You are wrong sir. Please do some research into wealth creation.
There is no fixed pie. Wealth is definitely created.
It can be distributed and it can be destroyed (see communism), however it is, in a free market society created and not simply distributed. There is no fixed amount of money.
When a company gets a loan and returns it with interest, that money was created (the interest part).
When I provide a service and someone pays me more than my cost for that service, I have created my own pie.
Please read into the fallacy of the fixed pie analogy. It will open your eyes.
The thing is, people arent always worth what they think they are worth. Making things equal for everyone, compensates the lazy and hurts those that are productive.
In the end, you get a society that isnt productive. And no outside investments.
They arent limited. Production capacity limits wealth and ressources.
The pie is not fixed.
Improve your skillsets, move elsewhere, start a company, etc... All these things will allow you to get upward mobility. Its not up to anyone else to improve your lot in life, its your own responsibility.
Though I agree, there are a class of people that all they do is invest and manage investments instead of labor in a factory, I disagree that it is a bad thing. Investors are necessary for the economy and the market. Professional investors especially.
There are leeches, however and I dont like that. Many mutual funds have too high of a MER, which sucks profit out of your investments. People should invest in index funds, which cost less.
There are factors I dont like however, like HFT (High Frequency Trading). I feel that is a leech on the markets and should just not exist. Though they pretend it creates liquidity in the market.
I think one of the important factors is state education does not do enough of a good job helping people understand how investments work, how important they are and how everyone should have investments. Its harder when you are young to invest, but it should be done. I myself am a late comer with investments beginning in my late 30s, I'm behind.
The laborer who worked in that other factory saved up and invested in his retirement fund, either in stocks or mutual funds so he can increase his wealth for retirement.
Investments do not capture wealth, they are part if the economic growth of the world which generate wealth.
Investments arent evil money, they are your retirement investments. Which help curent and future generations rise from poverty.
From 2000 to now world poverty has veen reduced by 50%. Thats the fastest upward mobility in the history of mankind.
How do you have a factory without investments? Factories do not create themselves. It requires investments and risk management, planning and creativity as well as pioneering abilities.
The factory floor person is paid according to his market value, based on his skill set and ambitions.
Those who are not ambitious and wish only to show up at work, do their 9 to 5, be out the door without a worry in the world, do not get to reap a share of the wealth generated by the TEAM, except for the portion which represents his labor. His labor is compensated for in his salary and benefits, full stop.
If he is worth more, he can go find a job elsewhere, where someone will recognize his worth.
No one OWES anyone anything. Its an exchange of services. If you have no marketable skills, you cannot command premium pay. If you are too lazy to work on your skill set, either by putting in effort or going for training, it is no ones fault but your own.
There is no such thing in a free market because of competition.
There is lack of competition where there are too much regulations creating a high barrier to entry and protecting corporations from competition, which is what crony capitalism is.
If we take something obvious like starvation, its extremely rare in the USA (as an example) and in almost all western countries.
So low that it doesn't have its category in USA yearly deaths. Probably below HIV which is 6500 per year according to this : http://drugwarfacts.org/chapte...
And to cover the extremes, according to this study, there was no increase in starvation related deaths during the great depression either. http://www.pnas.org/content/10...
However there was an increase in Suicides, so that should be calculated, but also negligible compared to starvation in communist/Marxists countries.
Also notable is the great depression was not caused by free markets, but government manipulation of these markets. One of the worst being the creation of the Federal Reserve.
Now, I agree, I'll have to dig and dont have time right at this moment to see if there are studies that cover historical deaths that could be related to capitalism. But the truth is, it is unlikely that you can calculated them, because capitalism creates wealth. Im not sure what kind of deaths you could count as being directly related to capitalism, that you would not also find in a socialist system.
Which is why Im concentrating on starvation... because it is obvious. Others would be direct killings of people who do not follow the "party" line in communist China, Russia, etc...
If you die of starvation under a socialist system, your death is directly related to that system.
If you die in a working incident under a capitalist idea, there is no reason to believe that same thing could not happen at the same factory under a socialist system. And in fact, there are many people who have died in factories in Russia and China.
Obviously, its hard to count specific individual deaths.
However, general numbers of starvation deaths or direct killings under communist/socialist regimes are pretty solid historicaly.
As explained, there has been no ignoring of papers at the time of compiling to make the graph. Contrary to your baseless assertion. And we'll see at the end of 2018 if the trend persists, flatlines or changes.
I have never, as you well know, tried to pass off the "article" in no trick zone blog as scientific literature, but only as a compilation of said literature on one specific subject. A graph, I might add, which WAS published in science litterature (Scafetta 2017). However data ended in 2015. So it was adapted with newer studies at time of writing of the article.
That you do not like the name of the website which hosted the article has no bearing on the facts. A name I might add which derives from the climate gate e-mails demonstrating bad faith from mainstream players in climate sciences.
It is obvious that you do not like facts and much prefer to find references that support your argument and yours alone.
We will see what future studies bring. The trend just might reverse and that will bring interesting discussions indeed.
Indeed papers where all over the place in the past.
However the number of papers on this subject where few and far between.
The graph shows papers starting around 2001 because:
1. Our understanding of the science, is getting better in the recent past; 2. As you can see in the graph, as years advance, there are more and more papers;
As you can observe, there are papers in 2007 and 09 included with very low ECS calculations, which would make for a better graph if where ignored, but where not.
Also, instead of making spurious comments about blogger references, please point out a paper on that graph that is no publish and just blogers. Because from what I see, they are all published papers. Yes, including Lindzen 2011.
You are grasping at straws. Just to win.
Why you absolutely want ECS to be so high is beyond me.
Even the IPCC AR5 indicates : "No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies."
So they stick to their values 1 to 4.5c which is the pretty much the same as the boiler plate 1.5 to 4.5 used in almost all greenhouse gas assesments for the last 40 years. However these numbers where based off of only 2 studies, Manabe and another from Hansen.
I would hope after 40 years and hundreds of billions of dollars of research we would have a better understanding of ECS and that the demonstrated downward trend is the accumulation of better knowledge and data over those 40 years.
I can see how intellectually lazy you are by calling me a lier because you dont like my argument.
I will assume the order in which papers showed up for you on the link you provided from google scholar was different then what I get when I click on it, because brushing off the 4th study would be considered ignoring contrary opinions and best, and cherry picking at worst. Lewis and Curry 2018
In any case, there are hundreds of link in that google scholar search and the results are no in any order of importance.
To your second point, as I already mentioned but you ignore because you wish to score points with your jabs, the link I provided was compiled towards the end of 2017, so they obviously do not include 2018 papers. There is no conspiracy here, you can move along.
I will let someone else compile and classify 2018 papers in a few months as we approach the end of the year.
My point was not to include or exclude any papers, but to point out that the trend for all of them (except outliers) is a downward trend. If you wish to ignore this and make up your own facts, its up to you.
Thanks for nicely framing "cherry picking" in eloquent words. Followed by carefully selecting 1 study that presents your narrative.
You can add Cox et al. 2018 on to that graph : http://notrickszone.com/wp-con...
And it'll be up there with Marvel 2016 as an outlier.
Mentioning you cited literature to brush off my argument, when my argument is literally a graph of dozens of peer reviewed studies showing the spectrum of ECS over the years from studies on all sides of the debate is a little disingenuous.
My point was quite clear. You just don't like the studies that don't fit. Even though, as the graph shows, the trend is obvious.
That is not to say I brush off Cox et al. 2018, though there have been critics of the paper on all sides of the debate. But like all papers, there is some good and some less good in his study, it should still be up there on an updated graph compiling different studies on this subject.
Slashdot Mirror
You need an education in critical thinking before your spread the misinformation you where fed and have bought hook line and sinker.
You are wrong sir. Please do some research into wealth creation.
There is no fixed pie. Wealth is definitely created.
It can be distributed and it can be destroyed (see communism), however it is, in a free market society created and not simply distributed.
There is no fixed amount of money.
When a company gets a loan and returns it with interest, that money was created (the interest part).
When I provide a service and someone pays me more than my cost for that service, I have created my own pie.
Please read into the fallacy of the fixed pie analogy. It will open your eyes.
Nice fantasy world you you'd like to live in.
The thing is, people arent always worth what they think they are worth.
Making things equal for everyone, compensates the lazy and hurts those that are productive.
In the end, you get a society that isnt productive. And no outside investments.
You are calling for communism or/and socialism.
It does not work. source: History
They arent limited. Production capacity limits wealth and ressources.
The pie is not fixed.
Improve your skillsets, move elsewhere, start a company, etc... All these things will allow you to get upward mobility.
Its not up to anyone else to improve your lot in life, its your own responsibility.
The rich at the top cannot collect ALL of the money. Because wealth is not finite.
As society is productive, wealth is generated, by every transaction and each item produced or service rendered.
It is a fallacy to see the economy as a pie and people sharing pieces of the pie.
Production creates new pies all the time.
If governments did not have the power to dole out favors (crony... capitalism), competition would be possible.
The problem is always the government.
You mean crony capitalism.
Without government powers, the things you identified would not happen.
Your right, the numbers are low for general population holding stocks.
54% of households hold some stocks
93% of stocks owned by 20% of households
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/0...
Though I agree, there are a class of people that all they do is invest and manage investments instead of labor in a factory, I disagree that it is a bad thing.
Investors are necessary for the economy and the market. Professional investors especially.
There are leeches, however and I dont like that. Many mutual funds have too high of a MER, which sucks profit out of your investments. People should invest in index funds, which cost less.
There are factors I dont like however, like HFT (High Frequency Trading). I feel that is a leech on the markets and should just not exist. Though they pretend it creates liquidity in the market.
I think one of the important factors is state education does not do enough of a good job helping people understand how investments work, how important they are and how everyone should have investments. Its harder when you are young to invest, but it should be done. I myself am a late comer with investments beginning in my late 30s, I'm behind.
The laborer who worked in that other factory saved up and invested in his retirement fund, either in stocks or mutual funds so he can increase his wealth for retirement.
Investments do not capture wealth, they are part if the economic growth of the world which generate wealth.
Investments arent evil money, they are your retirement investments. Which help curent and future generations rise from poverty.
From 2000 to now world poverty has veen reduced by 50%. Thats the fastest upward mobility in the history of mankind.
Socialism will destroy it all if you let it.
How do you have a factory without investments?
Factories do not create themselves. It requires investments and risk management, planning and creativity as well as pioneering abilities.
The factory floor person is paid according to his market value, based on his skill set and ambitions.
Those who are not ambitious and wish only to show up at work, do their 9 to 5, be out the door without a worry in the world, do not get to reap a share of the wealth generated by the TEAM, except for the portion which represents his labor. His labor is compensated for in his salary and benefits, full stop.
If he is worth more, he can go find a job elsewhere, where someone will recognize his worth.
No one OWES anyone anything. Its an exchange of services. If you have no marketable skills, you cannot command premium pay. If you are too lazy to work on your skill set, either by putting in effort or going for training, it is no ones fault but your own.
There is no such thing in a free market because of competition.
There is lack of competition where there are too much regulations creating a high barrier to entry and protecting corporations from competition, which is what crony capitalism is.
If we take something obvious like starvation, its extremely rare in the USA (as an example) and in almost all western countries.
So low that it doesn't have its category in USA yearly deaths. Probably below HIV which is 6500 per year according to this : http://drugwarfacts.org/chapte...
And to cover the extremes, according to this study, there was no increase in starvation related deaths during the great depression either. http://www.pnas.org/content/10...
However there was an increase in Suicides, so that should be calculated, but also negligible compared to starvation in communist/Marxists countries.
Also notable is the great depression was not caused by free markets, but government manipulation of these markets. One of the worst being the creation of the Federal Reserve.
Now, I agree, I'll have to dig and dont have time right at this moment to see if there are studies that cover historical deaths that could be related to capitalism. But the truth is, it is unlikely that you can calculated them, because capitalism creates wealth. Im not sure what kind of deaths you could count as being directly related to capitalism, that you would not also find in a socialist system.
Which is why Im concentrating on starvation... because it is obvious. Others would be direct killings of people who do not follow the "party" line in communist China, Russia, etc...
If you die of starvation under a socialist system, your death is directly related to that system.
If you die in a working incident under a capitalist idea, there is no reason to believe that same thing could not happen at the same factory under a socialist system.
And in fact, there are many people who have died in factories in Russia and China.
Obviously, its hard to count specific individual deaths.
However, general numbers of starvation deaths or direct killings under communist/socialist regimes are pretty solid historicaly.
Of course, which is why the government needs powers to enforce laws to protect the people, property rights against the force of violence.
Look up the definition of crony capitalism.
You have it wrong.
Crony capitalism, can only come about when government representatives have power already.
They can then be lobbied and can curry favors.
Crony capitalism is impossible if the government doesn't have the power to regulate markets.
The government needs and should only have power to enforce the law and protect property rights.
Socialism end in one way. A few with power, thinking the answer to all the problems is more socialism.
Capitalism is about freedom.
Now it has its problema too, i.e. when governmenta have powers they will curry favors, i.e. crony capitalism.
All in all though, free markets are the only creators of wealth, full stop. Every other type of economy leads to failure.
And you think poverty is because of capitalism?
War in vietnam was politics, not economics.
You will really compare that to the tens of millions whi died of starvation in Russia, China, now Venezuela?
You need to educate yourself. Read some history, and pay attention to whats going on right now in Venezuela and why.
Made up?
Are you saying Mao and Stalins implementations of Maxist ideas do NOT kill tens of millions of people?
Cambodia anyone?
Please point to the people capitalism has killed.
As compared to pal reviewed papers?
Argue the facts and the science. Unless you have nothing left... then by all means slander at will.
Point them out.
As explained, there has been no ignoring of papers at the time of compiling to make the graph. Contrary to your baseless assertion.
And we'll see at the end of 2018 if the trend persists, flatlines or changes.
I have never, as you well know, tried to pass off the "article" in no trick zone blog as scientific literature, but only as a compilation of said literature on one specific subject. A graph, I might add, which WAS published in science litterature (Scafetta 2017). However data ended in 2015. So it was adapted with newer studies at time of writing of the article.
That you do not like the name of the website which hosted the article has no bearing on the facts. A name I might add which derives from the climate gate e-mails demonstrating bad faith from mainstream players in climate sciences.
It is obvious that you do not like facts and much prefer to find references that support your argument and yours alone.
We will see what future studies bring. The trend just might reverse and that will bring interesting discussions indeed.
Indeed papers where all over the place in the past.
However the number of papers on this subject where few and far between.
The graph shows papers starting around 2001 because:
1. Our understanding of the science, is getting better in the recent past;
2. As you can see in the graph, as years advance, there are more and more papers;
As you can observe, there are papers in 2007 and 09 included with very low ECS calculations, which would make for a better graph if where ignored, but where not.
Also, instead of making spurious comments about blogger references, please point out a paper on that graph that is no publish and just blogers. Because from what I see, they are all published papers. Yes, including Lindzen 2011.
You are grasping at straws. Just to win.
Why you absolutely want ECS to be so high is beyond me.
Even the IPCC AR5 indicates : "No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because
of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies."
So they stick to their values 1 to 4.5c which is the pretty much the same as the boiler plate 1.5 to 4.5 used in almost all greenhouse gas assesments for the last 40 years. However these numbers where based off of only 2 studies, Manabe and another from Hansen.
I would hope after 40 years and hundreds of billions of dollars of research we would have a better understanding of ECS and that the demonstrated downward trend is the accumulation of better knowledge and data over those 40 years.
I can see how intellectually lazy you are by calling me a lier because you dont like my argument.
I will assume the order in which papers showed up for you on the link you provided from google scholar was different then what I get when I click on it, because brushing off the 4th study would be considered ignoring contrary opinions and best, and cherry picking at worst. Lewis and Curry 2018
In any case, there are hundreds of link in that google scholar search and the results are no in any order of importance.
To your second point, as I already mentioned but you ignore because you wish to score points with your jabs, the link I provided was compiled towards the end of 2017, so they obviously do not include 2018 papers. There is no conspiracy here, you can move along.
I will let someone else compile and classify 2018 papers in a few months as we approach the end of the year.
My point was not to include or exclude any papers, but to point out that the trend for all of them (except outliers) is a downward trend. If you wish to ignore this and make up your own facts, its up to you.
Thanks for nicely framing "cherry picking" in eloquent words. Followed by carefully selecting 1 study that presents your narrative. You can add Cox et al. 2018 on to that graph : http://notrickszone.com/wp-con... And it'll be up there with Marvel 2016 as an outlier. Mentioning you cited literature to brush off my argument, when my argument is literally a graph of dozens of peer reviewed studies showing the spectrum of ECS over the years from studies on all sides of the debate is a little disingenuous. My point was quite clear. You just don't like the studies that don't fit. Even though, as the graph shows, the trend is obvious. That is not to say I brush off Cox et al. 2018, though there have been critics of the paper on all sides of the debate. But like all papers, there is some good and some less good in his study, it should still be up there on an updated graph compiling different studies on this subject.