes a billion other loose a billion (of course you have inflation and all but basically this is a fact).

[FireIceTalon]

It doesn't work good for us even now. Well, for the capitalists, it does. Not for the poor, working class, and now the middle class. Capitalism, like every other economic system before it, WILL fail guaranteed, and history will progress into a better and more efficient and humane system. We are seeing the beginning of its demise now.

Truth be told, from a Marxist perspective, I do not hate capitalism, and in fact I view it from this context to be not only an improvement from previous economic systems (such as feudalism), but as a necessary one to move history forward. It is as a human being, where my disdain for capitalism is. It is a sick, corrupt, and vicious barbaric system that prevents humanity from reaching its potential, and we as a species will be much better off, emotionally and psychologically, under a Socialist and eventually, Communist, society. The human condition overall will improve drastically as we become 'species beings' instead of being reduced to wage slavery and alienation.

[kandrathe]

I do not deny the Holocaust, only a fool would. My point was, your argument about equality of opportunity existing is as ridiculous as saying the Holocaust didn't happen. Both claims are intellectually dishonest, much in the same way that the popular revisionism of Civil War History being centered around states rights rather than slavery, that CSA sympathizers push forward nowadays is.

Anyone who disagrees with me beats puppies.

Edit: And... it is not at all intellectually dishonest to equate the misstated proposition of your debate opponent to (Godwinesque) holocaust denial, or supporting historical revisionists?

[Jester]

And to add to that. The american dream only works if for every winner you have a whole bunch of losers. So yes, of course there are people climbing up the socioeconomic ladder. But for every person that clims up, several fall down.

Not really, no. This isn't a zero sum game. New wealth is created nearly every year. Someone at the mean real US income today would have been very well off in the 1910s, and downright rich in the 1820s.

Let's take the case of warren buffet. I would like to see some probability calculation of how many people started of just like him, and then had his succes rate in choices made. (so simply, buy cheap sell for more). To become Warren you have to have say a 65% succesrate of buying/selling.

Can we distinguish the hypotheses: Warren Buffett was very lucky, vs. Warren Buffet was very good at investing? I'm not sure I have the tools to pick that apart, but this sure does seem like a staggering run of luck - especially since his investment strategy has been bland to the point of boredom. He doesn't take big risks.

And lets say there were anothe million besides Warren that had exactlt the same intelligence, work ethics and luck.....would they all be multibiljonair as well? No of course not that is not how the system works. If one person makes a billion other loose a billion (of course you have inflation and all but basically this is a fact).

This is one right proposition, and one wrong one. The right part is that, even if there were a million Buffetts, they probably wouldn't all be multibillionaires. Some would be unlucky. Others would make the wrong choices, maybe for lack of information. And at that level of wealth, they'd compete with each other - there are not that many great deals in the investment world.

The wrong part is the zero sum game assumption. Smart investing increases the wealth available for others. It grows the economy. This is especially true for Warren Buffet, who has not generally invested in speculative "gambles," but instead puts his money in safe, well-managed companies, and holds them. Coca-cola. Gilette. Reinsurance companies. Bland, boring stuff that pays off in the long run.

-Jester

[eppie]

[quote='eppie' pid='192152' dateline='1323245995']
And to add to that. The american dream only works if for every winner you have a whole bunch of losers. So yes, of course there are people climbing up the socioeconomic ladder. But for every person that clims up, several fall down.

Not really, no. This isn't a zero sum game. New wealth is created nearly every year. Someone at the mean real US income today would have been very well off in the 1910s, and downright rich in the 1820s.

Your are confusing things. Socio-economic status is always relative. Of course we are living better then we lived 100 years ago or 200 years ago on average but that would also have happened with other political systems. And as as side note. I am not sure people in Somalia have a higher quality of life compared to 50, 100 or 200 years ago.

[quote='eppie' pid='192152' dateline='1323245995']
Let's take the case of warren buffet. I would like to see some probability calculation of how many people started of just like him, and then had his succes rate in choices made. (so simply, buy cheap sell for more). To become Warren you have to have say a 65% succesrate of buying/selling.

Can we distinguish the hypotheses: Warren Buffett was very lucky, vs. Warren Buffet was very good at investing? I'm not sure I have the tools to pick that apart, but this sure does seem like a staggering run of luck - especially since his investment strategy has been bland to the point of boredom. He doesn't take big risks.

That is not the point. If he had made several big wrong choices (more) nobody would have known him. Anyway I don't mind giving him the credits.


[quote='Jester' pid='192155' dateline='1323251375']
[quote='eppie' pid='192152' dateline='1323245995']

And lets say there were anothe million besides Warren that had exactlt the same intelligence, work ethics and luck.....would they all be multibiljonair as well? No of course not that is not how the system works. If one person makes a billion other loose a billion (of course you have inflation and all but basically this is a fact).

This is one right proposition, and one wrong one. The right part is that, even if there were a million Buffetts, they probably wouldn't all be multibillionaires. Some would be unlucky. Others would make the wrong choices, maybe for lack of information. And at that level of wealth, they'd compete with each other - there are not that many great deals in the investment world.

The wrong part is the zero sum game assumption. Smart investing increases the wealth available for others. It grows the economy. This is especially true for Warren Buffet, who has not generally invested in speculative "gambles," but instead puts his money in safe, well-managed companies, and holds them. Coca-cola. Gilette. Reinsurance companies. Bland, boring stuff that pays off in the long run.
-Jester

I understand the principle of investing and economic growth. But the losers in this case might be the competitors of the companies you mentioned. Or the investors in the competitors. The main driver for economic growth is however still population increase.
And the big danger of economic growth by investing (more and more) is the creation of bubbles, having money only on paper, valueing things (like houses) much higher then they are actually worth just because there is so much money 'available'.etc. But of course this is another discussion.

[Jester]

Your are confusing things. Socio-economic status is always relative. Of course we are living better then we lived 100 years ago or 200 years ago on average but that would also have happened with other political systems. And as as side note. I am not sure people in Somalia have a higher quality of life compared to 50, 100 or 200 years ago.

First, we are talking about the American dream, not the Somali dream. The problems in the poorest parts of Africa are legion, but are a very different issue from first-world social mobility.

Second, it is literally impossible to create a system in which everyone gets to be top dog. Everyone cannot be *relatively* wealthy. What the "American dream" promises is two things: one, that the future will be wealthier than the present, and two, that everyone has the opportunity to succeed or fail. The system has done well on the first measure, and okay-ish on the second. Your initial conditions have a strong impact on future performance, but not a binding one (that study above seemed to indicate, about 1/3 of your future income performance is attributable to your parents' income. That leaves 2/3 for other factors.)

I agree much of Europe is better, in many ways, although there is also a social and political elite which is much less permeable. It's worth remembering that, of the last 10 American presidents, the only ones that came from elite political families were the Bushes and JFK.

That is not the point. If he had made several big wrong choices (more) nobody would have known him. Anyway I don't mind giving him the credits.

Failure fails - is this surprising in any way? That should be true in any system. Warren Buffett's skill is in making right choices, so obviously, if he'd made wrong ones, we wouldn't be talking about him, because the only thing that makes him unusual is that exact quality.

I understand the principle of investing and economic growth. But the losers in this case might be the competitors of the companies you mentioned. Or the investors in the competitors. The main driver for economic growth is however still population increase.

This is definitely wrong. Population increase does not drive economic growth, not by a long shot. Otherwise, India would be rich, and Luxembourg poor. Research drives growth. Innovation drives growth. Capital accumulation drives growth. Competition drives growth. Population growth actually decreases economic growth, all else equal - more people fighting over the same resources means less for each.

-Jester

[eppie]

This is definitely wrong. Population increase does not drive economic growth, not by a long shot. Otherwise, India would be rich, and Luxembourg poor. Research drives growth. Innovation drives growth. Capital accumulation drives growth. Competition drives growth. Population growth actually decreases economic growth, all else equal - more people fighting over the same resources means less for each.

-Jester

If you consider economy a local national thing yes. But of course it isn't.
Our wealth in the west is made possible by the fact that there are so many indians and chinese. If we couldn't get cheap cloths, gadgets, food, oil etc. we would have to think of something else.....at least we wouldn't have time to enjoy our holidays a lot.

But your last line of course hits the spot. This is the big problem of the coming years. Most economists (and most nobel prize winners) have always considered an economy with endless resources and would disregard the impact our consumption has on our planet. Some of us at least now know that this is not going to last.



Oy yeah and about the american dream.....I didn't want to make a statement if the situation in the US is better or worse than in E.g. europe. We make our own choices and are happy with it. I just it is a stupid meaningless statement. The same as the US always praises itsself about having so much freedom (e.g. to bear arms), well we have the freedom to smoke weed, and drink beer on the street. Now I don't want to comment on what is better or worse but please stop claiming.

I think the whole land of the free and american dream thing are just there to give the people something to be patriotic about (without them really knowing what it means).

[kandrathe]

If you consider economy a local national thing yes. But of course it isn't.
Our wealth in the west is made possible by the fact that there are so many indians and chinese. If we couldn't get cheap cloths, gadgets, food, oil etc. we would have to think of something else.....at least we wouldn't have time to enjoy our holidays a lot.

The US used to make all those things here, and ship them to you. We became wealthy by and large due to European self-destruction, and our ability to help rebuild you. The process of wealth creation is the accumulation of value in an item. For example, I create value by using my brain to analyze data, making a mass of information usable by decision makers. I'm a crucial point in delivering the justifications for leadership actions. More simply, the act of mining coal, and iron, then mixing them in a blast furnace to make steel creates more value that merely mining the coal, and steel alone. A cashier adds value by interfacing with customers, and managing the point of sale. The Walmart greeter adds value by creating an initial positive friendly response with guests to the store. In general then, our creativity, productivity, and positive interactions are all used to create wealth, and only sometimes there is a need for raw materials.

I think the whole land of the free and American dream thing are just there to give the people something to be patriotic about (without them really knowing what it means).

I believe much of this sentiment began while we were a frontier nation, and pretty much one of the only democratic nations. Now, there are very few monarchies (Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland), and a trend away from dictatorships. It used to be that the Statue of Liberty was a unique beacon of hope for the oppressed, but thankfully, the world has more places where refugees are welcomed.