and you get out too. dont poison that predominantly social democrat country with high standards of humanity and living with your shitty, destructive american right wing capitalist mindset.
Serfs, peasants. Whatever you want to call them, they had no wealth, and they were only permitted to keep 1/3 of their income. And their "income" wasn't the sort they could save (i.e. wealth) - it spoiled if they couldn't use it or trade it for something that'd last a while. Almost all of the actual wealth belonged to the lords and the king.
wrong. serfs and peasants were very different, and both had the means to buy and own things. actually, the most common route going from serf to peasant was actually buying your own liberty by paying your lord through any means - be it land be it something else. there was all the way from serfhood to knight. local trade was lively albeit nowhere could be compared to the sea merchant trade of 13th century - every locale had fairs regularly. and people had the right to sell buy anything.
As I said before, you're confusing income and wealth. The link you posted said that 72% of the wealth is held by the top 5%. NOT income - if you read the same link further down, about 60% of the income is earned by the top 20%.
Under the feudal system, the top few percent earned 66% of the income - now that same portion of the income is divided among far more people, over 20% of the top earners rather than a few percent.
i said income and wealth, and i added wealth generation tools there, and for good reason. the amount of wealth generated by what is recorded as income by itself cannot be compared to the wealth that is generated by wealth generation tools - the former is counted as income, but the latter still classifies as wealth regardless of the tool - if your shares go up 100%, it is not considered as income in this statistic. only dividends would. the wealth that is generated and recorded under wealth can not be compared to the wealth being generated and recorded as income.
Under the feudal system, the top few percent owned nearly all of the wealth - much more than 72%.
technically yes, actually 100% of them was owned by the king. yet, practically no, because they didnt have the means to control it. hence feudal system, hence decentralization, hence all decentralized location having its own laws, customs on top of common law. the term 'common law' comes from that aspect by the way - the law common to all feudal localities.
By all circumstances it's better now than then, exactly the opposite of your original claim.
sure. if you forget that a pathetic percentage of the generated wealth is being recorded statistically as 'income', due to the financial definitions of wealth and income. if your shares go up 1000%, its still wealth, and not considered income, and not put into the statistical calculations. yet you can still sell and use parts of it to do anything. note that almost no top executive gets a payment as in salary, only token amounts, but they get stocks and shares. this situation further reduces the amount of wealth that is being recorded as income, and shows the situation more balanced. google execs etc get paid $1/year. but if you talk about owned wealth in the form of shares...
How, you ask... simple ; wealth is power. If you allow people and groups to amass more wealth than others, it is inevitable that they will use that power to make things in the aspect of life that you dont allow people to gain unlimited power - politics.
In this case, its particular private interests in music/movie industry, representing a very, very small group of population in respect to the ownership of the wealth contained in that interest, directly subverting and influencing politics, which they were supposed to be limited in power just like any other citizen.
this travesty of a law was totally passed solely with their pushing and their shaping. in lieu of what majority wanted.
you directly can see this issue rooting from what propels wall street protests - a very tiny minority of the nation holds a great majority of the wealth, and therefore exercising their power at will - 5% of population held 72% of wealth and income (including income generation tools).
and, as we know by evidence that canadian copyright law was pushed by u.s. private interests, we can say that that kind of imbalance of wealth (power) transcends borders.
first of all, america never had any measure of socialism or social democracy. america's far left, is center-right in standards of the rest of the world.
what makes i think that socialists (which are actually social democrats, by the way, terms in american political literature are totally fucked up) are better when in power ? why, the top 5 of human development index being dominated for the last decades by countries which have been predominantly social democrat through their 80 year old recent political history ?
the real trouble is, there is no 'fair and balanced approach' ever possible, when you let individuals or groups amass much more wealth (hence power) than others. these minorities will invariably use that wealth and its accompanying power, to further their own interest at the expense of anything else.
that is that - money is power. if you dont limit that power, the power in economy invariably starts to command politics and makes things worse.
there are limits needed, just like there are limits in political power. and, this can not be done without social democracy, since its antithesis capitalism is totally against any kind of limitations to wealth (hence power) amassing.
moron. what did i tell you ? go read again unless you are linguistically challenged. i told you that u.s. GENERALLY ranks around #10. i didnt say it never strayed higher or lower. ranking higher in one year's listing does not mean that it stays there. the only consistent ones are those at the top.
if you have two brain cells you can go back and see the earlier years.
noone 'owned' anything. the sole owner was the king of the country, and everyone else owned land in his name through hierarchical ownership relationships. the difference of today's system is just the king is replaced by the 'nation' represented by government and everyone gets their land permits from them. and the hierarchy requirement has been removed in-seeming - you can directly get land from government. tho, through feudal-like ownership mechanism of the system, you end up being a tenant to a bigger owner in general.
technically, peasants could own any amount of land - peasants were unindentured people - freemen. you are confusing serfs with peasants. these are different.
serfs were tied to the land they lived on. however, their sustenance and income had to be guaranteed by the lord by law.
hippie ? why thank you. i am not, but i am trying to be.
however, cut the crap about things you dont know zit about. moron. income distribution is directly linked to the percentage of amenities you can enjoy from your society - that is 'standard of living'.
"in u.s. standard of living is pretty good" -> that is because you dont know jack shit .
that is the most detailed index that measures standard of living regarding EVERYthing an INDIVIDUAL needs, from the soft drinks he can buy to his children's safety, and your hellhole can only rank #10 at best times, coming after all the social/social democrat/hippie countries you would curse and cuss about. in retrospect, those countries, especially nordic ones, always rank in the top 5.
compared to them, you are living in a hellhole, and wealth/income distribution is the reason.
really. these things are just a google search away. why you dont know jack shit, and yet talk shit, and do not spare the effort to just type in a 3 word search and actually LEARN what you are going to talk about ?
Dont talk as if you know something about what you are talking on when you dont know anything.
economy in middle ages was entirely based on land until high middle ages (1250 and on). trade was limited to various cities in fortunate regions, and other masses entirely lived on land subsistence. naturally, ranging from the requirements for being made a knight to tithes you needed to pay to your lord were all calculated on things related to land. on a sidenote, noone wanted to become a knight, since it incurred great yearly expenses on you. and you automatically became one, if the land you own passed a certain threshold.
my my. what's that thing about EQUALITY in politics then ? like, everyone having a right to get elected, everyone having the EXACT same vote ? and that business about challenging king's, the property holder's rights ? it was all his property you know. how dare they challenge a property holder.
these are left principles. dont talk about shit before knowing anything first. ignorant moron.
the system is what creates your corruption. you think when you let 5% of society to get 72% of all wealth, they would use that wealth just to get gold gilded swimming pools to swim in and 12 yachts to water ski behind ? whomever has that much power, uses it to create the corruption you speak about. wherever there is possibility of amassing power, there is corruption.
So far, doing otherwise provided nothing. we are not in 60s anymore. we are in a period in which the established control mechanisms of government or other interest holders have been worked on suppressing the masses since 1960s. the innovation scale in that area surpasses the innovations made in military technology, ranging from sound weapons to tazer guns.
and the police forces are not the random people who randomly have signed up in force anymore. governments have been taking care to focus recruitment to psychological profiles that will do whatever they are commanded, regardless of ethics, since a long while.
so then, the same should have been applied to american revolutionaries back in 1774, and franklin, jefferson, revere et al should have been all jailed and beaten down...
how DARE they revolt against unfairness and suppression.
as of 2005, top 5% of american society takes 72% of everything. bottom 85% (includes YOU), take only 15%.
in medieval western europe, the law of the land was in the below manner :
lord gets 33% of produce from fields>
church gets 33% of produce from fields>
serfs get 33% of produce from fields.
no lord could ever dream of being able to actually take 72% of economy, and a medieval peasant would be pitying a modern 'well to do' person in terms of the share of the wealth he is taking from at a measly 15% - for, he, as a medieval peasant, got double the rate you are currently getting from your society's wealth.
thats what happens when you get a job. you live TWICE worse off than a medieval serf.
moron. the one whose skull should be cracked is you. you are dragging the average level of humanity down. and if you made your name and address available, im sure someone from new york could offer you the courtesy in a back alley.
They are violating your legal rights, abusing power, judiciary is doing nothing about it, and they are just continuing living their life easily with YOUR tax money.
They shouldnt. you should confront them and hold them accountable for what they are doing with your tax money, since the judiciary is not doing it, city is content with it, and the government doesnt care about it.
an encounter in a back alley can make anyone remember that they are just human beings.
no it isnt. swap file is for usage as an extra memory in case programs need it. it doesnt contain program files, or system files, be them large or small. it is just 'extra memory' , a relic of 90s. but it is still important when the computer running it has low memory.
currently it is not advised to put swaps on ssds, despite microsoft recommends it. because of constant, neverending writes, it kills ssds quite fast. ssds currently have a maximum write amount they can handle. then they die. reads are unlimited though.
so currently its best to put program files, system files on ssds for very fast access, and put any kinds of logs, swap, virtual memory, records that program keep on traditional hds.
the difference in between these is, you end up keeping often accessed small (4kb or similar size) operating system or program files in ssd. ssds perform over 40 times faster or more for accessing such files. the difference that results in speed is phenomenal. also it is noticeable for bigger program files.
Slashdot Mirror
i am opposed to political freedom as such. there should be no freedom to perpetuate ideologies that end freedoms.
and you get out too. dont poison that predominantly social democrat country with high standards of humanity and living with your shitty, destructive american right wing capitalist mindset.
Serfs, peasants. Whatever you want to call them, they had no wealth, and they were only permitted to keep 1/3 of their income. And their "income" wasn't the sort they could save (i.e. wealth) - it spoiled if they couldn't use it or trade it for something that'd last a while. Almost all of the actual wealth belonged to the lords and the king.
wrong. serfs and peasants were very different, and both had the means to buy and own things. actually, the most common route going from serf to peasant was actually buying your own liberty by paying your lord through any means - be it land be it something else. there was all the way from serfhood to knight. local trade was lively albeit nowhere could be compared to the sea merchant trade of 13th century - every locale had fairs regularly. and people had the right to sell buy anything.
As I said before, you're confusing income and wealth. The link you posted said that 72% of the wealth is held by the top 5%. NOT income - if you read the same link further down, about 60% of the income is earned by the top 20%.
Under the feudal system, the top few percent earned 66% of the income - now that same portion of the income is divided among far more people, over 20% of the top earners rather than a few percent.
i said income and wealth, and i added wealth generation tools there, and for good reason. the amount of wealth generated by what is recorded as income by itself cannot be compared to the wealth that is generated by wealth generation tools - the former is counted as income, but the latter still classifies as wealth regardless of the tool - if your shares go up 100%, it is not considered as income in this statistic. only dividends would. the wealth that is generated and recorded under wealth can not be compared to the wealth being generated and recorded as income.
Under the feudal system, the top few percent owned nearly all of the wealth - much more than 72%.
technically yes, actually 100% of them was owned by the king. yet, practically no, because they didnt have the means to control it. hence feudal system, hence decentralization, hence all decentralized location having its own laws, customs on top of common law. the term 'common law' comes from that aspect by the way - the law common to all feudal localities.
By all circumstances it's better now than then, exactly the opposite of your original claim.
sure. if you forget that a pathetic percentage of the generated wealth is being recorded statistically as 'income', due to the financial definitions of wealth and income. if your shares go up 1000%, its still wealth, and not considered income, and not put into the statistical calculations. yet you can still sell and use parts of it to do anything. note that almost no top executive gets a payment as in salary, only token amounts, but they get stocks and shares. this situation further reduces the amount of wealth that is being recorded as income, and shows the situation more balanced. google execs etc get paid $1/year. but if you talk about owned wealth in the form of shares ...
why not post it with your account, instead of anonymous coward.
They always ARE postal ....
How, you ask ... simple ; wealth is power. If you allow people and groups to amass more wealth than others, it is inevitable that they will use that power to make things in the aspect of life that you dont allow people to gain unlimited power - politics.
In this case, its particular private interests in music/movie industry, representing a very, very small group of population in respect to the ownership of the wealth contained in that interest, directly subverting and influencing politics, which they were supposed to be limited in power just like any other citizen.
this travesty of a law was totally passed solely with their pushing and their shaping. in lieu of what majority wanted.
you directly can see this issue rooting from what propels wall street protests - a very tiny minority of the nation holds a great majority of the wealth, and therefore exercising their power at will - 5% of population held 72% of wealth and income (including income generation tools).
and, as we know by evidence that canadian copyright law was pushed by u.s. private interests, we can say that that kind of imbalance of wealth (power) transcends borders.
first of all, america never had any measure of socialism or social democracy. america's far left, is center-right in standards of the rest of the world.
what makes i think that socialists (which are actually social democrats, by the way, terms in american political literature are totally fucked up) are better when in power ? why, the top 5 of human development index being dominated for the last decades by countries which have been predominantly social democrat through their 80 year old recent political history ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
the real trouble is, there is no 'fair and balanced approach' ever possible, when you let individuals or groups amass much more wealth (hence power) than others. these minorities will invariably use that wealth and its accompanying power, to further their own interest at the expense of anything else.
that is that - money is power. if you dont limit that power, the power in economy invariably starts to command politics and makes things worse.
there are limits needed, just like there are limits in political power. and, this can not be done without social democracy, since its antithesis capitalism is totally against any kind of limitations to wealth (hence power) amassing.
moron. what did i tell you ? go read again unless you are linguistically challenged. i told you that u.s. GENERALLY ranks around #10. i didnt say it never strayed higher or lower. ranking higher in one year's listing does not mean that it stays there. the only consistent ones are those at the top.
if you have two brain cells you can go back and see the earlier years.
noone 'owned' anything. the sole owner was the king of the country, and everyone else owned land in his name through hierarchical ownership relationships. the difference of today's system is just the king is replaced by the 'nation' represented by government and everyone gets their land permits from them. and the hierarchy requirement has been removed in-seeming - you can directly get land from government. tho, through feudal-like ownership mechanism of the system, you end up being a tenant to a bigger owner in general.
technically, peasants could own any amount of land - peasants were unindentured people - freemen. you are confusing serfs with peasants. these are different.
serfs were tied to the land they lived on. however, their sustenance and income had to be guaranteed by the lord by law.
do you have a problem with numbers.
hippie ? why thank you. i am not, but i am trying to be.
however, cut the crap about things you dont know zit about. moron. income distribution is directly linked to the percentage of amenities you can enjoy from your society - that is 'standard of living'.
"in u.s. standard of living is pretty good" -> that is because you dont know jack shit .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
that is the most detailed index that measures standard of living regarding EVERYthing an INDIVIDUAL needs, from the soft drinks he can buy to his children's safety, and your hellhole can only rank #10 at best times, coming after all the social/social democrat/hippie countries you would curse and cuss about. in retrospect, those countries, especially nordic ones, always rank in the top 5.
compared to them, you are living in a hellhole, and wealth/income distribution is the reason.
really. these things are just a google search away. why you dont know jack shit, and yet talk shit, and do not spare the effort to just type in a 3 word search and actually LEARN what you are going to talk about ?
Dont talk as if you know something about what you are talking on when you dont know anything.
economy in middle ages was entirely based on land until high middle ages (1250 and on). trade was limited to various cities in fortunate regions, and other masses entirely lived on land subsistence. naturally, ranging from the requirements for being made a knight to tithes you needed to pay to your lord were all calculated on things related to land. on a sidenote, noone wanted to become a knight, since it incurred great yearly expenses on you. and you automatically became one, if the land you own passed a certain threshold.
my my. what's that thing about EQUALITY in politics then ? like, everyone having a right to get elected, everyone having the EXACT same vote ? and that business about challenging king's, the property holder's rights ? it was all his property you know. how dare they challenge a property holder.
these are left principles. dont talk about shit before knowing anything first. ignorant moron.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
the system is what creates your corruption. you think when you let 5% of society to get 72% of all wealth, they would use that wealth just to get gold gilded swimming pools to swim in and 12 yachts to water ski behind ? whomever has that much power, uses it to create the corruption you speak about. wherever there is possibility of amassing power, there is corruption.
you need bastards to protest against bastards.
So far, doing otherwise provided nothing. we are not in 60s anymore. we are in a period in which the established control mechanisms of government or other interest holders have been worked on suppressing the masses since 1960s. the innovation scale in that area surpasses the innovations made in military technology, ranging from sound weapons to tazer guns.
and the police forces are not the random people who randomly have signed up in force anymore. governments have been taking care to focus recruitment to psychological profiles that will do whatever they are commanded, regardless of ethics, since a long while.
minded eh ?
...
so then, the same should have been applied to american revolutionaries back in 1774, and franklin, jefferson, revere et al should have been all jailed and beaten down
how DARE they revolt against unfairness and suppression.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
as of 2005, top 5% of american society takes 72% of everything. bottom 85% (includes YOU), take only 15%.
in medieval western europe, the law of the land was in the below manner :
lord gets 33% of produce from fields>
church gets 33% of produce from fields>
serfs get 33% of produce from fields.
no lord could ever dream of being able to actually take 72% of economy, and a medieval peasant would be pitying a modern 'well to do' person in terms of the share of the wealth he is taking from at a measly 15% - for, he, as a medieval peasant, got double the rate you are currently getting from your society's wealth.
thats what happens when you get a job. you live TWICE worse off than a medieval serf.
moron. the one whose skull should be cracked is you. you are dragging the average level of humanity down. and if you made your name and address available, im sure someone from new york could offer you the courtesy in a back alley.
They are violating your legal rights, abusing power, judiciary is doing nothing about it, and they are just continuing living their life easily with YOUR tax money.
They shouldnt. you should confront them and hold them accountable for what they are doing with your tax money, since the judiciary is not doing it, city is content with it, and the government doesnt care about it.
an encounter in a back alley can make anyone remember that they are just human beings.
thats what you should use.
there not being an 'utopia' (yet), does not mean people should just accept working for companies which wont pay them money like morons.
get your logic straight first, and then attempt discussing.
no it isnt. swap file is for usage as an extra memory in case programs need it. it doesnt contain program files, or system files, be them large or small. it is just 'extra memory' , a relic of 90s. but it is still important when the computer running it has low memory.
currently it is not advised to put swaps on ssds, despite microsoft recommends it. because of constant, neverending writes, it kills ssds quite fast. ssds currently have a maximum write amount they can handle. then they die. reads are unlimited though.
so currently its best to put program files, system files on ssds for very fast access, and put any kinds of logs, swap, virtual memory, records that program keep on traditional hds.
the difference in between these is, you end up keeping often accessed small (4kb or similar size) operating system or program files in ssd. ssds perform over 40 times faster or more for accessing such files. the difference that results in speed is phenomenal. also it is noticeable for bigger program files.
And its called momentus. it has a ssd cache which keeps most accessed files in itself. how clueless was the poster ?
Great. Empty variables in the form of 'lawful'. Now all you need is a few small laws to block stuff at will.