re: This is no way to live

quote:

---

You’re confusing condescension with substance

---

No. That is the problem. You are intimating substance where there is none. It is such an obvious issue that I assume it's deliberate. Perhaps though, it is accidental through ignorance.

quote:

---

My claim was that real-world conditions can produce real consequences

---

No. That would be a hypothetical inapplicable to a shared growth system (a rising tide floats all boats). But, as you noted, it is something I already acknowledged occurs in economically, stagnant or contracting autocratic systems.

Your premise is that Elon Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Ellison, etc., somehow cause poverty through their production of massive numbers of previously nonexistent jobs along with personal wealth aggregation. They don't. That is fantasy. Without their contribution, and inherent wealth, aggregation, our economy would be much worse off. It's a fact that those who have never been in business, never created jobs, never undertaken the risks, never created opportunities for others to make money, simply don't understand, or refuse to understand out of convenience and greed.

quote:

---

And your “10% growth across the board” example is incomplete. Growth compared to what? Costs? Debt? Housing? Healthcare? Savings? Mobility?

---

Real wages are up, not down. They certainly are not pushed downward d/t the jobs Musk has created or the trillion dollars he is now worth, which is $1 trillion which would not existwere it not for Musk.

quote:

---

You already conceded the point when you admitted wealth inequality can hurt people.

---

In stagnant or contracting economies.

Since you want to deal on hypotheticals, let's do that.

In a situation where Person A is worth 10 units and Person B is worth 1 unit, if wealth grows tenfold over a period of time Person A is worth 100 units and Person B is worth 10. You would claim Person B, now worth 10 units, is somehow disadvantaged because, though he is worth tenfold more than he was, the wealth gap between he and Person A has grown tenfold as well.

The exquisite irony is that, in a failing economy where "A" starts off worth 10 units and "B" begins with a worth of 1 unit, wealth contracts over a period of time. So that over time "A" is now worth 7 units and "B" is worth 0.7 units. In accordance with your economic understanding, as the wealth gap increased in the first instance by 81 units, and decreased in the second example by -2.7 units, the second example is the one that we should be striving for, because in the first instance, the man worth 100 units is obviously "taking" money away from the man worth 10 units.

It really is absurd.

Eat shite commie.

quote:

---

MAGA has turned victimhood into an operating system. You are a great exhibit of this.

---

Goodness. I have a long posting history here. Cite a single post where I assumed victim status, claimed to be victimized, etc. See, when you post something as obviously disprovable as that, and it is pointed out to you, it should open your eyes. But in all likelihood you'll cover yours and move on.

You’re still arguing against things I didn’t say, which is usually what happens when someone wants the satisfaction of winning an easier argument.

I never said rich people “cause poverty” simply by being rich. I never said Person A getting richer automatically means Person B got poorer. That is your straw man, and I do want to congratulate you on the courage you’ve shown in defeating him.

My point, which is not terribly complicated, is that an economy can grow overall while still leaving a lot of people under real pressure depending on who captures the gains, what costs rise, how much debt people carry, whether wages keep up with necessities, and whether ordinary workers can actually build wealth.

Your “A has 10 units and B has 1 unit” example is cute in the way introductory classroom examples are cute, but it collapses the moment it touches the real world. Real life is not two imaginary people multiplying wealth equally in a clean little vacuum. Real life includes housing, healthcare, insurance, childcare, education, debt, savings, bargaining power, and access to assets.

Growth is only meaningful if it reaches real life. If wages rise on paper but housing, insurance, healthcare, childcare, debt, and basic stability move further out of reach, then the “rising tide” line is just a slogan doing community theater as economics.

And “real wages are up” does not magically end the discussion. That is a talking point wearing a lab coat. People do not live inside an average. They live inside rent, mortgages, insurance premiums, grocery bills, medical costs, childcare costs, debt payments, and the cost of trying to stay above water.

More importantly, you keep trying to turn my argument into “the left hates rich people.” That is not what I said. It is just the version of the argument you need me to be making because it is simpler, tidier, and more emotionally satisfying for you.

Recognizing economic pressure is not “creating victims.” Recognizing systemic issues is not “inventing victims.” Recognizing consequences is not victim politics.

MAGA victimhood is different because it turns accountability itself into persecution and all of the reflexive slogans y’all are trained like seals to clap and repeat: stolen elections, witch hunts, Deep State, fake news, censorship, rigged institutions, replacement, and endless grievance.

That was the original point, and nothing you’ve said refutes it. You’ve just built a straw man, handed it a calculator, patted yourself on the back, and called it pragmatism.

quote:

---

You’re still arguing against things I didn’t say

---

Am I? Or are you taking positions you've simply not thought through. Like, for example, that NCTigah is "a great exhibit of victimhood." Silly stuff. Mindless.

With regard to the wealth gap, the sole reason it is raised by the left is ito imply unfairness and therefore victimization. The leftist's consideration is not mode of wealth acquisition, or requisite risks or sacrifices. The leftist's consideration is solely in the amount attained. The notion being "no one is "entitled" to such an amount of attained wealth. Therefore, it should be redistributed."

But the wealth, which you would redistribute, is new money. It is newly created, never previously existent, and would not exist now sans the great effort and great risks taken by an entrepreneur. Its generation created no victims. It took no one else's money. It grew the economy. It created jobs in the process.

The entrepreneurial risk element is worth exploring briefly. Most of us on this board invest in stocks. Diversification is a general rule of thumb in maintaining our portfolios. But for entrepreneurs like Bezos, Zuckerberg, Jensen Huang, etc., virtually their entire "portfolio" is tied up in one stock.

As an investor, if you used the same strategy, and for example had invested $1000 in Nvidia when it went public in 1999, that investment would be worth nearly $6 million today. Jensen Huang's personal investment was obviously much higher than $1000. $1 million tied to Nvidia stock at that time, would now be worth nearly $6 billion. Retrospectively it's a clear path to fortune.

Why then don't the rest of us tie all of our money to an individual up-and-coming company? Because we are not willing to take that risk. Why? Because in most cases risk equates to probability of failure. However, the penis envy wealth, distribution crowd never address those who have failed, they just addressed a few that have succeeded.

I've mentioned Jensen Huang. I've not mentioned Curtis Priem who was Jensen's co-partner at the time that NVDA went public. Priem decided to cash in on his winnings, take his chips off the table, lock in his profits and walk away in 2003. By 2006 he had diversified out of all of his Nvidia stock and into a balanced portfolio. He is now worth about $100 million. Jensen is worth about $165 billion. Nonetheless, in the minds of leftists, despite creation, production, perseverance and risk, Jensen Huang is now not "entitled" to the returns he attained as reward for that continued work and risk.

Which brings us to another simple illustration:
Mr. Lefty and Mr. Righty hold identical jobs. They receive identical hourly pay at $40/hr. For Mr. Lefty, that amounts to ~$80K. But Mr. Righty works far more hrs and with overtime, he brings in $160K/yr.

Lefty lives paycheck to paycheck joining CrystalPreserves in lamenting the fact that life in America is so hard and unfair. As an example he cites Righty working even harder than he does, yet not living any better. He feels sorry for Righty. Meanwhile, Righty's family commits to live on $80K/yr, and put the other $80 into market investments.

20yrs Later:
Lefty still lives paycheck to paycheck, joining CrystalPreserves in lamenting the fact that life in America is so hard and unfair. Lefty's now 42yrs old, and due to his decision to live large and rent, he has basically no aggregated savings.

For two decades Righty has live beneath his means, investing >$6K in the markets monthly. When Righty contemplates semi-retirement, Lefty discovers that Righty is now worth over $5M. Lefty is outraged. He attributes Righty's good fortune to luck or inheritance, and labels him a greedy 1%'er who needs to pay his "fair share."

Lefty grumbles "Here I am, living paycheck-to-paycheck while Righty is worth $5M. No one needs five million dollars. No one should be entitled to that amount of wealth. He needs to spread that wealth around." CrystalPreserves tells Lefty he is a victim of an unfair economy.

NCTigah, this is a lot of typing to still not answer the point.

You keep arguing against the imaginary position that “rich people cause poverty simply by being rich” or that “anyone with wealth must have stolen it.” I have not said that. I understand it is easier for you to debate the leftist scarecrow you brought from home, but it is still not my argument.

Nobody serious is saying entrepreneurs do not create value, jobs, products, investment, or economic growth. Nobody serious is saying risk should not be rewarded. Nobody serious is saying Jensen Huang, Bezos, Musk, or Zuckerberg did nothing.

That is the little cartoon version you need me to believe so your reply can feel profound.

The actual point is much simpler: wealth creation and economic growth can be real while the distribution of that growth still creates real consequences for ordinary people. Both things can be true at the same time. I realize that may disrupt the children’s chalkboard lesson, but economies are allowed to contain more than one variable.

Your “Mr. Lefty and Mr. Righty” story is adorable, but it assumes away the entire argument. It assumes equal pay, equal health, equal family obligations, equal location, equal housing costs, equal debt, equal emergencies, equal access to investment knowledge, equal ability to work overtime, and equal stability for twenty straight years.

Congratulations. In the economy you invented, the person who made better choices did better.

That tells us almost nothing about the actual economy.

Real people are dealing with rent, mortgages, insurance, healthcare, childcare, medical debt, student debt, stagnant mobility, layoffs, regional job markets, family obligations, and costs that often outrun their ability to build wealth. Averages and fairy tales do not erase that.

And the Obama income inequality cartoon you posted makes the same mistake. It treats inequality as if the only two choices are “everyone gets richer and the gap grows” or “everyone gets poorer and the gap shrinks.” That is not an argument. That is economic Duplo.

The question is not whether wealth can be created. Obviously it can. The question is whether the gains of a growing economy are reaching working people in a way that lets them build stability, own assets, absorb emergencies, and move upward. That is not envy. That is policy.

You keep trying to turn every criticism of economic pressure into “leftists hate successful people.” Again, that is not my argument. It is just the one you prefer because it requires the least work.

And this still does not touch the original point: MAGA victimhood is not about solving material problems. It is about avoiding accountability. Every election loss is stolen. Every prosecution is a witch hunt. Every investigation is Deep State. Every fact-check is censorship. Every criticism is persecution. Every institution is rigged unless it serves them.

That is the grievance machine I was talking about.

So you can keep writing bedtime stories about Mr. Lefty, Mr. Righty, and the sacred billionaire class, but none of that refutes the point. It just confirms that when MAGA gets asked to look inward, it grabs a crayon, draws a fake economy, and declares itself the smartest person in the room.

quote:

---

Nobody serious is saying entrepreneurs do not create value, jobs, products, investment, or economic growth. Nobody serious is saying risk should not be rewarded. Nobody serious is saying Jensen Huang, Bezos, Musk, or Zuckerberg did nothing.

---

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the Democrat Party? That would be unfortunate as you are chanting its mantra.

quote:

---

In the economy you invented, the person who made better choices did better.

That tells us almost nothing about the actual economy.

---

Well, there it is.

Reality "tells us almost nothing." My presumption that "a person who made better choices did better," entails an "invented economy."

Your perception is that wealth, and by default wealth inequality, is bad. When called to question with broad examples, you cite hypothetical anecdotes hidden amongst floating signifiers. "Not EVERY instance adheres your example, NCTigah."

quote:

---

wealth creation and economic growth can be real while the distribution of that growth still creates real consequences for ordinary people.

---

Indeed. That growth creates real consequences for ordinary people in the form of 100's of thousands, perhaps millions, of new jobs, jobs which would never have existed, incomes which would never have been generated, careers which could never have occurred. That concept seems to be fleeting. It is the reason US median real income growth has dusted that of the EU over the past 20 years

quote:

---

MAGA victimhood is not about solving material problems. It is about avoiding accountability. Every election loss is stolen. Every prosecution is a witch hunt. Every investigation is Deep State. Every fact-check is censorship. Every criticism is persecution. Every institution is rigged unless it serves them.

---

Again, you are wandering. Who do you hold accountable for E Jean Carroll's story? Trump?

quote:

---

Nobody serious is saying entrepreneurs do not create value, jobs, products, investment, or economic growth. Nobody serious is saying risk should not be rewarded. Nobody serious is saying Jensen Huang, Bezos, Musk, or Zuckerberg did nothing.

---

Agreed. There are some very unserious people leading the Democratic Party.

quote:

---

And you and your ilk, who had no part in the creation, will be the ones to

---

Who let a very upset and emotional Greta Thunberg in? Or are we in Victorian era England now?

“your ilk,” Bubba, you’re using words that are out of your class.