[kenberg]

 awm, on 2016-May-29, 13:00, said:

I suspect you would not be so happy with this choice if you wound up African-American (pre civil rights) especially in the South!

I'd go for one of several European countries (like Norway, Denmark, or Switzerland) in the present day. US or Great Britain is probably better if in the upper half of income distribution though.

Of course this is so. I figure I'll take my chances. I figure it is not great being at the bottom of the heap anywhere. Possibly my fantasy could actually lead to some sort of interesting look. Maybe.

I did not grow up poor but I also definitely did not grow up in the upper economic half. Life was pretty good. I lived in the same house throughout my childhood, my mother was at home when I got out of school, neighborhood friends were welcome in the house, the neighborhood was safe, I walked half a block to the pretty decent elementary school and, in the winter, half a block in the other direction to the skating rink. And I had the best comic book collection in the neighborhood. It seems to me this is more than a lot of people at the below median income level can say today.

I don't know how to fix it, but it seems something is broken. Which I guess brings this diversion back to the election.

PS I am not saying life was idyllic. I could easily list some complaints. But all in all, I think many today can only hope for as much. The country is richer, so I don't get it.

[Al_U_Card]

Exactly where I was, when I was. Anything else would be out of phase with the person I was intended to be.
Vaguely reminiscent of the Sly and the family Stone admonition to "respect yourself".

[mike777]

 gwnn, on 2016-May-29, 12:04, said:

the veil of ignorance! beautiful.

I don't think I'm a bit Obama-sycophant but I tend to agree with him that today is the most peaceful, best period of human history. I guess we'll see how we fare when we run out of oil/fresh water/the Saudis get a nuke/we all fry together when we fry*.

* https://www.youtube....h?v=frAEmhqdLFs

I like the way Dan Carlin (history amateur podcaster) put it: the worst case scenario today (say ISIS manages to get a nuclear bomb to a major American city and sets it off, killing 100k people and rendering large areas uninhabitable) would have been a best case scenario (out of the bad ones) in the Cold War.

Speaking of running out of fresh water. We are awash in water, as you point out the issue is fresh water. The good news is we know how to turn salt water into fresh water. The bad news is it is very expensive because of of such huge amounts of energy and its cost. However i predict within your lifetime we will be able to lower the cost of such energy to something close to zero which means we can create fresh water at a cost close to zero, which means we can grow food at a cost close to zero.


There are difficult problems to overcome in harnessing energy from space at very low costs but I am optimistic solutions are close, close within your lifetime.

[Zelandakh]

 mike777, on 2016-May-29, 17:46, said:

There are difficult problems to overcome in harnessing energy from space at very low costs but I am optimistic solutions are close, close within your lifetime.

We have been "about 20 years" away from cheap energy solutions for as long as I can remember, basically my entire lifetime. What makes you think it will be different this generation?

[kenberg]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-May-30, 01:56, said:

We have been "about 20 years" away from cheap energy solutions for as long as I can remember, basically my entire lifetime. What makes you think it will be different this generation?

There is a flip side to that. In my high school years (1952-1956) there were frequent classroom discussions explaining that we would be running out of oil in 20 years. 20 seems to be a useful number. Close enough to get your attention, far enough away that nobody can give a convincing argument that the speaker is wrong.

Something fun, perhaps instructive, would be to dig up forecasts from those years. The local newspaper was the St. Paul Pioneer Press (morning) and St. Paul Dispatch (evening). On Sundays there would be a supplement, often containing either glowing or ominous projections into the future, and yes, usually 20 years off. One I particularly recall: Father and son would, it was said, argue about who would go in to the shop to do the work, the work being to push a button to get the robots moving. Whether this should be put in the glowing or the ominous category isn't completely clear.

[mike777]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-May-30, 01:56, said:

We have been "about 20 years" away from cheap energy solutions for as long as I can remember, basically my entire lifetime. What makes you think it will be different this generation?

What made you believe we have been 20 years away from a cheap energy solution for as long as you remember?


As for my comments, a generation is 20 years...I did not say that though your time frame may indeed be true.


The main reason for my optimism that this will happen within Gwnn's lifetime is the belief in that as new technologies get smaller and cheaper, their growth becomes exponential.

[Zelandakh]

 mike777, on 2016-May-30, 08:44, said:

What made you believe we have been 20 years away from a cheap energy solution for as long as you remember?

It is practically a joke amongst physicists. Scientists have been reporting fusion as 20 years away since the 50s, if not earlier. The same number turns up constantly when it comes to other cheap energy sources. Yes, some respected scientists such as Michio Kaku are saying it really is true this time but many others are far more skeptical. A couple of years ago Lockheed Martin were the latest in a long line promising unlimited clean energy in 20 years. You can probably imagine the sound of laughter coming from physics faculties all over the world...

[mike777]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-May-30, 10:04, said:

It is practically a joke amongst physicists. Scientists have been reporting fusion as 20 years away since the 50s, if not earlier. The same number turns up constantly when it comes to other cheap energy sources. Yes, some respected scientists such as Michio Kaku are saying it really is true this time but many others are far more skeptical. A couple of years ago Lockheed Martin were the latest in a long line promising unlimited clean energy in 20 years. You can probably imagine the sound of laughter coming from physics faculties all over the world...

ahh ok...


The good news is I have been using energy from fusion to grow food in my back yard for years. As i mentioned we even know how to use it to convert fresh water from salt water. The bad news is it is very expensive to use this energy to do this conversion. There are many difficult issues to lower this energy cost and conversion to close to zero so I do not mean to minimize the challenge but I remain optimistic.

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2016-May-29, 14:22, said:

Of course this is so. I figure I'll take my chances. I figure it is not great being at the bottom of the heap anywhere. Possibly my fantasy could actually lead to some sort of interesting look. Maybe.

I think I've read that it's still far better to be poor in America than in the median in a third-world country.

Quote

PS I am not saying life was idyllic. I could easily list some complaints. But all in all, I think many today can only hope for as much. The country is richer, so I don't get it.

Income inequality. The country is richer, but much more of it is in the hands of the 1%.

[mike777]

ncome inequality. The country is richer, but much more of it is in the hands of the 1%.

-----


Ok what policies do you want to pass to reverse this?

If you want to reverse this by what definition and measurement equals success?


Or do you think this is a nonproblem?
----------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------


For example my goals might be:

1) more people employed in full time jobs, many more
2) rising wages compared to inflation.
--------------------
---------------------


failure would look like:

decrease or tiny increase in full time jobs
decrease or tiny decrease in wages, after inflation
-----

I note none of this addresses income inequality
or free health care for all
or free college for all
or a wealth tax however you prefer to define wealth


all of the above are current hot topics for discussion on the political table.

[Zelandakh]

How about starting by making it that the top earners do not have a tax rate significantly lower than the rest of the population Mike?

[barmar]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-June-01, 06:11, said:

How about starting by making it that the top earners do not have a tax rate significantly lower than the rest of the population Mike?

Yeah.

Ken considers the 50's a golden age, were there some pretty high tax brackets back then?

Raise the minimum wage, provide more public assistance for higher education (to make it feasible to get out of the cycle of poverty).

[Winstonm]

 mike777, on 2016-June-01, 00:22, said:

ncome inequality. The country is richer, but much more of it is in the hands of the 1%.

-----


Ok what policies do you want to pass to reverse this?

If you want to reverse this by what definition and measurement equals success?


Or do you think this is a nonproblem?
----------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------


For example my goals might be:

1) more people employed in full time jobs, many more
2) rising wages compared to inflation.
--------------------
---------------------


failure would look like:

decrease or tiny increase in full time jobs
decrease or tiny decrease in wages, after inflation
-----

I note none of this addresses income inequality
or free health care for all
or free college for all
or a wealth tax however you prefer to define wealth


all of the above are current hot topics for discussion on the political table.

The problem with wealth concentration (not income inequality) stems from a change in the national perspective, that reduced government, reduced taxation, and reduced regulation was the correct path forward. This ideology was sold strongly by the Republican Party in the early 80"s but it is in no way a 1-party contribution as the Democratic Party (namely Clinton) adopted and promoted many of the same themes.

The end result after 40+ years of change is a banking system that serves itself mainly. Investment has been replaced by speculation. Quality job growth and income growth have stalled, mainly due to a lack of investment in R&D, a victim of stock buy-backs to protect share prices and the emphasis on pleasing shareholders with each quarterly report.

From May 23, 2016 Time Magazine

Quote

....consider that the financial sector now represents around 7% of the U.S. economy, up from about 4% in 1980. Despite currently taking around 25% of all corporate profits, it creates a mere 4% of all jobs.

Edit:

Quote

A couple of weeks ago, a poll conducted by the Harvard Institute of Politics found something startling: only 19% of Americans ages 18 to 29 identified themselves as “capitalists.” In the richest and most market-oriented country in the world, only 42% of that group said they “supported capitalism.” The numbers were higher among older people; still, only 26% considered themselves capitalists. A little over half supported the system as a whole.

[Zelandakh]

Winston, all your last quote does is illustrate the changing face of language. Many of the younger respondents will view the label capitalist as working in the financial sector in some way or at least of supporting much of what goes on there, particularly the given that one of the major stories of recent years has been the financial crisis. Many of the "older people" will have the idea that being a capitalist is essentially the same as not being a communist. So what do the answers actually tell us about what Americans actually think about their political system? Almost nothing. It is the kind of result that gives statisticians a bad name.

[Winstonm]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-June-01, 10:11, said:

Winston, all your last quote does is illustrate the changing face of language. Many of the younger respondents will view the label capitalist as working in the financial sector in some way or at least of supporting much of what goes on there, particularly the given that one of the major stories of recent years has been the financial crisis. Many of the "older people" will have the idea that being a capitalist is essentially the same as not being a communist. So what do the answers actually tell us about what Americans actually think about their political system? Almost nothing. It is the kind of result that gives statisticians a bad name.

While I agree this isn't the best information, I do give youth credit for having a semblance of understanding of capitalism.

Further breakdown from the polling site: http://iop.harvard.e...pring-2016-poll

Quote

When 18- to 29-year-old young Americans were asked whether or not they support socialism, capitalism, and other political theories and labels, a majority reject both socialism and capitalism. Socialism is supported by 33% of young Americans, while capitalism is supported by 42%. Among those most likely to vote, 41% support socialism and 52% support capitalism. Socialism is typically more supported by 18- to 20-year-olds (41%), Democrats (50%), Clinton voters (54%), Hispanics (38%) and African Americans (39%). Capitalism is more likely to be supported by people who have graduated from college (56%), whites (43%), men (49%), people who live in the South (46%) and the West (45%), and members of the GOP (54%).

[helene_t]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-June-01, 10:11, said:

Winston, all your last quote does is illustrate the changing face of language. Many of the younger respondents will view the label capitalist as working in the financial sector in some way or at least of supporting much of what goes on there, particularly the given that one of the major stories of recent years has been the financial crisis. Many of the "older people" will have the idea that being a capitalist is essentially the same as not being a communist. S

I thought a "capitalist" was a job description (factory owner or some such) and not an ideological label.

[kenberg]

It might have been interesting to then ask the respondents if they could define socialism or capitalism. Or communism, for that matter. Trotsky and Lenin, I believe, had some disagreements. And Mao? Or Castro (either one)? If I understand correctly, Sanders is advertising himself as a socialist who does not advocate socialism. Am I a capitalist? I have no idea. Sergei Brin? I suppose so, although I think he might resist the label. Donald Trump? Sure, but I would not want to stick that image on everyone who is a capitalist.

Truman nationalized the coal mines [oops, the steel mills, I sit corrected], or rather he attempted to do so. Presumably a socialist thinks he should have been able to do so, a capitalist thinks that he shouldn't. And communist thinks the owners should be sent to a re-education camp. So that could be a way to determine whether a person favors or does not favor socialism. Ask "Should the federal government nationalize the coal [make that steel] industry?" Yes means that you are a socialist, no means that you are a capitalist. I vote no, so I guess I am a capitalist. We could ask the Bern.

[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2016-June-01, 11:54, said:

Truman nationalized the coal mines, or rather he attempted to do so.

Wasn't it the steel mills?

In my opinion, we need a mixture of capitalism (to ensure an adequate production of goods and services) and socialism (to provide for an equitable distribution of those goods and services). Not sure what the label is.

But the two are interlocked: for businesses to thrive, it's important to have a lot of folks with some disposable income. A problem we face is that there is no guarantee that there is now, or ever will be, enough well-paying jobs to provide that disposable income for many folks. It is certainly not automatic.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-June-01, 11:54, said:

It might have been interesting to then ask the respondents if they could define socialism or capitalism. Or communism, for that matter. Trotsky and Lenin, I believe, had some disagreements. And Mao? Or Castro (either one)? If I understand correctly, Sanders is advertising himself as a socialist who does not advocate socialism. Am I a capitalist? I have no idea. Sergei Brin? I suppose so, although I think he might resist the label. Donald Trump? Sure, but I would not want to stick that image on everyone who is a capitalist.

Truman nationalized the coal mines, or rather he attempted to do so. Presumably a socialist thinks he should have been able to do so, a capitalist thinks that he shouldn't. And communist thinks the owners should be sent to a re-education camp. So that could be a way to determine whether a person favors or does not favor socialism. Ask "Should the federal government nationalize the coal industry?" Yes means that you are a socialist, no means that you are a capitalist. I vote no, so I guess I am a capitalist. We could ask the Bern.

To be fair, Bernie Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist. http://www.dsausa.or...ratic_socialism

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2016-June-01, 12:10, said:

Wasn't it the steel mills?

In my opinion, we need a mixture of capitalism (to ensure an adequate production of goods and services) and socialism (to provide for an equitable distribution of those goods and services). Not sure what the label is.

Perhaps the label is democratic socialist:

Quote

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few.