Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.
DNA_Jock,
The idea that Trump would coherently explain an idea requiring attention to detail is laughable to me. I would see him as much more likely to lie about it and claim that a wealth tax will lead to the downfall of the American way of life.
It is a dirty job but someone has to do it, it gives the millionaires something to strive for.
I understand, she was married to Steve Jobs , half of all community property is her money, his half goes to her if he dies before her excluding any stipulations in his will.
Right, understand, then something something prostitute.
The money is in a trust, perhaps she understands what Steve wanted her to do with his half. Steve could make any provisions for his children he chose with his half. She has her own right to do what she wants and thinks is best for her children.
Schizophora,
True. I wouldn’t expect Trump to try that himself, but his campaign would wheel out a string of surrogates. Everybody on Wall Street hates the idea, obviously, although the best spokesperson would probably be a retired NFL player or Macauly Culkin: someone who is now stuck living off the money they earned previously.
Roseanne Barr, perhaps? 😮
But I am ignorant of the details of Warren’s plan — it always struck me as a non-starter: how did she intend to treat illiquid assets such as farms and closely held businesses? It’s a bit like Yang’s VAT plan, the devil really is in the details…
OHH! Is that what happens? I see. Why didn’t you say so. I thought she stole it from Jobs!
I see what you are saying. Its not ridiculous for her to say its not fair for people to be given money they haven’t earned, and for people to have millions and millions more than others when they have done nothing for it, while at the same time spending money wildly that was given to her that she didn’t earn. That’s not ridiculous, because she was married to Steve Jobs, so he gave it to her. Gee, next time speak up earlier Newton! I hadn’t for a second realized how married property works. Heck Powell could have saved all of those journalists from confusion as well, if she would have explained how that works.
The people she was talking about were not people who marry rich, its people who are born rich, THAT is the unfair part she was talking about. I get it now, thanks a lot Newton. I am sure her kids are as equally as unconfused as you.
Neil Rickert,
Here, Newton has cleared up the confusion for us all. I hope you don’t need to scratch your head wondering why I was wondering why Steve Jobs wife said something that I thought made no sense whatsoever anymore. Because I hadn’t been aware that married people get all of their spouses property when they die. I was completely unaware of this complex little caveat of American life. That is where the confusion came in for myself and every other journalist who wrote about this seeming contradiction of Powell statements. Myself, and all the journalists I guess, we all didn’t understand how wills and property work. Newton thankfully has cleared it all up. So its confusing no longer.
Whew! That’s a relief.
Looking back now and reading Powell’s statement now it is crystal clear. When she said its not weird for her to say that while she is spending money as lavishly as pretty much anyone on the planet, I should have taken more note of the fact that she said Jobs never cared much about money, it wasn’t important to his life, so THAT explains her extravagant lifestyle. Its a tribute to him. That and Newton’s amazing unraveling of the issue.
Clear now?
No kidding?
phoodoo:
No kidding, indeed.
It seems that Elizabeth herself is a little unclear on this particular aspect of her plan, writing:
Maybe you could be a doll and explain this to us both?
Or not. Your call.
phoodoo,
I don’t know why you addressed that to me. I don’t spend time thinking about how Steve Jobs widow spends her money.
DNA_Jock,
Why would I need to do that, all I am trying to figure out is why you think a plan that you say you clearly don’t understand can’t work.
Perhaps we are seeing a patten to your analysis.
I gave you something simpler to analyze but you have declined. If Gates loses all his money gambling on horses tomorrow, is that going to affect how much of his wealth you claim he gives to charity. I will give you a big hint, he still will not have given more than two percent per year for the past twenty years. Let me know which language you would prefer to make that easier for you to understand.
You can’t take it with you, it has to go somewhere.
Yes, he went to the same school. He has a connection to the school.
“The money is part of a campaign to raise $105 million so that greater financial aid can be available to students who can’t afford tuition at the school for grades 5 through 12. Funds raised by the “Living our Mission” campaign also will give teachers and staff salary raises.
The money also will be used to bolster the school’s Global Service Learning program — students spending at least a month in developing countries to help refugees, improve environmental sustainability and help in other ways”
Education is a good investment. The foundation spends money for less privileged schools as well.
When you have a 100 billion dollars ,not much money is not insignificant.
So the billions of dollars and the time he invests in promoting his foundation is negated by the fact he lives in a nice house, has nice cars, and invests in art, horses. He made the money. He deserves to enjoy it.
They count, Sounds like nice house, I expect they will make pretty good money when they sell it. Might make some money. Plus all the people who make an earning building and maintaining it. I expect they have families as well.
Did he say he hated luxury? All those things ,I expect ,are gaining value, at some point they will be liquidated. If the money goes the foundation ,it will be dispersed. Seems like you are pissed at the wrong guy. He is spending a great deal of the most precious finite commodity of time generating awareness and additional funding of the foundation. Do you disagree that the foundation is lots doing good work?
Because he earned his money legally. In his case , he has pledged to help people less fortunate and is encouraging other rich guys to do the same. That is allowable
I have little interest in the “its his money he can do with it what he wants” kind of stories. This is obvious, but its also not the point. People can do what they want with their money because its the law, but they also can be judged what kind of person they are by others. That’s the trade. He gets treated in the media, and by you, and by lots of other people, as some kind of hero for what he does. And I am questioning exactly how much of a hero he really is. It is my belief, that as the richest person in the world, and the richest person in the world for a VERY long time, ridiculously ridiculously rich, he is also clever enough to know that being so insanely rich he would be the target of the rest of society as being evil, if he didn’t do something to spin an image. So he plays the humble rich guy role, who is selfless, and just wants to help the world, and doesn’t really want the money for himself, so this is why society shouldn’t criticize him. And I am saying that is calculated.
He knows the history of the term robber barons, so he wants to control his image to say this is not him. Maybe its partly true and maybe its not. But the world also judges the Carnegies, and the Vanderbilts, and the Rockefellers, and I think the world should judge them. We are a society after all, and as a society there needs to be consideration about how wealth is divided, whether you like that consideration or not. When one person owns 99% of the coconuts on the island, whether or not he owns them legally is not really the point. The question is, should one person own 99% of the resources, and give the others crumbs. So I am judging Gates, its a fair calculation to make.
If one is the richest person in the world, one has obligations. Being the richest person gives you unheralded power to shape the world, politically, financially. Talking about how societies should deal with outrageous wealth gaps isn’t just for crazy lone theorists with nothing else to do, who are just jealous (that is the analysis of an idiot).
So I say, when the richest person in the world, is only willing to part with on average, 2% of their wealth per year, societies should look at this problem even more closely. Societies can’t just say, its their money, let them do what they want. That is why we have government, and not feudal lords and bandits. And so virtually every country must study this problem, and consider how to deal with it. America’s choice of how to deal with it, it is turning out, is perhaps one of the worst, and getting more worse. Europe doesn’t do this. Japan doesn’t do this. Canada does better. Australia does better. China does better. Americas echo of “its their money, stop being jealous” bullshit is actually a very unhealthy dialogue. So take a look at your cities. You are supposedly one of the richest countries in the world, and look at you. You have homeless camps in virtually every metropolitan area. You have overcrowded jails. You are illiterate. Your healthcare is a mess. Your work-life balance is appalling. You have millions upon millions of angry, disaffected citizens. And if you don’t think the situation of wealth like the Gates, and the Bezos, and the Jobs and the Zuckerbergs have anything to do with that mess, you are delusional. I am not saying it is their fault, but until America finds a better way to deal with this exploding wealth gap, you are not going to fix your countries trouble. The unfettered capitalist experiment is not showing good results for your country. Too much money, too much power, in too few hands, who will do anything to keep their power, and grind up the working class to the bone.
America loves to talk about its exceptionalism. Its exceptional, but not in a good way. And with all of its land mass, its geographic location, its resources, its education, its history, its tradition of fairness, it shouldn’t be that way. But the country got hijacked.
Here is an interesting read about the issue, its not only America, but America is probably the most affected.
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/richest-families-in-the-world/
That all seems pretty much right to me. I’m not sure I’d say that underestimated greed as much as he overestimated rationality: he seems to have thought that workers would organize and collectively overthrow the owners out of their own enlightened self-interest. And he certainly was overly confident about how easily the technical barriers to a fully automated society could be overcome.
People made choices that led up to that situation. Is it your position that those choices should be overridden? Choices have consequences. It’s quite likely that at the time the people losing access to the coconuts felt well compensated.
Choices have consequences, as you note. People chose to allow 99% of the coconuts to be owned by a single person. They, in fact, voted for it. And they keep voting for it.
Or, indeed, having coconuts on demand. An equitable coconut share for all removes the choice of the owner of 99% of them to keep them. And I know how keen you are on choice. Where would be the choice if you got a coconut every time you wanted one?
People should own a coconut?
It seems to me that your God is happy with a 99% coconut single person ownership. So I’m not sure on what basis you are complaining.
But it seems odd to me, you complain about 99% coconut ownership as if it’s a bad thing but out of the other side of your mouth you complain about people complaining about how unfair things are.
And yet, here you are, acting as if this is not the best of all possible worlds. What with the lack of permanent whipped cream and all. So suck up the fact that 99% of the coconuts are owned by a single person. It is, after all, your gods will that suffering and choice are intertwined.
You’ll get your coconut in heaven phoodoo. Be content with that for now.
Kantian Naturalist,
I recently heard Jack Dorsey talking about his disappointment that Andrew Yang had dropped out of the race for President. I think guys like Dorsey and Yang have a much better idea about what automation and wealth equality can do for the country, than much of the old guard. Unfortunately it looks like that is not going to happen anytime soon.
I suspect Dorsey is a more authentic philanthropist than Gates, but time will tell.
Yeah, my dream ticket would have been Sanders and Yang. Alas, we’re stuck with yet another neoliberal milquetoast centrist.
The turnip has been able to have nearly four years now of not explaining in detail a single idea of his. I don’t think anyone even knows what one of his ideas is. If it ended today, what would his presidential library look like? Could someone even write a coherent paragraph about what his beliefs were? About a single one of his policy objectives?
Maybe they could write something about his theory that you could inject people with disinfectant to clean them.
That has now become the awful, best possible scenario.
Likewise after even longer then that I still don’t know what “Intelligent Design” means to you. What, when, how, all a mystery.
So stop and think for a moment. Stop throwing stones as you live in the very same glass house.
You, like Trump, don’t have ideas. You simply feel that other peoples’s ideas are wrong in your “gut”, science be dammed.
phoodoo,
Yes, Yang’s ideas looked good to me. However, he has to sell those ideas to the voting public. And that’s hard to do. Perhaps the public will be a bit more receptive after COVID-19, but I think they still will not be ready to buy into Yang’s ideas.
I can only write of your beliefs that misery is inescapable. Beyond that, some thing did some thing some when some how. But evolutioon is wrong, I tells ya, wrong!
And what happens when automation means that you don’t have to work unless you need to, when technology advances to the point where you don’t have to die unless you want to?
Your whole position is based on the idea that it cannot be “whipped cream all the time” and yet that is what you are now advocating. Free money! Equality!
When there is no misery left, how will your deity sustain itself?
Neil Rickert,
I think the biggest detriment was not the general public, but more the establishment democratic political machine. They did everything they could to try to squelch the liberal wing of the party. They seem to be willing to chew off their own arms.
You can’t steal what you legally own.
Not saying that. She contributes large amounts to altruistic causes.
Am saying she probably feels that way about her children, they have been given many advantages by the genetic lottery, they can earn their own money. Doesn’t sound too onerous.
The money Steve left her is in his trust, the rest of her money is her half of the community property and anything she has earned since his death. Are you saying that community property is illegitimate somehow?
He bequeathed his Trust, the rest is not a gift. It is an legal obligation, they are equal partners to the assets and debts of the marriage. Some states are not.
It seemed that way, and it is not universal. But that is how it works in California
Or they could research what she said
“ The Emerson Collective founder and widow of Apple CEO Steve Jobs said in a new interview with The New York Times’ David Gelles that she has dedicated her life to distributing Jobs’ fortune “effectively, in ways that lift up individuals and communities in a sustainable way,” and doesn’t plan on building a family dynasty.
“I’m not interested in legacy wealth buildings, and my children know that,” Powell Jobs told The Times. “Steve wasn’t interested in that. If I live long enough, it ends with me.”
Powell Jobs said she believes a massive accumulation of wealth is “dangerous for a society” and pointed to 19th- and 20th-century families like the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Mellons, and Fords as examples.
https://www.businessinsider.com/laurene-powell-jobs-children-wont-inherit-billions-2020-2
Of course, what else could she be talking about? She is their mother. Marriage lasted twenty years, if she was gold digging she took her time.
I have not seen any evidence of that.
Yes, that’s the complaint made by some of Sanders supporters. But, again, I do not see the evidence.
I see “the establishment democratic political machine” (usually referred to a “the DNC”) as the poster child for organizational incompetence. They aren’t very good at anything that requires organization. To suggest that they could stop Sanders seems absurd.
There’s a lot of natural conservatism as part of human psychology. People cling to what has worked in the past. The primary voters rejected Sanders because of this natural psychological response. Homo sapiens is not a species of rational agents. Tradition binds more strongly than rationality.
The DNC were reluctant to support Sanders. But it was mainly because they thought Sanders could not win in a general election. And the primary voters agreed with that.
newton,
Oh, please spare me any more explanations of her legal rights to the money.
She lives like Imelda Marcos, her determination that her kids won’t doesn’t impress me in the slightest. Probably what she really means is she prefers to use it all herself.
Neil Rickert,
Then why do you think Biden went from nearly last in Iowa, a poor finish in New Hampshire to suddenly leading the ticket? Primaries are almost meaningless. Its just a bunch of prognosticators and pollsters declaring who they think will be the best national candidate. They don’t know what they are talking about, and the people who are fashionable at any moment, can change in a heartbeat.
The primaries are an outrageously poor indicated of who the public as a whole thinks should be president. I am willing to bet a very large sum that if Corey Booker or even Andrew Yang was running against Joe Biden for President right now, and you could only choose one or the other, both would easily beat Biden. Dark horses almost always show much better over time, primaries don’t really tell you much at all.
Shame you don’t have the same confidence in your other beliefs about evolution et al.
Neither Iowa nor New Hampshire are very representative of the electorate as a whole.
What changed, for Biden, was that he picked up the black vote in S. Carolina. Neither Sanders nor Warren were gaining much interest from black voters. The Democrats cannot win without the black vote.
It’s my impression that primary voters were not all that happy with their choices. And when they saw what happened in S. Carolina, many of them switched their support to Biden.
As to why Biden gets the black vote — that’s an interesting question. But I think it has a lot to do with Biden being VP to Obama. If it were not for that, I don’t think Biden would be so well received in the black community.
That may be true of Booker. But I am doubtful with respect to Yang. And I think you are ignoring that support that Biden earned while being Obama’s VP.
Sorry to get all unemotional with you.
Richer than Imelda by far.
What do you mean “ probably”? You are just guessing?
What’s missing from this discussion is whether the democrats can put together a package of policies that will attract a majority of voters.
And a candidate who is compos mentis.
petrushka,
I think that policy should include not recommending that people try cleaning themselves from illness by injecting disinfectant.
Also perhaps not building a wall that another country is not going to pay for and that is not going to do anything.
Also maybe they can not plan on doing nothing to fix the medical insurance system. That would be a good contrast.
Another way of putting it is, policy proposals don’t really mean that much. People vote for candidates for the same reason they buy cars – they make an emotional selection, and rationalize it after the fact.
Trump’s base is as solid as any voting base has ever been, and his numbers don’t go down no matter how ignorant he obviously is, no matter how corrupt he obviously is, no matter how much damage he is doing to our practices, our institutions, and our rule of law. Trump can violate the constitution in ways even Fox can’t spin, and it doesn’t matter. He is not supported for the value of his policies, he is worshiped for his character – as someone who is shaking things up, who is teaching those elite snobs a lesson, who is clearly a fighter and not a wimp (and simply ignore the evidence).
These people didn’t dislike Obama’s policies (in fact, they are now happy with those policies), they despised Obama the person. If Fox ever let them know what Trump is actually doing, they might have to twist themselves into pretzels to justify it all, but they would because they LOVE Trump the person. He’s their kind of guy, and they don’t need (and won’t accept) any knowledge of his actions or his history, it doesn’t fit the narrative.
For a democrat to defeat Trump, enough people must LIKE him and feel comfortable with him. And Trump understands that you don’t win by offering better policies or even any policies at all. You win by undermining public confidence in your opponent, by smearing him, lying about him, attacking his character. If he’s successful, you can ask any swing voter WHY he doesn’t vote for Biden, and he won’t be quite able to say, except he doesn’t TRUST Biden. But he doesn’t know why.
Flint,
I think this is true, I also think this is why the democrats didn’t need a Biden, they just needed anyone who was a solid, dependable democrat. It could be Booker, or Harris, or Beta O’Rourke, or Yang or any other articulate person who could be a counter to the insane dribbler. They don’t need to have precise policy details, this is one of the mistakes of many politicians, feeling they need to spell out every detail of their health care plan or tax plan, to counter what plan? There is zero plan on the other side. So they try to give a quick outline of their plan, which can then be criticized for every little detail, even though they are comparing it to nothing.
30 percent will vote for a turnip. They just needed anyone who the rest of the country won’t hate.
Good question for both parties
It can’t be whipped cream all the time now can it?
OMagain,
Just curious, is your name Guenter Parche?
The difference is that Trump is good at politics. In the same league as FDR, Bill Clinton, and Reagan. Voters understand the difference in speechifying between reading a teleprompter and speaking off the cuff.
I understand that you hate Trump’s policies, but that should not cloud your reason. His policies are popular. Even immigration.
His “stupid” statements have a way of moving in his favor. For example, the CV death toll is comparable to a bad flu season. The numbers are leveling off throughout the world, regardless of local policies.
All this could change, but you need to be careful when assessing him as an opponent. He is a poker player and a pool hustler. It is to his advantage for you to think he is not very smart.
You think that being brought up on the things you’ve said in the past and comparing them to what you are saying now is stalking you?
Are you making threats of physical violence against me?
MOderatoooorrrrrr!!!!
It just strikes me as hypocritical that whenever people point out what’s ‘wrong’ with the world you cover for your deity – there must be a good reason, it’s better then the alternative of no-pain and therefore no learning etc etc.
And yet when faced with the reality of it now it’s a problem that 99% of the coconuts are owned by a single person and people vote for leaders you think are idiots.
So I say suck it up. You’ve literally no right to complain about anything in this world, mr Whipped Cream.
And anyway, I’d pick someone other than a talentless nobody to stalk, if such was my want.
No , I am Guenter Parche.
And so’s my wife!
instead of casting aspersions, phoodoo, perhaps you could simply explain how your apparently contradictory stances are not in fact massively hypocritical.
`But I don’t expect you do to that. So, carry on….
So was George Wallace in much the same way. And there is a difference between electoral politics and the political savvy to govern.
All four were charismatic, knew how to use the media. Three preached a doctrine of hope to attract others to their base,one preached division and the cult of his personal glory. Two were smart, the two were actors.
True, Trump is completely inept at reading or doing anything other insult comedy. Remember to serious Trump in the Oval Office about the virus, it was horrific. Stock market tanked the next day. On the other hand all voters love the eloquent phrasing
“I hope people enjoy the sun, and if it has an impact, that’s great. I’m just hearing this, not really for the first time. I mean, there’s been a rumor, a very nice rumor, that you go outside in the sun or you have heat, and it does have an effect on other viruses. But now we get it from one of the great laboratories of the world, I have to say. Covers a lot more territory than just this. This is probably an easy thing, relatively speaking, for you.
“I would like you to speak to the medical doctors to see if there’s any way that you can apply light and heat to cure. You know? If you could? And maybe you can, maybe you can’t. Again, I say maybe you can, maybe you can’t. I’m not a doctor”
Future generations will be memorizing that instead of the Gettysburg’s Address.
My reason tells me he is a danger to the country.
“Notably, two-thirds of Americans who identify immigration as the most important problem still believe it is a good thing for the country.
Democrats (87%) are much more likely than Republicans (62%) to say immigration is a good thing, with 78% of independents holding that view.
Americans’ assessments of the effect of immigration on six aspects of U.S. society are mixed. In two areas — the economy and food, music, and the arts — more believe immigration has made the situation better than made it worse. The public is divided as to immigration’s effects on social and moral values and job opportunities for their family, but more evaluate immigration’s effect on crime and taxes negatively than positively.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/259103/new-high-say-immigration-important-problem.aspx
So popular with his base and those who fear.
Really, we have it under control?
In one case, we have shut down the country and 50,000 have died ,the other go about hugging and sneezing on each other and about the same die. The outcome might be the same but one requires isolation to reduce it to same the high levels, and we are only two months into it. Might be premature to declare victory
Not Brazil which went full Trump.
Totally agree, there will be a upswing in the charges that Biden harassed an employee , lots of money, and a willingness to do anything to win. I didn’t count him out in 2016. Didn’t even know about the Russian help, then.
No, he is a bullshitter grifter who fucks over people, but since he is rich he gets away with it.
He understands human frailties and can manipulate them, if that is smart.
That’s what she said.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.”
RWE
Pythagoras, Socrates, Jesus, Luther, Galileo, Newton, phoodoo
nahhhhhhhh
There are numerous logical flaws in this statement. For one, if the # of deaths are comparable to those of a bad flu season, and the flu still exists, then we have double the # of deaths. That’s what we call “bad.”
Second, Newton already pointed this out but it bears repeating: If the # of deaths is comparable to a bad flu season even WITH a nationwide and international quarantine, then it would be worse without those things. Keep in mind that we do not quarantine every flu season (i.e. every winter).
Third, the number of deaths has been reduced drastically by governors, local officials, and citizens doing things in direct opposition to those things suggested by Trump. If literally the opposite of what Trump has said to do slows the spread of the virus, then it is reasonably likely that doing what he said to do would hasten the spread, relative to its current speed.
Fourth, just for effect, let’s list some of the things that Donald Trump has publicly suggested in his official role as president: Ignoring the virus, providing too few respirators to states very much in need of those respirators if the governor of said state is not nice to him, take drugs which have not been proven to help fight the virus and which may be dangerous, consume household disinfectants (many of which would be deadlier than the virus to consume), allow those most vulnerable to die to boost his numbers going into the election. This only covers some of his statements. He has had to be frequently contradicted by doctors, including an instance in which he publicly posited the question of whether a “solid flu vaccine” would be enough to stop the spread of the virus. This was inbetween frequent claims of an almost unnatural understanding of medical science and virus transmission.
It is only reasonable to say that these things are in his favor if you have literally no real understanding of the current situation and only listen to lies propagated by him and his allies. His handling of the crisis has been almost unfathomably bad; simply allowing doctors, scientists, and public health experts to handle this would have been infinitely better. He is now, as always, dragged down by his narcissism and inability to simply delegate.
The fact that it is in his advantage does not necessarily preclude the possibility of him being a highly unintelligent individual. It is to the benefit of a diabetic for doctors to believe they are diabetic.