Re: Defeating The Top 1%; Request For Criticism

From: Jonathan Smith (jonathansmith99_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/15/04 

Date: 15 Jun 2004 12:01:12 -0700

atki4564@iwon.com (Eric Atkinson) wrote in message news:<11bb2490.0406141304.9bd5e7b@posting.google.com>...
> jonathansmith99@yahoo.com (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message news:<fbcaefd.0406140539.2f03461@posting.google.com>...
> > atki4564@iwon.com (Eric Atkinson) wrote in message news:<11bb2490.0406130751.2e5f6d0c@posting.google.com>...
> > > oldnasty@mindspring.com (Grinch) wrote in message news:<403da94.0406121215.2927f497@posting.google.com>...
> > > > atki4564@iwon.com (Eric Atkinson) wrote in message news:<11bb2490.0406120629.1f426d47@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > Grinch <oldnasty@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<kdfkc0h99rqomc9sqvpatuvdk9jvpc152m@4ax.com>...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The top 1% by income had 14% of all pre-tax income in the US, latest
> > > > > > data, less after-tax of course.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Cite a reference for this please.
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm... So you you think you know how to restructure the entire
> > > > economy, and how to do it by force even.
> > > >
> > > > But you don't know how to look up income distribution data. Cool. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5324&sequence=0#table1C
> > >
> > > No, it's not that I CAN'T lookup such data, it is that you clearly
> > > have a superior expertise in looking up such data.
> >
> > Having a superior expertise to you is not a tremendous challenge.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >
> > Do you understand that because of your first assumption, that income
> > is concentrated in the top 1%, and its failed support in reality, the
> > rest of your proposal is garbage?
>
> I said from the very first post that my Gini Co-Efficient was suspect,

it is outright WRONG - had you bothered to do ANY research at all,
clearly you would not have made such a blatant error.

> for at that time I only had a "hunch", albeit unproven, that such a
> ratio or something very close to it, must exist in order for the
> existing system to maintain control. I still have that hunch. Even
> Eistein had unproven hunches.

You assume that the "existing system" has "control"...control of what?
 Who this "existing system"? The "wealthy"? We've already
established that the "wealthy" though disproportionately well off
(duh) are hardly in "control".

> As for the rest of the proposal, I fully expected from the beginning
> that numerous significant changes would have to be made in a spirit of
> both COOPERATION and COMPETITION, for a group effort is required in
> almost anything. That's why I came here, to destroy all my own
> fallacies; to find out "how stupid I am" (see first post).

The basic premise has been destroyed - no amount of waffling and
condescension is going to change that.

 
> However, any truth we discover, if supported by verifable numbers
> and/or examples, can only make us stronger, not weaker, including
> myself. For this reason, I have no fear of people who are wiser than
> me; instead, I cherish them, for they can only make us all more
> clever, more effective, more efficient, etc. To the extent that they
> respond to me at all, I consider it a blessing.

The verifiable numbers you are looking for are reflected in the
contrast of current and previous market systems. Reflect on the
structural characteristics of the successful market systems for a
moment.

> >
> > > In that regard, I'm sure you aware that INCOME is only a fraction of
> > > WEALTH, and control is derived not only from INCOME but from WEALTH.
> >
> > You said INCOME. Now it is "wealth"?
>
> When I originally wrote this proposal, I struggled over the right way
> to word this asset/income concept I was trying to market.

Apparently you were inneffective in resolving your dilemma - though as
it turns out - it doesn't really matter.

> In fact, I
> struggle with many other paragraghs in the proposal as well (you
> certainly haven't seen all of them). However, it would be a major
> accomplishment just to get agreement on the Mission and Vision System
> alone, let alone the eleven other complimentary systems needed for any
> ACTUAL action.
>
> In any event, in the first drafts of the Mission and Vision System I
> used the phrase "this income and those assets" to refer to the wealth
> concept, but all this sounded far too technical (too initially
> difficult for the lowest common denominator to intuitively understand;

Let me posit the following - you are not a technically competent
writer - hence, anything you propose is going to be subject to
confusing irrespective of the cognitive level of your audience.

> that is, from a marketing perspective), for my intended audience has
> always been and always will be from the perspective of "what would the
> least common denominator person have as a point of reference for
> understanding this conept". Why? Because marketing is the most
> valuable of all skills, not economics.

For a guy that has neither - how do you know which is the more valued?

> In any event, it didn't really hit me until Mr Grinch insisted that
> this hunch be proven NOW, that the word I was really searching for was
> "wealth", or technically speaking, just "assets", but the word
> "assets" isn't a very good marketing term, hence "wealth" is now the
> latest and best description I can think of from a marketing
> perspective. So, as soon as I get around to it, I'll change the
> wording in the proposal from "income" to "wealth" due to this public
> authorship and feedback loop.

I'd suggest that the word change is the least of the problems in your
proposal.
 
> Likewise, another economist here (in a tree elsewhere) indicated that
> other than the Gini-Coefficient, he couldn't see any glaring or
> obvious errors in the proposal except that people are very difficult
> to COORDINATE in such a massive way, hence I added a new paragraph
> with regard to "discipline". He thought that addition was
> "interesting", so apprarently I do bring something to some people
> (albeit I have no illusions about my influence, it's small).

Yeh - well anyone can call himself what he wants on the internet.

> Therefore, please try to think of this tree as a constitutional
> convention process and you are the learned and esteemed delegates who
> MIGHT eventually agree to be recognized as the proposal's authors. As
> for me, I'm just a scribe, a secretary. I'll add whatever reasonable
> changes you can all eventually agree upon, because in my opinion,
> nothing will ever really change socially without unanimous trust. Why?
> Because trust is the most important of all truths.

Now, tell me this - if in fact your proposal is dependent on two
things - first that the concentration of wealth is in the top 1% and
that the remaining 99% have to trust each other - give me ONE example
where this has happened, even on a small scale.
 
> >
> > Top 1% of "wealth holders" hold 30% of the wealth. Still a far cry
> > from the 99 and 1 you need.
>
> In the spirit of cooperation, please cite a reference.

Top 1% 32.7%
Next 4% 25.0%
Next 12.1% 12.1%
Next 40% 27.4%
Bottom 50% 2.8%

Source: Arthur B. Kennickell, "A Rolling
Tide: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth
in the U.S., 1989-2001," Jerome Levy Economics
Institute, November 2003.
 
> Also, what is the government's ownership of wealth as well, not just
> the top 1%.

What a stupid question.
 
> >
> > > Therefore, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to provide a
> > > wealth reference as well.
> >
> > Do your own research next tim and demonstrate that in fact you bring
> > something to the table except derivations of a political scheme proven
> > to be economically ineffective and socially devisive.
>
> We are all at the table regardless of whom you like or dislike; as
> such, your strong emotions accomplish nothing other than to impair
> your own and other's judgement.

So in lieu of providing objective data you go to the insult. Don't
like the idea of someone poopooing your concept with two simple facts.
 1. the concentration of weaqlth required does not exist and the last
time this concept was tried it died a horrible death - leaving
millions of people in basic substinence conditions - as opposed to the
two cars and house in the suburbs middle America.
 
> >
> > > Your time and expertise are greatly appreciated.
> >
> > And yours non-existant.
>
> A perfect example of impaired judgement, of emotion run amuck. With
> all due respect sir, control yourself; any negative emotion you have
> is your real enemy, not me.

I'm not interested in earning your respect - the only thing that
matters is - can you defen the porposition with factual data - not
with hypotheticals.

js

Relevant Pages

  • Economics of denial
    ... Economics of denial ... The prospect of central banks tightening to ward off impending inflation ... but has yet to precipitate a market crash. ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • Re: Maximum Profit v. Minimum Wage
    ... Distributions of Wealth and People's Economy ... represents an inefficient production, distribution and marketing system ... people's economy that is the real welfare economics. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Maximum Profit v. Minimum Wage
    ... Distributions of Wealth and People's Economy ... represents an inefficient production, distribution and marketing system ... people's economy that is the real welfare economics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: [OT] Worker Income
    ... > But let's play your "The Economics Of Ten Minutes Ago" game. ... > people money). ... > eyes closed reeeeeal tight, and wish wealth, prosperty, and success into ... > though government can interfere more- or less in its creation. ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)