[KSMountain]

[quote=Arraya]Interestingly major health gains for the human race were made from simple things like sanitation measures and understanding of nutrition. “Mircle” drugs and the medicalization in recent decades of so many of life’s vicissitudes—birth and death, for example—frequently cause more harm than good and rendered many people in effect lifelong patients. Modern medicine has not positively impacted modern life in aggregate.

The parabolic trajectory of unhealthy people over the past few decades props up the medical behemoth. With most of the unhealthyness caused by modern society..

Monetary success has less and less a corolation with really adding something beneficial to society as time goes on. We seem to profit off of problems generated by the same system. You might say, patterns of unhealthy behavior are needed for continuance.[/quote]
I agree with this. But I bet rare would be the person who, before receiving an angioplasty, would accuse their heart surgeon of being an unproductive member of the reviled 1%.

Taking the bigger picture, what is a productive profession? Are professional athletes or entertainers productive? I think some folks’ answer to that question might depend on whether they were a consumer of that particular form of entertainment. Is an airline pilot “productive”? What about a lawyer? They might seem useless – until you need one.

[KSMountain]

Was reviewing old posts in this thread, this one caught my eye:
[quote=jpinpb]CAR – I’d go a step further and say the 1% is unproductive.[/quote]
Isn’t every anesthesiologist a member of the 1%? Every heart surgeon? Does someone suddenly cease being productive when they pass $350k per year? There is a long, long, long way from the 3,000,000 or so constituing the vast majority of the “1%” to the very few hedge fund managers and trust fund babies. Did you know some air traffic controllers in Europe (Portugal?) make over $300k US a year? Yep, look it up. (They’re unionized…)

But beyond the mathematical sloppiness of the “1%” phrase, I think there is a dehumanizing component to it, which your statement above exemplifies.

So let’s make it human. Remember RaptorDuck? I got the impression he was into drug discovery research and funding. He attributed his success to working harder and being more familiar with the technology than most of his peers. If you followed him (or her) around for a week, at the end of that week, do you think you’d call him unproductive?

[KSMountain]

I guess young people wouldn’t have much problem with increasing the SS eligibility age by a few years. That would be a positive imo.

Few politicians have the guts to even bring up that topic though…

[KSMountain]

That there is a disparity between the accumulated wealth of the young and the older is not surprising, is it? Isn’t it kind of common sense?

Nor is this “issue” new. Here is what The Who had to say about it in 1969:

You know in the old days
When a young man was a strong man
All the people they’d step back
When a young man walked by

But you know nowadays
It’s the old man,
He’s got all the money
And a young man ain’t got nothin’ in the world these days

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]We just need more young people to vote as soon as they turn 18.

I believe the Occupy movement will cause more young folks to vote next year.

We need a permanent shift to more young people voting.[/quote]
Do you really mean that Brian?

You’re suggesting that we should have society’s decision making skewed towards the opinions of those least-experienced, with the least amount of skin in the game, many who likely have zero savings and negative net worth?

What kind of historical perspective or perspective on human nature does an 18 year old have? What familiarity might they have with the concept of risk, or unintended consequences.

These folks would be biased towards “just blow it all up”. What do they care? If you have negative net worth, and zero property, then resetting the system is a win for you.

I wonder what we’d get if you got your wish Brian. Fortunately, it’s probably not something we have to worry about, unless we start putting polling places inside the “medicinal” marijuana dispensaries.

[KSMountain]

[quote=DomoArigato]…and being forced to pay back debt accrued by the top 1% …[/quote]

How are you so sure the debt was only accrued by the 1%? You realize the country has a tax avoidance problem, right? Do you think only the 1% took out any loans? Do you think none of the 99% benefitted from social spending?

[KSMountain]

Jefferson warned of “foreign entanglements”.
Eisenhower warned of the “military industrial complex”.

This is not new.

Here’s an exercise which I’ve done recently: bring up google maps and scroll out to a regional view. Surf around our globe and ask yourself if there is tension or unrest or outright war in the area your mouse happens to be over.

If you are well-informed you will find that there is tension almost everywhere. Conflict seems to be the norm; tranquility and living harmoniously with one’s neighbors the exception.

I think it is good to keep in mind that nice as it would be, we are pretty far from the world of John Lennon’s song.

[KSMountain]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Brian:
I agree with you.
And you know how much I hate that.[/quote]
I was just getting ready to type exactly this.

I am liking this new Brian that acknowledges reality and human nature, at least with respect to Greece…

[KSMountain]

[quote=flu]Uh oh…

http://the53.tumblr.com/%5B/quote%5D

What a great site.

[KSMountain]

[quote=jpinpb]Bank Of America and its $75 trillion in derivatives bets.

I just honestly don’t know how anybody can be okay w/this.[/quote]
Do a little research into “hedging” and you might be less concerned. Not all those $75T are bet in the same direction, nor on the same thing. If it even is $75T. The speaker cited no sources whatsoever.

How about a little reality, boring as it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

“The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion and was expected to cost the U.S. taxpayers as much as $300 billion. By March 3, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $432 billion and estimated the total cost would be $19 billion.”

$19 billion is flysh*t. It’s roughly $60 from each of us. Compare that to the cost of say the prescription drug benefit.

[KSMountain]

[quote=Arraya]Man, late-stage capitalism is going to be interesting.

I hate to break it to you guys but it doesn’t fucking matter what you believe but we are a multifaceted, slow motion social train wreck.

It’s like you are all in some mass hallucination and can’t see the glaringly obvious.

Lee Camp will be disappointed.

[KSMountain]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=jpinpb]
Wouldn’t it be convenient if there was a nice clean line that separated the 1% from the other 99?

Let’s just ignore reality, and pretend the world is as simple as we’d like it to be.[/quote]
If you have a married couple, both doctors, wouldn’t they be in the “1%”? What about a lady with a successful dessert shop? Isn’t just about every professional athlete and entertainer in the “1%”? (or more accurately, the “0.1%”?)

Should we assume that anytime someone has a million or 10 million in the bank those are ill-gotten gains? Maybe we should imprison all those people for their self-evident crimes. Down with the rapacious bourgeoisie! Down with the smug intelligentsia! Let the cultural revolution begin! They’re all crooks! I would personally be rich, sitting on the couch eating potato chips, if these people hadn’t stolen MY share with their tricksy corporation thingies.

Damn I kind of miss those pies now…
Perhaps I should get a Mao jacket for halloween…

[KSMountain]

[quote=paramount]Couldn’t the states step in and get rid of the fed if there really was a will to do that? (via Constitutional Amendment)[/quote]
Damn it’s hard to amend the U.S. Constitution. Even something as “obvious” and simple as the ERA has not passed after 88 years…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

It’s not like amending California’s constitution, which voters seem to do (and undo) just about every year…

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]I hope you include the military in this. The military pays $500 for toilet seats and $2,000 for circuit boards.[/quote]
That’s a cute apocryphal anecdote and all, but maybe you should consider a more nuanced viewpoint.

Are you familiar with the markup of things that go in a hospital room, because they have to meet higher standards? Do you have any friends with boats, who probably complain of the outrageous cost of anything nautical? Now imagine the inspection and certification requirements in an aviation environment, civilian, let alone military. Do you think for example that the crappy fire resistant seats in an airliner are cheap? I bet we’d be surprised at the price of even the stupid seat belt. Are you aware that the food carts that the stewardesses push are actually pretty sophisticated? They’ve been engineered to be strong but amazingly light, because light saves lots of money. How much do you think the stainless steel toilet seat for even a commercial airliner costs? I’ll bet it’s over $200.
Much more demanding are military circuit board requirements. What temperature range might the thing be exposed to: 0-100C? Worse (in space)? What g forces must it withstand? 8? 10? More? If this board fails, might it cause a missile to go astray or a $200 million satellite to be lost?

Just some food for thought.

[KSMountain]

For me, it is the altruistic actions of individuals that are the most touching.

[Author]

Posts