The Atheist path; a path of liberation or of necessity?

[OldWiseGuy]

Demonstrably incorrect.

The gross world product - a measure of wealth - has increased by a factor of 200 in since the 18th century.

Last report, 80 percent of the benefits went to the richest 1 percent.

When I say things are getting worse I don't measure from their lowest point but from their high point. We have reached our zenith and are now descending.

 

[bhsmte]

Demonstrably incorrect.

The gross world product - a measure of wealth - has increased by a factor of 200 in since the 18th century.

That may be, but when it comes to where the bulk of the wealth is going, it is going to the top 1% at rates, we have never seen before.

The combined wealth of the top 1%, has increased much more dramatically, than the population in general.

 

[expos4ever]

Last report, 80 percent of the benefits went to the richest 1 percent.

When I say things are getting worse I don't measure from their lowest point but from their high point. We have reached our zenith and are now descending.

You said there was a fixed amount wealth.

Where is the supporting evidence? Answer: there is none.

Second, where us your evidence that we are now descending?

 

[expos4ever]

That may be, but when it comes to where the bulk of the wealth is going, it is going to the top 1% at rates, we have never seen before.

The combined wealth of the top 1%, has increased much more dramatically, than the population in general.

Agreed, but that is not what Old Wise Guy and are talking about.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You said there was a fixed amount wealth.

Where is the supporting evidence? Answer: there is none.

Second, where us your evidence that we are now descending?

There is a finite (not 'fixed') amount of money for all to work with. Shortfalls are made up by borrowing. A standard of living purchased by borrowing is just that, borrowed, to be paid back with interest. Much of what is bought with borrowed money will depreciated quickly while mounting debt remains. This is the 'devil in the details' of the supposed increase in living standards.

Interestingly it is the poor who are responsible for much of the debt. Expensive tax funded social programs that don't solve the problems, and show no returns on the investment.

Debt and (not much) deleveraging | McKinsey & Company

 

[expos4ever]

There is a finite (not 'fixed') amount of money for all to work with.

You said and I quote:

There is a finite amount of wealth.
The rich are getter richer.
Therefore the poor are getting poorer.

This logic simply is incorrect. Obviously there is a finite amount of wealth!

But just because the rich are getting richer, it does not follow that the poor are getting poorer - as long as the finite amount of wealth is increasing, it certainly can be the case that everyone is getting richer.

Which is more or less true, at least for the world as a whole.

 

[bhsmte]

You said and I quote:

There is a finite amount of wealth.
The rich are getter richer.
Therefore the poor are getting poorer.

This logic simply is incorrect. Obviously there is a finite amount of wealth!

But just because the rich are getting richer, it does not follow that the poor are getting poorer - as long as the finite amount of wealth is increasing, it certainly can be the case that everyone is getting richer.

Which is more or less true, at least for the world as a whole.

You are correct, there is no limit on how much wealth can be created.

It is true however, the the majority of wealth, has been going to the top 1%, at levels we have never seen before.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You said and I quote:

There is a finite amount of wealth.
The rich are getter richer.
Therefore the poor are getting poorer.

This logic simply is incorrect. Obviously there is a finite amount of wealth!

But just because the rich are getting richer, it does not follow that the poor are getting poorer - as long as the finite amount of wealth is increasing, it certainly can be the case that everyone is getting richer.

Which is more or less true, at least for the world as a whole.

They have appearance of getting richer, but it's all borrowed. The debt-to-equity ratio is growing not receding.

 

[Ken-1122]

I do of course, and one just needs to look around.

When I look around, I don’t see you as the one to make that determination; I also probably don’t see things the way you do

There is a finite amount of wealth.

No; the potential for wealth is infinite

The rich are getter richer.
Therefore the poor are getting poorer.

No; US history tells us when the rich get richer, the poor usually gets richer as well. There are exceptions of course, but if you compare today vs 100 years ago, the poor of today is far better than back then, even though we have far more wealthy people than back then.

It also must be noted that the national debt is apportioned equally among all citizens,

Says who? Where is it written that the National debt is apportioned among all citizens?

which leaves all the poor and much of the middle class with negative net worth, while the share of the rich is chump change (around $55,000 per citizen).

Nobody owes $55,000.00 to pay off the national debt.

Government debt also impacts the wealth of many of the world's countries and must be figured into any measure of individual income and net worth.

Other than taxes, how does Government debt affect my net worth?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When I look around, I don’t see you as the one to make that determination; I also probably don’t see things the way you do

I'm a self appointed expert, like many here.

No; the potential for wealth is infinite

Potential isn't actual. I have a stack of raw wood in my shop that has the potential of becoming a fine cabinet......or firewood.

No; US history tells us when the rich get richer, the poor usually gets richer as well. There are exceptions of course, but if you compare today vs 100 years ago, the poor of today is far better than back then, even though we have far more wealthy people than back then.

I'm not looking back 100 years.

If you want to frame the argument going back that far I can reframe my assertions, thusly,

Are happier than we've ever been?
Are we healthier than we've ever been?
Are we wealthier than we've ever been?

I'm guessing no to all three.

Says who? Where is it written that the National debt is apportioned among all citizens?

Who else is going to pay it?
Each American Family Owes $152K To Pay Off National Debt

Nobody owes $55,000.00 to pay off the national debt.

Actually it's more. This is how much debt your country has per person

How much is it per person?
"One way to think about government debt is in per capita terms. So, for example, if the Japanese wanted to pay off their national debt, they would owe $90,345 each.

Among OECD countries, Ireland, the US and Italy are next, with $62,687, $61,539, and $58,693 respectively."

Other than taxes, how does Government debt affect my net worth?

It's an outstanding liability against your assets. It's just being kicked down the road by the politicians. Greece ran out of "road". Are we next?

 

[Ken-1122]

Last report, 80 percent of the benefits went to the richest 1 percent.

which means 20 percent goes to the rest of the 99 percent. Because of this, the 99% is still better off with only 20% than they were before.

When I say things are getting worse I don't measure from their lowest point but from their high point. We have reached our zenith and are now descending.

Then you are doing it wrong. You should be measuring from how things were before, when you claimed things were better.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm a self appointed expert, like many here.

Only in your mind

Potential

isn't actual. I have a stack of raw wood in my shop that has the potential of becoming a fine cabinet......or firewood.

It means the rich does not get richer by taking from the poor; which is what you seem to be suggesting.

I'm not looking back 100 years.

If you want to frame the argument going back that far I can reframe my assertions, thusly,

Are happier than we've ever been?

Maybe not you, but I am much happier than my slave ancestors were.

Are we healthier than we've ever been?

Can't speak for you, but my slave ancestors lived to an average age of 35 before they were dead. I should live to at least 80

Are we wealthier than we've ever been?

Really???

I'm guessing no to all three.

Yes on all three.

Who else is going to pay it?
Each American Family Owes $152K To Pay Off National Debt

People who pay federal taxes; last time I checked I think that adds up to 47% of the population

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Maybe not you, but I am much happier than my slave ancestors were.

You and I are the among the minority then.

The Connection Between Age and Happiness Is Breaking Down

 

[OldWiseGuy]

which means 20 percent goes to the rest of the 99 percent. Because of this, the 99% is still better off with only 20% than they were before.

It doesn't break down that way. The top 10 % get most of that remaining 20 %. The bottom 90 % get little or nothing.

It means the rich does not get richer by taking from the poor; which is what you seem to be suggesting

The rich get richer at the expense of the poor, they don't 'take' directly from the poor.

Can't speak for you, but my slave ancestors lived to an average age of 35 before they were dead. I should live to at least 80

Longevity has decreased in the U.S. in the last two years. This is 'worse' than before.

People who pay federal taxes; last time I checked I think that adds up to 47% of the population

Programs for the poor are being reduced. That's how they will pay. Many find themselves in worse shape if they earn a few more dollars as they become ineligible for many programs. One step forward, two steps back for many of the poor.

Also providing food and shelter aid for the poor may raise their 'standard of living' slightly it does nothing to advance their 'wealth'. They are still poor, as well as enjoying a false sense of security.

 

[Eudaimonist]

As someone who respects atheists and enjoys befriending them, I was just curious to hear some peoples personal views on how they feel about their atheism.

...Do you feel liberated, free and happy in it?

Something like that. I feel honest in it. I feel true to myself.

Atheism is not a magical key to happiness, but honesty with oneself is a foundation for happiness. The rest is up to oneself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ken-1122]

You and I are the among the minority then.
The Connection Between Age and Happiness Is Breaking Down

The title of the link you provided is “Young people are happier than they used to be”
Doesn’t seem to be making your case bruh.

It doesn't break down that way. The top 10 % get most of that remaining 20 %. The bottom 90 % get little or nothing.

The bottom 90% get little, which is much better than the nothing at all they would be getting if the rich didn’t create all of that wealth.

The rich get richer at the expense of the poor, they don't 'take' directly from the poor.

Can you provide an example of this happening? I see the rich getting richer by selling to the middle income and poor. The only way they can sell to the middle income and poor is by exchanging a product for their money that will improve their lives. Under the capitalistic system, you have to improve somebody else's life before you can improve your own by making money.

Longevity has decreased in the U.S. in the last two years. This is 'worse' than before.

By how much; 0.001%? longevity is constantly fluctuating year by year. Sometimes it goes up a little sometimes it goes down a little; but it always goes up more than it goes down so on average the trend is improvement.

Programs for the poor are being reduced. That's how they will pay.

Giving people less stuff that they didn’t earn is not an example of paying.

Many find themselves in worse shape if they earn a few more dollars as they become ineligible for many programs. One step forward, two steps back for many of the poor.

But that’s rare. The vast majority find themselves in far far better shape when they earn a few dollars more; and eventually they don’t NEED the programs.

Also providing food and shelter aid for the poor may raise their 'standard of living' slightly it does nothing to advance their 'wealth'. They are still poor, as well as enjoying a false sense of security.

Wealth is anything with value. When you give poor people anything of value, you are increasing their wealth

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The title of the link you provided is “Young people are happier than they used to be”
Doesn’t seem to be making your case bruh.

Read the article. Young people are happy because they look forward to the success they believe they are entitled to. However their balloon bursts when reality sets in. The declining happiness of older people is a more accurate measure.

By how much; 0.001%? longevity is constantly fluctuating year by year. Sometimes it goes up a little sometimes it goes down a little; but it always goes up more than it goes down so on average the trend is improvement.

But it's gotten worse these last two years, which is enough to prove my point.

Wealth is anything with value. When you give poor people anything of value, you are increasing their wealth

Wealth and income aren't the same thing.
A few more dollars of income doesn't provide the poor with more wealth.

 

[Ken-1122]

Read the article. Young people are happy because they look forward to the success they believe they are entitled to. However their balloon bursts when reality sets in. The declining happiness of older people is a more accurate measure.

If people are not as happy on average as they were 100 years ago, I couldn’t care less. That’s their problem. My point was the poor are financially better off today than 100 years ago.

But it's gotten worse these last two years, which is enough to prove my point.

2 years? Talk to me in 20 years and let’s see which direction the trend is moving

Wealth and income aren't the same thing.
A few more dollars of income doesn't provide the poor with more wealth.

If they had more wealth, they wouldn’t be poor now would they! My point is; the poor are much better off today with more rich folks as a part of society than they were years ago when there were less rich folks in society. How happy they are, how long they live, none of that stuff matters; it has nothing to do with the point I was making

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If they had more wealth, they wouldn’t be poor now would they! My point is; the poor are much better off today with more rich folks as a part of society than they were years ago when there were less rich folks in society. How happy they are, how long they live, none of that stuff matters; it has nothing to do with the point I was making

Most of the poor aren't getting ahead at all and the rest only seem to be doing better because of welfare.

The world's 3.6 billion poorest people are getting poorer | WIRED UK

 

[Ken-1122]

Most of the poor aren't getting ahead at all and the rest only seem to be doing better because of welfare.

If you get ahead, it should be because you earned it. Nobody should be able to get ahead on taxpayers dollars. Welfare is the reason the living conditions of the poor today is better than the living conditions of the poor 100 years ago..

The world's 3.6 billion poorest people are getting poorer | WIRED UK

That link points out the gap between the rich and the poor has widen; it doesn't do much of comparing the living conditions of the poor today vs the poor of years ago. That link address nothing that we are talking about