Um. That’s exactly what I said. Just with a little more nuance to help the op understand what the intent of the article was. Nothing I said was a defense of homeopathy as originally defined. Take a chill pill.
ETA: The purpose of my post, if you had bothered to read past your indignance, was to point out that the word homeopathy has become conflated with all manner of “natural” remedies, most of which are effective as well as being the basis of much of modern medicine.
The same article notes that the median American family at the time had $81k in net worth, which only highlights the state of inequality. Since the average and median figures are from the Fed, I’m assuming that they’re including very illiquid equity in a primary residence that’s still not paid off. In 2008 people were walking away from homes and underwater mortgages (untaxed though the payments were) that they’d already poured tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars into.
There’s also at least one rapidly depreciating automobile somewhere in those figures, and a serious illness or layoff waiting in the wings to drain it all away in the space of 90 days.
This is why no-one including Cory has really expressed righteous indignation that average (really median) American families are “greedy pigs” (at least in the context of this article). He’s talking more about the fact that eight individuals hold as much wealth as 3.6-billion (the global 50% poor) combined do. Start from those kinds of endpoints, work our way toward the middle, and it will be a long time before you or I or Cory are affected by any ethically-driven re-distributive policies.
A defined benefit pension doesn’t count as an asset, though, because you don’t own the principal and don’t control how it’s invested to throw off the income. There’s still an element of precarity present that those who own $1-million+ in principal don’t have to worry about.
That said, you’re correct that having a defined benefit pension is a rare and fortunate thing for Americans these days – 401ks, if you’re lucky enough to have one of those, are more risky and precarious due to the increased involvement of non-fiduciaries and amateurs and self-dealers.
He was German. His grandson moved to England though.
If anything I’m expecting a gradual decline until a final collapse like the western Roman Empire. The vampire squid at the top keep sucking every penny of wealth they can out, and I figure when they’ve sucked enough out of the economy that the right economic bubble (worse than the Great Depression) and the military-industrial complex finally biting off more than it could chew then we might see the power structure weaken enough for change, messy as it will be.
I feel that at the present the extent of the surveillance apparatus of the state (in this I include both governmental organizations and private entities, from Palantír to Facebook), the increasing control of news media oligopolies and the polarization of the populace (keep 'em fighting each other and they’ll never catch on that they have a common cause) means we’re nowhere near the point of any social disruption causing meaningful change.
Consider that, according to the Federal Reserve, the median American family had $81,000 in net worth in 2013, and the average family had $535,000 in net worth.
Your article highlights how alarmingly misappropriately you are using that statistic.
I’m not entirely convinced that’s a healthy outlook, what with the implied murder and all.
While you may think that @Brainspore is a bloodthirsty left-wing reincarnation of Robespierre, most of the regulars know his true story: he’s an Objectivist bootstrapping entrepreneur who manufactures artisanal execution devices. So under the rules of late-stage capitalism it is a healthy outlook as far as his company’s shareholder value is concerned.
It will clarify significant when they get to owning yours.
Nothing about this situation is healthy.
Not an endorsement so much as an observation. Historically you can only push inequality so far before the peasants start sharpening their pitchforks.
Yup.
It’s a cause and effect relationship. If you don’t like the effects, you need to deal with the causes.
So you look at an article predicting societal armageddon, and what you pull out of it is an off-hand comment about homeopathy?
Why not? I suspect you’re a relevant example of the mindset that will allow the wealthy to seize control of this planet – you don’t deal well with abstract concepts and are easily diverted from the primary threat facing you.
Key moments in American capitalism:
Worth a watch; it’s not just about the fire, it also covers the political and legislative consequences.
Social assistance is itself a form and source of wealth. Live in a time and place without an old age pension/Medicaid/unemployment insurance. Are you richer if you live in a time and place with them?
Yes, the existence of those things makes you richer. They’re wealth.
They started a French revolution (or Russian, for that matter) for less, it seems.
In this hypothetical:
I strongly believe, that in a global society, no 1% should be able to hold on to the majority of world’s wealth - simply because there’s so little of 1%s and so many of the rest. The military have minds of their own!
The 1% would not be able to fend off the inevitable “enough-is-enough” through profit-sharing with the rest of the population to keep calm… eventually the wealthy will have to prop up the poor to the point of happy enough.
P.S. I think that the global harmony can be achieved with continuing integration of new, qualified, yet unburdened with financial ties’ faces into all governing posts. Doing so is paramount to world progress because it levels the field between established institutions of power and the common citizen.
P. P. S. Eventually, the world will understand that cornering 99% of the world’s wealth in 1% of the world’s hands is counter-productive. We will have an elite that has no incentive to have any progress and the angry poor that have no means to add to progress whatsoever.
P.P.P.S. Please submit your ideas to me!!!
The ability and willingness to provide social assistance can be an indicator of a society’s prosperity. Social assistance is not, by the standard definition used by economists* and by design, a source of wealth for individuals within that society. An exception might be a UBI, but I could easily envision a neoliberal one that discouraged building wealth and either way it sets up a caeteris paribus baseline situation for everyone in the society.
I’m all for expanding the measures of individual wealth beyond net worth/assets, by the way, but you need to state from the beginning that you’re also talking about factors like an individual’s social capital, happiness, privilege due to immutable characteristics, physical health, availability of personal time, etc. They tend to track closely with the traditional measure of net worth in discussions of inequality, but do allow some different and broader perspectives that emphasise the role of the state and society (and provide much-needed tonic in capitalist societies that see money and material things as the be-all-and-end-all of a person’s wealth).
[* Like those in the article under discussion who use those standard criteria: “Analysts suggest wealth has become concentrated at the top because of recent income inequality, higher rates of saving among the wealthy, and the accumulation of assets. The wealthy also invested a large amount of equity in businesses, stocks and other financial assets, which have handed them disproportionate benefits.”]
Agreed, but I’ll argue that if they’re “ethically” driven re-distributive policies, we should be included.
If we’re presently at a 3 out of 100 on the global ethical scale, I’m fighting for maybe a 6 (estate taxes at $500K, 50% marginal tax rate at $75K). That’s not enough daylight to be able to call the 3-supporters evil or pretend I’m particularly good.
This is why I’d prefer to leave how we’re ethical and they’re not out of the argument completely and go with “this makes for a better (North American) society”, which I completely believe.
Of course, the reason I bang this drum on a regular basis is that I think any organization that is driven by a belief in the ethical inferiority of their opponents (along with the hatred that goes with it) is ripe for take-over by malign forces. It’s happened historically with alarming frequency, and the left is no more immune than the right.
It’s also not all that effective a tactic in growing your base. “Anyone who voted for Trump is irredeemably evil! By the way, would you consider switching your vote?” 
That’s why I said “a long time.” Ethics do not necessitate immediate blanket solutions, and often exclude them.
Then you’re in good company and preaching to the converted. The original article and Cory’s commentary and the majority of these comments aren’t about fighting inequality due to ethics but rather due to avoiding the dangers to civil society that emerge from an unsustainable economy (dangers historically driven by those who do make it all about ethics or, worse, morality).
Ethics and morality do have their place in economic discussions, by the way, but they’re more focused on the lowest two tiers of Maslow’s pyramid. The economic left tends to win the debate there, since political policies in response to someone lacking food or shelter that boil down to “you’re on your own, bub” aren’t particularly humane.
The view around BoingBoing is more “Anyone who wasn’t a millionaire and voted for Il Douche is an irredeemable sucker! By the way, we don’t need your vote and will place our resources toward getting the votes of the 70% of the electorate who aren’t gullible marks.” If only the DNC shared this view…
Exactly. I’m doing all right personally. Not great, but pretty decently. My self-interest in wanting to fix the situation is not because I think I, personally, would come out with more money, but because it’s possible that I, and other middle-class professionals, would wind up on the wrong side of the guillotine line if it comes to that.
