The Impending Death of Modern Capitalism
Let's make sure we're all on the same page on the definition of capitalism.
It's basically a system in which private owne
quite exceptional that while focusing on mortality for "early adults" they only touch fentanyl en passing citing it once (when it's clear and known that's a major unique thing that didn't hit other first world countries) , and really stunning they never even hint at race, when it's known asian mortality rates for all age brackets are exceptionally high even compared with the re
Fentanyl associated deaths in the US are ~ 70k per year. Far less than the additional 700k deaths which the study enumerates.
And Asian Americans have a longer life expectancy than white Americans .... so I have no idea how you come up with such erroneous attributions. Do you just invent ideas in your head and assume that they represent the truth ?
Fentanyl associated deaths in the US are ~ 70k per year. Far less than the additional 700k deaths which the study enumerates.
And Asian Americans have a longer life expectancy than white Americans .... so I have no idea how you come up with such erroneous attributions. Do you just invent ideas in your head and assume that they represent the truth ?
700k is the overall "excess mortality" for the whole population if the USA had kept improving life expectancy like the best first world country did, according to your link.
It isn't the excess in the 25-44 cohort.
They don't give an exact number for the 25-44 cohort, but we know the vast majorit of deaths are among the elders.
Given that the vast majority of fentanyl deaths, instead, are among the under 50, we can very confidently claim that almost all, if not *all* the excess mortality in the 25-44 cohort in the USA vs other first world countries (which in absolute terms cannot be much higher than 50k because of the aforementioned reasons), can be explained by fentanyl alone.
/
As for asians in america, yes i cited them exactly because they are the race with the highest life expectancy. Their existence in the USA disproves anything "systemic" about the nation causes the excess deaths. It , instead, allows us to claim beyond reasonable doubt SPECIFIC SUBDEMOGRAPHICS IN THE USA have specific, unique problems other countries don't have, and that's the only reason why aggregate mortality rates for the USA suck compared to other first world countries.
So we have to move from "the USA as a system is broken" (=objectively false, or asians would die a lot more than asians in the UK if that was true) to "specific subdemographics in the USA are utterly broken".
Given that the vast majority of fentanyl deaths, instead, are among the under 50, we can very confidently claim that almost all, if not *all* the excess mortality in the 25-44 cohort in the USA vs other first world countries (which in absolute terms cannot be much higher than 50k because of the aforementioned reasons), can be explained by fentanyl alone.
.
Scientists use statistics to produce confidence intervals.
Lucifer requires no data for confidence. He imagines a world to be x and therefore he must be right because his imagination is infallible.
Scientists use statistics to produce confidence intervals.
Lucifer requires no data for confidence. He imagines a world to be x and therefore he must be right because his imagination is infallible.
You link provided 0 data about the absolute number of excess deaths as they define them for the 25-44 cohort. They only provide relative data compared to other first world countries.
Approx 150k people aged 25 to 44 die in the USA per year. If that is 3x other countries, it means approx 100k excess deaths. As you said, fentanyl is 70k.
You keep claiming you base your analysis in reality, you keep failing at it.
The US govt equity stake in Intel has been concluded
10% for $8.9B
We know the sons of the rich, the brats who inherit everything without even fake earning it, are intolerable monsters. What about their sons? the sons of the fail up sons? I was just wondering since we are going to be ruled by them. Inherited wealth is going to play an increasingly significant role in shaping our society, because most all you dumbasses think it is fair to allow the passing on of unlimited amounts of wealth after you're dead.
We know the sons of the rich, the brats who inherit everything without even fake earning it, are intolerable monsters. What about their sons? the sons of the fail up sons? I was just wondering since we are going to be ruled by them. Inherited wealth is going to play an increasingly significant role in shaping our society, because most all you dumbasses think it is fair to allow
The generation of people who inherit wealth are generally going to squander their advantage.
Nature has a way of making a meritocracy.
The brightest and most ruthless will emerge in every generation and usurp the crown.
We know the sons of the rich, the brats who inherit everything without even fake earning it, are intolerable monsters. What about their sons? the sons of the fail up sons? I was just wondering since we are going to be ruled by them. Inherited wealth is going to play an increasingly significant role in shaping our society, because most all you dumbasses think it is fair to allow
Yeah, just saw the King signed the Magna Carta.
The generation of people who inherit wealth are generally going to squander their advantage.
Nature has a way of making a meritocracy.
The brightest and most ruthless will emerge in every generation and usurp the crown.
Dynastic wealth can shelter the weak and the undeserving for centuries. That's why people want it. You really think there is some kind of turnover every generation based on merit? That's just delusion. We've seen that once you have a small bureaucracy working it, it is difficult to take a dynasty down. The list of the richest people in the world are mostly nepo babies. And even the so called merit cases were born into some level of affluence and advantage.
Keep admiring ruthlessness though, right up to the point someone is stabbing you in the back. Then you can turn around and congratulate them. Say "well played" and explain how they are the superior being while you fade off into the ether.
Dynastic wealth can shelter the weak and the undeserving for centuries. That's why people want it. You really think there is some kind of turnover every generation based on merit? That's just delusion. We've seen that once you have a small bureaucracy working it, it is difficult to take a dynasty down. The list of the richest people in the world are mostly nepo babies. And even
The list of the richest people in the world is the most dynamic one today than ever in human history. Ie there is the highest % of self made billionaires ever basically.
That's because of tech and developing countries just becoming rich, obviously all chinese billionaires must be self made as there were none 50 years ago.
That's because of capitalism, in other systems there is less variance.
Being born into some level of affluence and advantage doesn't diminish the merits at all, given you competed with several millions of people born in the same conditions at the very least, and came out top 100 or top 1000 among them, it's still far better than top 0.1% performance.
People want dynastic wealth because it increases chances of survival and thriving for the bloodline (=themselves, if they think dynastically). It's like actual immortality. The fact that bad apples will survive isn't the main drive nor even one of the goals, just a byproduct of it.
Dynastic wealth can shelter the weak and the undeserving for centuries. That's why people want it. You really think there is some kind of turnover every generation based on merit? That's just delusion. We've seen that once you have a small bureaucracy working it, it is difficult to take a dynasty down. The list of the richest people in the world are mostly nepo babies. And even
Take Smucker’s. Let’s say back in 1900 the family decided to hedge against inflation by literally storing jars and jars of preservatives instead of selling them. A hundred years later, they’re sitting on billions of dollars’ worth of jam.
So what? How exactly is that hurting you or anyone else? The family chose to preserve their wealth in jam they produced rather than selling it and investing the proceeds in cash, stocks, or land. And even if they weren’t sitting on all that jam, you’d still face the same competition in the job market or if you started a small business. So again, how is that hurting anyone, or preventing anyone from getting a better job or even starting their own jam company and saving jars of jam for their grandkids?
It’s really just rhetorical because there isn’t a good reason beyond envy over what their parents or ancestors did and yours didn't. That’s why the socialists have to go further upstream to justify taking all those jars of jam and claim those jars of jam they’re hoarding are the ill-gotten gains of exploited labor.
Take SmuckerÂ’s. LetÂ’s say back in 1900 the family decided to hedge against inflation by literally storing jars and jars of preservatives instead of selling them. A hundred years later, theyÂ’re sitting on billions of dollarsÂ’ worth of jam.So what? How exactly is that hurting you or anyone else? The family chose to preserve their wealth in jam they pro
To distill it down to one idea, I would say any time you win based on previous winning, and not winning based on fair competition now, that is anti-competitive and doesn't produce the best results for the consumer and excludes others from opportunities. So Bezos gets the brilliant, unprecedented lightning strike of an idea and decides to sell products on the internet. Who could have ever thought of that? Because he happened to be around at the right time and had the right network to back him he gets to forever crush all competition and even reach into our media to influence our thoughts? Then his kid gets to inherit movie franchises and make crap movies when a fair competition would likely produce a far better product? I think that hurts everyone. Why do you think everything available for purchase sucks now? It's monopolization and dynastic privilege.
Maybe Smucker's political clout can get competing ingredients banned or heavily regulated. Do you really think that if you came up with a better jam you would be able to just sell it based on its merits and freely compete with some giant and let the consumer decide? I would bet if you researched the some town dominated by SMuckers or looked into the history of the jam wars you would find all kinds of people making all kinds if accusations against the family. I know nothing about the company, but I know our system.
To distill it down to one idea, I would say any time you win based on previous winning, and not winning based on fair competition now, that is anti-competitive and doesn't produce the best results for the consumer and excludes others from opportunities. So Bezos gets the brilliant, unprecedented lightning strike of an idea and decides to sell products on the internet. Who could
Amazon won because it managed logistics better than any other entity who ever tried logistics in world history, and it did so with internal IT systems among other things, which were so far superior to the competition it started selling those IT systems and made money from that (a lot more than it ever did selling physical things).
Execution always matter infinitely more than ideas, it's not even close, it's not even comparable, executing is exceptionally harder. And if amazons stops executing incredibly well, other cloud computing services and logistic services would destroy it quickly.
It's fairly incredible to use Amazon as an example of "living off past success" while it needs to execute every day to keep being relevant.
You could have mentioned microsoft in the past living off intellectual property which is probably too protected and for the wrong reasons and network effects giving it dominance and the option to crush competition.
Instead you go after amazon which competes with giants of the same size in the sale of cloud computing lol and with giants like walmart and others in logistics.
It really shows that you have to ****ing clue on the topic
To distill it down to one idea, I would say any time you win based on previous winning, and not winning based on fair competition now, that is anti-competitive and doesn't produce the best results for the consumer and excludes others from opportunities. So Bezos gets the brilliant, unprecedented lightning strike of an idea and decides to sell products on the internet. Who could
I'm in that space. Everyone thought about it including plenty of people and companies that had far more resources than he had. No one but him thought his model would work. But just because we would have benefitted by what you're saying doesn't mean 'we the people' have grounds to sue Smucker's for damages over misallocation of capital. That's a constitutional function probably unique to fascism.
Maybe Smucker's political clout can get competing ingredients banned or heavily regulated. Do you really think that if you came up with a better jam you would be able to just sell it based on its merits and freely compete with some giant and let the consumer decide? I would bet if you researched the some town dominated by SMuckers or looked into the history of the jam wars you would find all kinds of people making all kinds if accusations against the family. I know nothing about the company, but I know our system.
"Find a niche big enough to be profitable but small enough you can defend."
As I said, I'm in that space and Bezos has knocked a couple of my financial teeth out. Should have learned that lesson years ago with a failed mobile venture. I like Shark Tank and those shows for the info they give to the masses. But the 8-figure business model they reward on that show isn't really in the wheel house for most people. Instead I think most who made it through college have the ability to earn a net low 6-figures selling jam. Basic idea is when we look at all the factors involved, especially employee contribution to revenue, kind of spit-balling I'd say the middle 2/3 of workers could earn anywhere from 2-5x more if they could figure out how to bring their knowledge and abilities directly to the market. I'm not saying they should or are wrong for not doing so; that's a multi-factor issue with no right or wrong. Just that the "exploitation" of their labor the socialists talk about isn't mandatory. It's a premium they're paying for not having to do all the other stuff involved with selling their services along with the huge risk involved. I think that underlying gap will just continue to get worse.
That's where and why I differ from the libertarians on this. Irrespective of if the current or worsening situation is sustainable (or suppressible) it's not exactly the outcome you're going to put out there for the public choosing economic models. Sure it was in 1975, when only about 25% of 25–34 year-olds were rent-burdened. Now, it’s about 50%, with roughly 40% of them college grads.
This isn’t attributable to pink-haired social studies teachers. The terrain has just become too difficult for the average person to navigate. It’s not as simple as getting a steady job at the Ford plant putting rear bumpers on trucks for 40 years and being the sole provider to raise a family in the suburbs. That path doesn’t exist anymore, nor is there another one out there readily apparent.
False. Poverty is mostly an income distribution problem, not a wealth distribution issue.
Wealth and income aren't the same thing. The wealthy aren't sitting on piles of money. They own things that could be exchanged for piles of money. And their riches could evaporate by decree if say some had all their wealth in gold bars and the government made it illegal to exchange gold.
Those two big income stacks ($100K-$500K) are the main cause of poverty. As I said, poverty is mostly an income distribution issue.
And as you can see by their total income stack size, there isn't near enough to redistribute from the really wealthy to help the lower incomes much.
In other words, poverty exists because your M.D. can afford a Mercedes and a Porsche or professional household can.
CEO-to-worker pay ratio in 1965: 20-1
CEO-to-worker pay ratio in 1990: 75-1
CEO-to-worker pay ratio today: 280-to-1
Trickle-down economics was always a sham.
Nothing has ever trickled down.
CEO-to-worker pay ratio in 1965: 20-1
CEO-to-worker pay ratio in 1990: 75-1
CEO-to-worker pay ratio today: 280-to-1
Trickle-down economics was always a sham.
Nothing has ever trickled down.
CEO-to-worker ratio?
You need those numbers to calculate: total CEO pay / # of workers; to know if you're not talking about a mostly insignificant amount of money per worker.
Here's a visual chart showing the distribution of total U.S. national wealth ($162.6 trillion) across different income percentiles:
Top 1%: Hold about $48.78 trillion, nearly 30% of all U.S. wealth.
Top 10%: Control around $107.32 trillion, or 66% of the total.
Bottom 50%: Own just $4.07 trillion, which is 2.5% of the total.
Bottom 10%: Have less than $0.81 trillion, or 0.5%.
Here's a visual chart showing the distribution of total Canadian national wealth ($17.27 trillion CAD) across different income percentiles:
Look like awfully similar ratios.
Top 1%: Hold about $4.42 trillion CAD, or 25.6% of Canada's total wealth.
Top 10%: Control around $9.75 trillion CAD, or 56.4% of the total.
Bottom 50%: Own just $0.21 trillion CAD, which is 1.2% of the total.
Bottom 10%: Have less than $0.086 trillion CAD, or 0.5%.
Here's a visual chart showing the distribution of total UK national wealth (£13.0 trillion) across different income percentiles:
Top 1%: Hold about £3.33 trillion, or 25.6% of the UK's total wealth.
Top 10%: Control around £7.33 trillion, or 56.4% of the total.
Bottom 50%: Own just £156 billion, which is 1.2% of the total.
Bottom 10%: Have less than £65 billion, or 0.5%.
Did the same for Australia and France, more democracies of similar vein and the ratios are about the same. Tried in for mainland China and lo an behold, same ratios. So this is not because of type of governance but more a human issue.
Continued on and it appears similar across the measurable world and I tried Russia, India, Israel and Japan.
