/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3287729]

Why?

[Anonymous No.3287730]

[Anonymous No.3287732]

Richest person at death wins. Didn't you hear?

[Anonymous No.3287735]

In the U.S. the bottom 40% hold -8.2% of the wealth.

[AND gates !5nStlTnutI No.3287740]

You're right OP, the top deserves more than that.

[Anonymous No.3287741]

The reason the income is given out like that is because that's how much value those people produce to the rest of the world.

Why?

It essentially boils down to how early your region started to industrialize and how good the public policies have been since then

[Anonymous No.3287743]

What SHOULD it be like?

[Anonymous No.3287765]

Simply? Because we let them.

[Anonymous No.3287771]

>>3287732

There's big drama on the forums in that regard. Rock3rfella claimed the inflation mechanic is "fucking bullshit" designed to cost him his high score. This of course sparked a shit storm as all sorts of veterans from the bronze beta started reckoning their adjusted wealth and demanded to be placed higher on the charts.

[Anonymous No.3287776]

1: Varying levels of technological capability.
2: Varying levels of economic development.
3: Varying levels of political stability.
4: Varying levels of natural resources and climate.
5: Varying impact of disease and other natural disasters.

[a No.3287785]

When you consider that 90% of wealth is in financial markets, then this is fine

[Anonymous No.3287787]

I think the capital gains tax and taxes on simple interest should be rescinded. There should be a heavy tax on accumulated non-home wealth outside of retirement funds in quarters immediately following one of economic decline. It would basically require tiered spending of 0.5-5% of the wealth in the top half, or owe 50% of the unspent 1-5% to the government.

[Anonymous No.3287798]

>>3287765
If you are in a 1st world country then you're already way up in the top 10%, you are one of "them".

[Anonymous No.3287804]

>>3287787
They don't do that because wealth is difficult to tax. With income, it's right there, being handed from one party to another, easy for the gov to come in and take a cool third. Say you're old money, you own a nice place in Newport, St Kitts, an apartment in Manhattan and a yacht. This is all being bankrolled by a large investment account and a stake in a furniture factory. It's really difficult to tax away some of the worth of any of those assets except maybe the account, because the others aren't divisible easily.

[Anonymous No.3287810]

>>3287787
I think we can make it simpler than that. Just tax 100% post-mortem. No need for taxes in life, then, either. Simply, whatever you do goes towards the common good after you're gone.

[Anonymous No.3287814]

prices of basic goods are cheaper in underdeveloped countries than in developed countries

Australia here:
Beef Jerky, 50g: $3.99

[Anonymous No.3287820]

Tax doesn't solve everything, the government can't solve everything, not even if you rename the government a "socialist worker's commune" or whatever.

A more feasible route to equality is to strip the state of certain powers that enable corporations to gain special subsides, tariffs, tax codes and other obscure small print laws in their favor that most voters wouldn't understand even if they were aware of them.

[Anonymous No.3287830]

>implying wealth should be distributed equally and not according to one's contribution

[Anonymous No.3287832]

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-...A! ...

[Anonymous No.3287834]

>>3287830
this
/thread

[Anonymous No.3287835]

>>3287729
Because some cultures/governments are self-destructive; that's why. Those that cripple themselves fall behind.

[Anonymous No.3287844]

>>3287820
A good theory. The problem is that money buys power, and power buys money. The more you have of either, the more you get of both.

To avoid this, companies and individuals would have to pre prevented from getting too rich or powerful in the first place.

However, in order to pass laws to this end, you would have to get the consent of the current rich and powerful. Most of them will never give up either their wealth or their power, so it's a non-starter from the current situation.

[AND gates !5nStlTnutI No.3287841]

>>3287830

[Anonymous No.3287839]

>>3287830

90% of the time, a worker in India or China contributes more than you but receives maybe 10% of the pay.

[Anonymous No.3287840]

>>3287820
>picture

Just implement a minimum wage policy, or even better, let the state decide on workers wages.

[Anonymous No.3287848]

>>3287804
That could be a good reason to rescind the capital gains and simple interests taxes. Encourage people to put their wealth into electronically traceable assets. Also houses and tax deferred retirement accounts would be exempt.

>>3287810
I'd say 90% over 10 million.

[Anonymous No.3287854]

>>3287830

Because a rich boy inheriting $90 million from his daddy means that he contributes more to the world than 50,000 workers right?

[Anonymous No.3287855]

>>3287814
Even adjusted for purchasing power we're still 10 times richer than most, bear in mind ppp per capita is the average so a Ph.D in Mathematics $300k starting could well be 200 times richer than the average person in some places, if this were the medieval era that would place you as a Baron.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.PP.CD

[Anonymous No.3287858]

>>3287814
One of the benefits of food inspection.

[Anonymous No.3287863]

>>3287830
>implying the average American can contribute shit

[Anonymous No.3287876]

>>3287863
>Implying I am American and average

Being an average American is just an insult my friend.

[Anonymous No.3287888]

>>3287854
>>3287839
you're both assuming that the he was referring to the current economic situation in the world. presently, barring the situation of the trust fund baby, the value society places on whichever field is based upon it's perceived difficulty or the scarcity of excellence in comparison to the available labor pool (for lack of a better term). For example, there are a fuckton of college linebackers, but only a select few are good enough to get into the NFL, and an even more select few are good enough to be a top-tier athlete worth millions. While ditch-diggers/factory workers are a dime a dozen, and requires no greater than average skills. Speaking of which, it also concerns the fact of whether said field requires any specific specialization. going back to the linebacker and ditch-digger analogy, playing any sport particularly well takes a certain degree of specialization than only a select few are willing and able to possess, while digging a whole doesn't take much skill beyond the ability to use a shovel and work hard.

[Anonymous No.3287925]

>>3287839
Don't mind me, just being the most productive people on earth.

[Anonymous No.3287932]

>>3287925
>measuring productivity in value of goods

You are only masters at producing overpriced goods.

[Anonymous No.3287933]

>>3287888
Which would be fine if each field's perceived value was in relation to it's actual contribution to the world. To work off your analogy, those NFL linebackers make millions of dollars playing a game, while those ditch-diggers and factory workers make minimum wage with poor benefits providing services that keep our society running.

You know the computer you're typing on? The parts for it where most likely assembled in a factory overseas by underpaid workers. The electricity that runs to your house, the water you drink, the sewage removal and garbage disposing. All of it is run by people who make millions and millions of dollars less than people who fight over a ball.

Society isn't held afloat by the people at the top, but by the people underneath holding it up.

[Anonymous No.3287947]

>>3287933
I was simply stating the current state of the world. I personally agree with your idea. But I also feel, that as private organizations, professional athletic ascociations are entitled to pay their athletes as much as they want. It's not like my tax dollars are paying for the Patriots' starting lineup

[Anonymous No.3287949]

>>3287925
Americans are the best, Americans report.

[Anonymous No.3287955]

>>3287925
>Based on 2006
>mfw December 2007 Worldwide Economic Recession
>mfw it hits America the hardest and they have huge national debt
>mfw your country would no longer be top

[Anonymous No.3287971]

>>3287955
>mfw the GDP of the US is still the highest in the world, at $14.7 trillion as of 2010

[Anonymous No.3288004]

>>3287971
It's GDP PER CAPITA that counts.

1 Luxembourg 108,832
2 Norway 84,444
3 Qatar 76,168
4 Switzerland 67,246
5 United Arab Emirates 59,717
6 Denmark 56,147
7 Australia 55,590
8 Sweden 48,875
9 United States 47,284
10 Netherlands 47,172


US is 9th on the top 10.

[Anonymous No.3288016]

>>3287971
No, the European Union has the highest GDP.

[Anonymous No.3288018]

>>3288004
More specifically, its the change in GPD per capita during the recession. Unfortunately, I was not able to find this data.

[Anonymous No.3288023]

>>3288016
the European Union is not a country, you chucklefuck. At least not yet...

[Anonymous No.3288024]

>>3288018
No, not at all. US is 9th to 11th by GDP per capita.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

[Anonymous No.3288025]

>>3288023
The European Union has the same currency. It's the united currency zones that are the basis for economical estimates like the GDP.

[Anonymous No.3288033]

[Anonymous No.3288041]

[Anonymous No.3288045]

>>3288033
lol

[Anonymous No.3288048]

>thread devolves into nationalism

fuck, just bring back /new/ already

[Anonymous No.3288063]

>>3288048
This.

[Anonymous No.3288079]

>>3288048

[Anonymous No.3288085]

>>3288079
ROFL

[AND gates !5nStlTnutI No.3288090]

>>3288085

Anyone have the one where he's supposed to make 4chan more "average Internet user friendly?"

[Anonymous No.3288101]

Why OP?

Because people are greedy selfish shits and dont let anyone tell you differently. A person might be nice, a person might execute an altruistic action, but 'people' nope.

We could feed everyone in the word. Every single human in the world could be given a decent standard of living, good medical care, and shelter. Yes, we could do this for every single person on the planet earth with resources to spare and we could explore space together. But the rich want to keep exploiting the rest for profits.

[Anonymous No.3288103]

Someone made a video about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgZ5k2n8k4s

[Anonymous No.3288116]

>>3288103

He has even made an underground cyber-revolutionary movement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS43ur1RI7M

This channel is fucking awesome.

[AND gates !5nStlTnutI No.3288122]

>>3288103

The voice in that video is so soothing.

[Anonymous No.3288136]

>>3287840
Wages are decided by competition between workers and necessity, unions are a better alternative to minimum wage because they are more flexible, they vastly reduce the "competition" factor and are willing to compromise so that businesses that can't support high wages are kept afloat and continue to provide jobs. Though I suppose a raw baseline minimum wage is needed, considering how many migrant workers pick oranges and things in 1st world countries, it's kind of irrelevent in the 1st world.
>>3287844
It might seem like a good propoganda soundbite to say "evil rich people control everything" but cynicism is not realism and thus it's counter-productive, you must take into account what is good and what works in the system as well it's corruption, if you skip out major factors your plan will be ineffective. Naturally propoganda value is a factor that must be taken into account, as I said most people don't understand the technical details behind every law, not even specialized professional lawyers and accountants understand the entire system, I'm pretty sure the main source of voter ignorance is not low intelligence but distracting emotional arguments though and the bar can be raised a bit.

[Anonymous No.3288148]

The reason the people on the top are rich is because they exploit those on the bottom. Its very simple. The first word rides on the back of the third.

Am I saying this is a great injustice that needs to change? not necessarily, but we can call a spade a spade.

You get rich by exploiting others, nations get rich by exploiting vast populations existing in other nations.

[Anonymous No.3288152]

>>3288148
So why aren't countries that we conquered like Germany and Japan 3rd world countries?

[Anonymous No.3288173]

>>3288152

? Because after word war 2 we went on a spending binge helping them to fix up their countries and restructure their governments? Because those countries have both exploited the populations of other countries in the past?

Game theory tells us why things are the way they are in relation to economics. equilibrium is reached when each person or corporation or nation executes their best possible strategy. If you're poor the best strategy is to work 80 hours a week for 2 cents. You dont have the time or energy to protest you have kids to take care of.

The system works well to keep itself stable, thats why its existed for so long. If we want it to change meaningfully the change will probably have to be pioneered in first world countries where we have the time and resources to get policies changed and such. However i dont see why we would want to given that the rise of the third world will be correlated with the decline of the first.

On a large scale, unequal economic conditions is caused by unequal treatment.

[Anonymous No.3288206]

>>3288173
The USSR exploited eastern europe but the evil capitalists in the west gave Germany, South Korea and Japan economic aid. Maybe we're corrupt but it's not as though we are evil tyrants exploiting the shit out of everyone, we might trade with tyrants in other countries but since they were already tyrannies it's not as though we are the cause of the exploitation and the people there are better off with economic interaction with the rest of the world than without. I'm convinced our wealth is largely due to technology more than exploitation, the only reason we have so much influence is because of our technology and the time needed to put it into practice which results in a strong economy that allows us to do these things.

Also people in the 3rd world are starting guerilla wars all the time, the problem is the revolutions only result in another dictatorship like Mugabe or Pol Pot. The only road to success is really through liberal democracy, even though that means evil capitalists get rich.

[Anonymous No.3288214]

>>3288206
The USSR was a state-capitalist monopoly. Even Lenin himself said it was.

[Anonymous No.3288216]

Op your pic is from 1992.

The top of the wine glass is exponentially bigger now, and the bottom is quite a bit thinner.

I'm going to assume op's post is propaganda to pretend wealth disparity is less than it actually is.

[Anonymous No.3288227]

You just have to ask yourselves who donates the most amount of money to charities?

[Anonymous No.3288240]

>>3288214
Regardless it stand that they were more unethical than liberal democracies, which even though they are corrupt are influenced by an educated property owning middle class. If socialism is collective ownership over the means of production it makes no sense to drag everyone down to the level of a lowly proletariat, you should want to raise everyone to the "petite bourgeois". I don't want to exploit people in the third world, I want them to be educated and become like me, both owning a piece of the pie and working.

[Anonymous No.3288245]

>>3288206

>the people there are better off with economic interaction with the rest of the world than without.

why? Seriously, why? This just creates social stratification that doesnt need to be there. Stable state economics are a real thing, they cant exist however in countries with interactions with economic systems outside of themselves. At least not easily.

>I'm convinced our wealth is largely due to technology more than exploitation,

What gives us the technology and not the third world countries? well our wealth does. We are wealthy on the backs of these third world countries as i said. Our cheap clothing due to exploitative sweat shop labor. Our cheap food as a result of buying from poor third world farmers, ect.

>Also people in the 3rd world are starting guerilla wars all the time, the problem is the revolutions only result in another dictatorship like Mugabe or Pol Pot. The only road to success is really through liberal democracy, even though that means evil capitalists get rich.

Democracy =/= capitalism. It does not. these are two concepts that really need to be divorced from each other.

Anyway what you are seeing is the result of their pent up frustrations due to their poor economic situations resulting in revolution. Due to their poor education this results in installing another dictator. Its all cyclical, like i said the system is very good at maintaining itself.

[Anonymous No.3288301]

The only cure for social stratification is increased scientific advancement. Get technology so commonplace and easy to make it proliferates everywhere. Get agricultural techniques improved so that when combined with genetic engineering food is dirt cheap (although it is already) get diseases eliminated and vaccines/antibiotics so easy to make its childsplay.

Science is the solution for this comrades, lets get to work.

[Anonymous No.3288313]

>>3288301
Or just spread the wealth.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3288318]

because life isnt fucking fair.
get used to it

[Anonymous No.3288321]

Because your mom doesn't swallow. Bitch.

[Anonymous No.3288345]

If you spread the wealth, eventually everything will go back to how it is today, in homeostasis.

You can't spread knowledge so easily either, so there's another factor of inertia

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3288364]

>>3288345
yeh, its why communism doesnt work. if you treat everyone the same and try to make it exactly fair, then nobody has any incentive to do any work or try to succeed in life, as everything will be taken from them. they will just do the minimum required to survive, because their is no incentive for success.

[Anonymous No.3288401]

>>3287729

because politics trumps science and economics.

every attempt to remove politics from the system and replace it with science makes it easier for the existing political elite to walk all over us.

>your faces when politics can beat any organizational scientific system that anyone has and can come up with.

[Anonymous No.3288411]

>>3288364

untrue capitalist propaganda is untrue

[Anonymous No.3288443]

>>3288364
Do you even know what communism is? Doesn't seem like you do. Idiot.

[Anonymous No.3288448]

>>3288364
Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate.

It doesn't imply that everybody is getting treated equally at all, idiot.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3288464]

>>3288448
lol thanks faggot, i can quote wikipedia as well.

[Anonymous No.3288470]

>>3288464
You're incredibly stupid. Not only you don't know what communism is, but you also can't spell.

[Anonymous No.3288484]

>>3287729
>>3287730

I don't get the point of making such a graph. Isn't it fucking logical that rich people have more income. If everybody had the same income there would not be something like rich or poor. It just cause and effect, if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.3288499]

>>3288364

communism is doomed to fail because after the initial revolution there is a dictatorship because the people cant be trusted to democratically elect the right people.

this was all hashed out well before the first communist revolution (for all you fags sticking up for communism). no trust of people means the leadership will eventually turn the people against itself. which is why the communist party in china still struggles to stop a riot breaking out every week even though it is heading towards capitalism.

[Anonymous No.3288543]

>>3288499

In capitalism the indicators of inefficiency are profit/loss
in communism its surplus/shortage

russia failed due to inefficient communication (and competing with the US which had superior resources, although they made a good show of it and were able to rapidly modernize)

There is nothing about communism that in principle is prohibitive. Nothing. Not a damn thing. Failures have been in implementation. Do i have the imagination to do it correctly? No, but eventually someone will.

[Anonymous No.3288558]

>>3288543
Russia wasn't communist nor socialist. It was state-capitalist, and even Lenin said that it was.

[Anonymous No.3288564]

>>3288558

the means of production were owned by the state. the theory is that the state is meant to represent the collective. Which would make state capitalism very much like communism

unless like you and I you dont view the state as the embodiment of the collective and instead view the collective as the collective.

[Anonymous No.3288613]

>>3288564
Not at all. Communism is when the articles of production are of free access, and when there is no state or classes. "communist state" or "communist country" is an oxymoron.

Socialism is when the production is done to fulfill people's needs and wants directly, without profit. Wasn't the case in Russia at all.

By your logic, you could say that US is communist, as some companies are government owned (and are operated for profit).