Bernie Sanders exposes billionaires who are buying US government.

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm guessing you imagine that those wanting to stop growing inequality really want some extreme where everyone has exactly the same income and wealth. This would be almost as idiotic as what you just said, which is why virtually no-one things it's a good idea. Income/wealth inequality is manageable and even useful at small levels as it can encourage people to work harder, be competitive and ambitious and try and improve their lives. When that inequality spirals so wildly out of control as it has however, it leads to mass resentment, injustice and hatred.

Give me a consistent reason why there is a rational middle ground for inequality. When do we know if there is "too much inequality"? Give me a rigorous definition. If you don't have one, it just means that you are basing your beliefs on some ridiculous gut feeling of right and wrong.

[kentonio]

Give me a consistent reason why there is a rational middle ground for inequality. When do we know if there is "too much inequality"? Give me a rigorous definition. If you don't have one, it just means that you are basing your beliefs on some ridiculous gut feeling of right and wrong.

It's not something you can say 'anything over x% and it breaks' it's more subtle than that, but what is really ridiculous is to pretend that the negatives do not happen when in fact they've happened in every society where income/wealth inequality has been allowed to run out of control. There's simply a point where aspiration dies and becomes frustration.

Theres also a strong correlation to peoples everyday lives, if people are comfortable and happy they can deal with people being more fortunate, but when times are harder people are far less willing to tolerate people living in luxury while they struggle to feed their families. Especially when those with the wealth show such complete willful disregard for others. This is exactly what happened with the banking fiasco, the bankers and traders ****ed the system and hurt the normal working people and yet still sit in luxury with their bonuses. That kind of thing leads to bad, bad consequences.

[Aeson]

There is no clearly distinction between the two, they are both using many of the same techniques to achieve basically the same result.

There is a very clear distinction between the two. One is verifiable fact (if it's going to be persuasive), the other is verifiable lie. Perhaps you are confused as to what the two are?

Manipulative advertizing actually works.

It obviously doesn't have the same effect on everyone.

Even if an ad looks like its being open, theres a fairly good chance that its using a strategy to try and manipulate you by trying to play off against your expectations of advertising being manipulative.

Yes, and when mangoes taste so good to me it's just their way of getting me to eat them and plant the seed so they can procreate ... the bastards have tricked me into eating the food I wanted to eat for their own nefarious ends!

(Seriously, there are plenty of ads which are simply giving verifiable information. Yes, they do this because they get something out of it, but that doesn't change that it is also a service to the consumer looking for that information.)

You don't even see all the advertising you're being subjected to, theres just too much of it to consciously process on a daily basis.

This does not mean they are effective (or not). For instance, the acacia are currently advertising their readiness to procreate. While I may not consciously count every bloom on the tree, I still haven't tried to have sex with it.

I have no idea what strawman you're talking about.

This one ...

I'm simply pointing out that if you think you're too clever to be sucked in by advertising, you're an idiot.

It's a strawman. You are arguing against a point of view that I have not professed to hold. (And which I have given good reason to assume I do not hold.)

[Proteus_MST]

That´s a good thing ...
these guys surely are capable of defending the capitalist principles
and protect the state against all communist attempts to give power to the ordinary people

[Aeson]

Give me a consistent reason why there is a rational middle ground for inequality. When do we know if there is "too much inequality"?

revolution vs lack of incentive

[Jon Miller]

It's not hard to see where some people vote for X based on criteria which is countered by X's actions afterwards. For instance, if I voted for Obama (I didn't) because he said he'd close Gitmo. Obviously in hindsight the criteria would have been a bad reason to vote for Obama. Hindsight isn't always necessary either. "Hope and Change" was obvious bad criteria if anyone actually wanted significant change, since before the election it was clear to anyone intelligent that Obama was simply more of the same (D).

Exactly.

Additionally, there is strong support for the position that people voted for Mitt because he was the only one to oppose Obama who enough could agree to/etc.

Not that he is what they actually wanted.

When due to the finance system/etc, all options are crap, you have to vote for crap (particularly to keep the smellier crap out).

JM

[Jaguar]

When due to the finance system/etc, all options are crap, you have to vote for crap (particularly to keep the smellier crap out).

Obama and Romney have precisely the sort of bland, centrist platforms you'd expect from politicians who are highly responsive to popular opinion.

You're trying to connect one thing you don't like - the finance system - with another thing you don't like - that the politicians actually represent "the people" pretty well, even when the people are wrong. But there's no actual logic to it.

[Jon Miller]

People aren't happy with their politicians( the exception that proves the rule is 4 years ago with Obama).

Why do you claim that the politicians do a good job representing the people when people aren't happy with them?

JM

[Lorizael]

People aren't happy with their politicians( the exception that proves the rule is 4 years ago with Obama).

Why do you claim that the politicians do a good job representing the people when people aren't happy with them?

JM

Congress' approval rating is at something like 5%. What do you think the odds are that only 5% of incumbents are reelected come November?

[Jon Miller]

See the point I am making.

JM

[Jaguar]

People aren't happy with their politicians -> politicians don't represent the voters well?

That doesn't actually follow. Perhaps the people just frequently regret their poor choices ex post. Or alternatively, they agree with their representative on many key issues, but blame him when he doesn't accept some minority opinion of theirs. Everyone's a minority on something.

Name a time when a politician did something with <40% support from his constituents. Name one.

[C0ckney]

Obama and Romney have precisely the sort of bland, centrist platforms you'd expect from politicians who are highly responsive to popular opinion.

no. the two bland centrist platforms are the results of the sort of triangulation that is inevitable in a two party, first past the post system. people very often vote for the lesser evil, or vote tactically, rather than as an expression of their political preferences.

[Jaguar]

How could Mitt Romney represent popular opinion better, besides becoming more like Barack Obama or John McCain or George W. Bush or some other major candidate?

I'm sorry that whatever obscure combination of preferences you have isn't perfectly represented by one of the two major candidates. But the aggregate combination of all voters is represented very well.

[Jon Miller]

That isn't what voters say.

This causes voter apathy, voting for someone who you don't actually support, low voter turnout and so on.

If you want to ignore what people report, and how voting changes/polls change, you can.

But you can't claim to have your thinking based on evidence.

JM

[C0ckney]

x-post in response to jaguar.



it's not me. i'm not american and i don't really care about its politics, but you are talking nonsense.

if you look at countries which have systems of proportional representation for parliamentary elections, you see a great variety of political views represented. if you look at countries that have two party systems, you see a fight over the 'centre' which leaves large numbers of people essentially unrepresented. this is a well known effect of such systems and it's been written about extensively.