Poll: What is the most overrated sport

[Montegriffo]

“Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.” Matthew 13:12

Turns out the book of Matthew doesn't know shit about economics, who knew?

Blasphemer.

[StCapps]

Turns out the book of Matthew doesn't know shit about economics, who knew?

Blasphemer.

You'd rather the poor we're poorer, provided the rich were less rich. Thatcher Derangement Syndrome, when you have no good arguments against a rising tide lifting all boats, point to the gap between the rich and the poor, regardless if the poor are better off despite the gap.

[Montegriffo]

Turns out the book of Matthew doesn't know shit about economics, who knew?

Blasphemer.

You'd rather the poor we're poorer, provided the rich were less rich. Thatcher Derangement Syndrome, when you have no good arguments against a rising tide lifting all boats, point to the gap between the rich and the poor, regardless if the poor are better off despite the gap.

Really?
What are you basing that diagnosis on?

Ps. A rising tide can't lift all boats when Thatcher shut down the shipyards and the mines, and the steelworks and manufacturing.
The poor impoverished bankers did do really well out of the lactose larcenist though.

[StCapps]

Blasphemer.

You'd rather the poor we're poorer, provided the rich were less rich. Thatcher Derangement Syndrome, when you have no good arguments against a rising tide lifting all boats, point to the gap between the rich and the poor, regardless if the poor are better off despite the gap.

Really?
What are you basing that diagnosis on?

Based on your quoting the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, when that is not how economics works at all. Tunnel visioning on the gap is economic illiteracy.

If you disagree, and don't think that punishing success is the best way to help the poor, and you are just pretending that the gap is what needs to be focused on, feel free to speak up and call out brewster and grumpy on their bullshit. No one is stopping you, so if you instead just want to focus on rebutting me, then obviously you are going to get lumped in with those doing the same until proven otherwise.

[Speaker to Animals]

Income inequality is not necessarily bad if it means the bottom percentile is living a higher quality of life than they would if there were less income inequality.

Everybody is equal in Uganda.

It is less of a problem if social mobility is high. If the lower classes feels they can be winners if they work hard it can work as a motivation. What used to be called The American Dream. Later Obama redefined the concept.

Personally, I think the ability for the rich to actually burn out and land in the middle class is far more important than income inequality or the ability for the middle class to ascend to the upper class.

Rich people need to face the same kind of burnout rate as lowly market traders. You blow up; you're done; pack your shit. Instead they get bail outs and breaks and all sorts of shit.

When a trader fucks up and loses millions, he's done. He doesn't work in that industry again. But when his bank employers fuck up, they get bail outs and keep on keeping on. The rich people are not really the traders. They are the people who own the banks. Nobody is really accountable for really anything above a certain threshold. It's truly bizarre what happens when you end up with rule by the merchant class.It's filthy and disgusting, really.

[StCapps]

Income inequality is not necessarily bad if it means the bottom percentile is living a higher quality of life than they would if there were less income inequality.

Everybody is equal in Uganda.

It is less of a problem if social mobility is high. If the lower classes feels they can be winners if they work hard it can work as a motivation. What used to be called The American Dream. Later Obama redefined the concept.

Personally, I think the ability for the rich to actually burn out and land in the middle class is far more important than income inequality or the ability for the middle class to ascend to the upper class.

Rich people need to face the same kind of burnout rate as lowly market traders. You blow up; you're done; pack your shit. Instead they get bail outs and breaks and all sorts of shit.

When a trader fucks up and loses millions, he's done. He doesn't work in that industry again. But when his bank employers fuck up, they get bail outs and keep on keeping on. The rich people are not really the traders. They are the people who own the banks. Nobody is really accountable for really anything above a certain threshold. It's truly bizarre what happens when you end up with rule by the merchant class.It's filthy and disgusting, really.

Well turns out that the turnover rate from the bottom income quintile and top income quintle are about the same, most of those people in those quintiles don't stay there. So rejoice.

[SuburbanFarmer]

It is less of a problem if social mobility is high. If the lower classes feels they can be winners if they work hard it can work as a motivation. What used to be called The American Dream. Later Obama redefined the concept.

Personally, I think the ability for the rich to actually burn out and land in the middle class is far more important than income inequality or the ability for the middle class to ascend to the upper class.

Rich people need to face the same kind of burnout rate as lowly market traders. You blow up; you're done; pack your shit. Instead they get bail outs and breaks and all sorts of shit.

When a trader fucks up and loses millions, he's done. He doesn't work in that industry again. But when his bank employers fuck up, they get bail outs and keep on keeping on. The rich people are not really the traders. They are the people who own the banks. Nobody is really accountable for really anything above a certain threshold. It's truly bizarre what happens when you end up with rule by the merchant class.It's filthy and disgusting, really.

Well turns out that the turnover rate from the bottom income quintile and top income quintle are about the same, most of those people in those quintiles don't stay there. So rejoice.

::citation needed::

[StCapps]

Personally, I think the ability for the rich to actually burn out and land in the middle class is far more important than income inequality or the ability for the middle class to ascend to the upper class.

Rich people need to face the same kind of burnout rate as lowly market traders. You blow up; you're done; pack your shit. Instead they get bail outs and breaks and all sorts of shit.

When a trader fucks up and loses millions, he's done. He doesn't work in that industry again. But when his bank employers fuck up, they get bail outs and keep on keeping on. The rich people are not really the traders. They are the people who own the banks. Nobody is really accountable for really anything above a certain threshold. It's truly bizarre what happens when you end up with rule by the merchant class.It's filthy and disgusting, really.

Well turns out that the turnover rate from the bottom income quintile and top income quintle are about the same, most of those people in those quintiles don't stay there. So rejoice.

::citation needed::

1)
https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legac ... eampdf.pdf

According to a 2012 Pew Economic Mobility Project study 43% of children born into the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) remain in that bottom quintile as adults. Similarly, 40% of children raised in the top quintile (top 20%) will remain there as adults.

That means over half of children born into the bottom quintile or top quintile don't remain there.



2)
https://www.cato.org/blog/high-turnover ... ricas-rich

According to research from Cornell University, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives. Over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners (i.e., people making at minimum $332,000 per annum) for at least one year.

Some 94 percent of Americans who reach “top 1 percent” income status will enjoy it for only a single year. Approximately 99 percent will lose their “top 1 percent” status within a decade.

What if we look at economic mobility in terms of accumulated wealth, instead of just annual income (the latter tends to fluctuate more)?

The Forbes 400 lists the wealthiest Americans by total estimated net worth, regardless of their income during any given year. Over 71 percent of Forbes 400 listees and their heirs lost their top 400 status between 1982 and 2014.

3)
https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications ... not-so-bad





Most people in the top quintile don't stay there, and most people in the bottom quintile don't stay there. There is in fact tons of turnover in every income bracket.

Free market capitalism promotes more income mobility than any other economic system, so enough of the blaming FMC for the plight of the poor, many of whom don't remain poor for very long under FMC.

Enough of the myth that rich people always stay rich forever thanks to FMC. Much of the wealth of the richest families is usually gone within three generations. Shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations, first generation starts from the bottom and rises to the top often founding a big business, second generation builds on the first generations wealth and takes over the family business that is responsible for generating the wealth, third generation pisses it all away not caring about the business and wanting to coast off what has already been accumulated, usually selling the business for a short term cash in that quickly dwindles, a very common dynamic.

You don't need the government to take their wealth in order to redistribute it, they'll give it back on their own eventually, just let the free market work it's magic.

[Speaker to Animals]

"Top 10% of income earners" is not synonymous with the upper class.

Top 0.1% of earners in general.. Amd they usually do not have an "income" but, rather, capital gains.


The United States has the highest flame out rate, but it is still very much limited. Continental Europe is atrocious, with most of them being the same medieval families. Taleb breaks down this problem best in Antifragile.

[StCapps]

"Top 10% of income earners" is not synonymous with the upper class.

Top 0.1% of earners in general.. Amd they usually do not have an "income" but, rather, capital gains.


The United States has the highest flame out rate, but it is still very much limited. Continental Europe is atrocious, with most of them being the same medieval families. Taleb breaks down this problem best in Antifragile.

Even the top 0.1% by net wealth aren't able to stay there, Fortune 400 says there is 71% flame out rate among the top 400 earners and their heirs from 1982-2014. There is plenty of turnover among the upper class, and even if there wasn't, no other system has anywhere near as much turnover as free market capitalism.