Science genius says the governments are slowly killing us with stress. I know this link is long, but

piloteer

Dostoyevsky points out that stress is a natural part of life and we can never be totally satisfied with our situations. When things are changed for the better (or what we think is better), stress will creep into our lives in other aspects.

The lineage of your argument is not solid. It is in no way a fact that the government causes stress, and our economic situations are not the highest denominator of what causes stress. If that were true, then the rich would not have any stress. If they didn't have stress, why would they be so worried about keeping the majority of the population from becoming rich as well? What about the possibility of a rich person losing all their wealth? Obviously if you're rich and you want to remain that way, you would have stress over keeping your wealth.

 It's also true that people with far less economic wealth can still be happy. You argument seems shallow on its surface because you are arguing that stress is really only caused by being poor. If that's not the brunt of your argument and I have missed something, I am certainly open to you adding some clarification to this for me though. I'm all for ending poverty, but I do not believe in any manner that will end all stress. Stress manifests in many shapes, and forms, and our economic situations are only one aspect of a myriad of things that trigger stress, and everybody is probably equally as stressed about their economic situations, from the rich to the poor.     

I agree that taxes should be lower, but if that is what you are arguing, how can a government stop poverty without some system of taxation in place to address that economic gap? Is an economic gap actually indicative of a bad economic system to begin with? The industrial revolution pulled more people out of poverty than any other government initiative, or social revolution , or scientific advances have. The product of social change from the industrial revolution has never been done on such a large scale, and so quickly. Never was their a circumstance that brought so many people up out of poverty than during the industrial revolution, and never has our life expectancy rate climbed so quickly. But the flip side to that was that the economic gap between the poor and the rich was made even wider. I don't believe an economic gap is indicative of a bad economic system in place.        

GnosticChristian

piloteer said:

Dostoyevsky points out that stress is a natural part of life and we can never be totally satisfied with our situations. When things are changed for the better (or what we think is better), stress will creep into our lives in other aspects.

The lineage of your argument is not solid. It is in no way a fact that the government causes stress, and our economic situations are not the highest denominator of what causes stress. If that were true, then the rich would not have any stress. If they didn't have stress, why would they be so worried about keeping the majority of the population from becoming rich as well? What about the possibility of a rich person losing all their wealth? Obviously if you're rich and you want to remain that way, you would have stress over keeping your wealth.

 It's also true that people with far less economic wealth can still be happy. You argument seems shallow on its surface because you are arguing that stress is really only caused by being poor. If that's not the brunt of your argument and I have missed something, I am certainly open to you adding some clarification to this for me though. I'm all for ending poverty, but I do not believe in any manner that will end all stress. Stress manifests in many shapes, and forms, and our economic situations are only one aspect of a myriad of things that trigger stress, and everybody is probably equally as stressed about their economic situations, from the rich to the poor.     

I agree that taxes should be lower, but if that is what you are arguing, how can a government stop poverty without some system of taxation in place to address that economic gap? Is an economic gap actually indicative of a bad economic system to begin with? The industrial revolution pulled more people out of poverty than any other government initiative, or social revolution , or scientific advances have. The product of social change from the industrial revolution has never been done on such a large scale, and so quickly. Never was their a circumstance that brought so many people up out of poverty than during the industrial revolution, and never has our life expectancy rate climbed so quickly. But the flip side to that was that the economic gap between the poor and the rich was made even wider. I don't believe an economic gap is indicative of a bad economic system in place.        

An intelligent reply. Thanks.

Your view of the stress of poverty is to low IMO.

Socrates reduced basic man to two main desires. He said those where bread and circuses. Bread was meant as the wherewithal to maintain life with food, which is equated with wealth. Circuses being entertainment or drama.

The stress of not having the wherewithal to feed ones self or his or her family, and keep them sheltered, has shown us statistically via age death stats and many other areas, that the poor fare a lot worse than those better off. That may be why Gandhi and others indicated that imposed poverty was evil.  

The bread part of bread and circuses, when deficient, is a high grade stressor IMO. Think of yourself as the only source of food for you and yours and just how far you would go to feed your children. Likely almost no limit and that drive/taking responsibility is a heavy stressor that has the poorest dying earlier than those without it.

As to taxes, I do not want to reduce them. I want the rich to pay their fair share which is not what they are doing as we speak.

Have a listen to this if you have the time. lt is an eye opener.

https://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2

Regards
DL

MayCaesar

In my experience (and I have done a lot of self-reflection over the last decade), short periods of intense stress in combination with long periods of calm are conductive to the overall happiness. Too much stress gets on your nerves and puts you into a permanent tense state, and too little stress weakens you and you break as soon as things get somewhat rough.

That is one of the rationales behind the flooding therapy, where, when you have a certain fear, you intentionally put yourself in situations where this fear manifests intensely for short periods of time. Your organism quickly develops resistance to these situations and you no longer fear them. However, if the flooding therapy is done the wrong way and you stress yourself too much, then the feelings of anxiety become even more associated with the experience than before, and your fears only consolidate. Your organism needs time to cool down and calmly process the experience, and trying to overload it with unprocessed emotional information will have an adverse effect.
The opposite of this extreme is avoidance behaviors, where instead you go out of your way to avoid having to confront your fears. This has the effect of your fears gradually growing on their own, as you organism loses the last "muscle memories" of you confronting those fears successfully - so, when you do get put into a situation where the fear arises again, it overwhelms you and you cannot handle it any more.

Ever seen those videos where kids break keyboards in frustration when losing a computer game? That is an example of what happens when someone who does not experience a lot of stress faces a minimal resistance in life: they break down. You do not want to be such a kid.

Regarding your government attribution, I do not think this takes place. If anything, governments arises as response to people's need to feel safe: they are a way to reduce stress to a manageable level. It can be seen as an avoidance behavior, but it is hardly some sort of elaborate conspiracy. Governments exist because people in general are too afraid of chaos and uncertainty, and will cease to exist either when people get over that fear, or when the free market learns to mimic all functions of the governments, making the latter obsolete (this is the scenario I expect to occur over the next 50-100 years).

GnosticChristian

@MayCaesar ;

A good presentation on stress and phobias.

"Regarding your government attribution, I do not think this takes place. "

Really. Look at the link I gave piloteer. This one.

https://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2

Look at this one as well.

https://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think?c=upw1&u=94acbbeb6bbd6d664157009a896e71b014efbf27

On that first link/graph, do you see how little movement of wealth would have to occur to end poverty in the U.S.?

Do you think it moral that the tax system is not used to remedy that situation?

What of the link I put on the immorality of the V A T system. Do you think it moral to nail the poorest and let the richest pay the least in terms of his income?

Regards
DL

MayCaesar

@GnosticChristian ;

I will look into these links in more detail later today, but for now I want to question the conclusions you come to based on the referenced evidence.

First, while, in principle, very little wealth needs to be moved in order to end poverty, in practice that wealth is not that easy to move without causing countless unintended consequences. Even assuming we have developed a magic button which, when pressed, transfers a lot of wealth from the rich to the poor and, somehow, does not upset anyone, does not create perverse incentives, does not cause class strife, etc. - even then the transferred wealth will be reevaluated fairly quickly, based on the recipients' ability to produce wealth, on the change in consumption habits, etc. It is not that clear that, as a result, poverty will be ended, and even if it is ended instantaneously somehow, there is no reason to believe that it will last and that yesterday's poor will not become poor tomorrow again. Poverty, after all, has a lot to do with a mindset and with systematic behaviors and habits, and those cannot be changed by just redistributing wealth.

Second, perhaps ending poverty is not even desirable. I made this argument somewhere else: existence of the poor might be necessary to push others to work on their skills and financial discipline. I am not sure if this is the case, but it quite possibly might be a major factor.

Third, while it is true that the government is far overreaching nowadays - in all parts of the world - in terms of taxation and regulations, I think the explanation is much simpler. There is no hidden nefarious scheme here;public workers just want more money and have the means to obtain it by taxing people, who, over time, have become complacent with it (where just 120 years ago an income tax rate of 5% would cause entire states to demonstrate for months, today even proposals of 75% marginal tax do not have much emotional impact on the vast majority of the population). Many economists have explained it: the government has an incentive to constantly grow, and the people do not have a strong enough incentive to push back against that growth. People keep making small concessions again and again, and over time the expansion snowballs and becomes nearly unstoppable.
There is no evil design, no hidden committee running things from the shadows. There are just very simple considerations that make people turn a blind eye to minor transgressions of their overlords, and make those overlords carefully abuse that. Make the most well-designed government run by the most noble folks, and 500 years later you will have a runaway state growing faster than anyone can do anything about it.

I do not see any tax as moral; I view taxation as legalized robbery. Nor do I see the attacks on the rich as moral either. I do not think that the rich are fundamentally somehow more nefarious than the poor; the rich have learned to play the economical game better, and there are both good and evil folks there, just like among the poor. The rich are not nailing the poor any more than the poor are nailing the rich.

GnosticChristian

MayCaesar said:

The rich are not nailing the poor any more than the poor are nailing the rich.

The spread between rich and poor is widening.

Tell us how the poor, living on the streets and their cars, are nailing the rich whose tax rate is way lower than the middle class.

Regards
DL

MayCaesar

@GnosticChristian

The spread is widening because the production tools are improving, and the wealth of the rich can grow exponentially faster over time. If you have an income of $50,000 a year, then you have qualitatively worse investment opportunities, for example, than someone who has an income of $500,000 a year, leading to the latter's riches growing faster. That is not a separation between classes - 3 out of 4 millionaires in the US are self-made, so there is a lot of mobility here - but a simple exponential growth effect. It is a good thing, not a bad thing. You want that type of inequality to exist, because if it does not, then both the poor and the rich are doing worse. It is only reasonable that as the overall quality of life increases, the wealth gap does as well.

The fraction of people living in their cars and on the streets is negligible virtually anywhere in the world, even in such impoverished places as India, and is shrinking continuously.

The rich' tax rate is not lower than that of the middle class. The effective rate they pay is lower because their wealth comes generally from less liquid assets. You are free to buy those less liquid assets if you are poor as well; the problem is, they are not of much use if you are poor.

I think you just do not understand the nature of the wealth of the majority of the rich very well, but I might be wrong. Either way your arguments do not stand the economical scrutiny.

GnosticChristian

M C

You need to do some research.

That aside, if you look at the graph I put, and do not see it as the rich imposing poverty, and that that is immoral, you are not a moral person.

Regards
DL

MayCaesar

@GnosticChristian

Statistics is neither a moral nor immoral science; you go with what the data and the knowledge suggest, not with what your emotions suggest. If you look a the graph and, without any extra considerations, immediately jump to the conclusion that the rich "impose" poverty, then you are not being logical.

Whether I am moral or immoral is highly subjective; my morals are different from yours.

You can see that, in general, countries with richer population overall have higher taxes on the poor. It is not exactly a causative connection, but there are pretty obvious ways one can explain this relation with. What matters is, higher taxes on the poor strongly positively correlate with well-being of the poor: the poorest 10% of the US population pay much higher taxes than the poorest 10% of the Indian population, while being roughly 100 times as rich.
Your assumption is not supported by worldwide evidence. It is only not immediately contradictory to the data under the assumption that the arrangement in the country you are targeting with your criticism is somehow principally different than in most other free market democracies (which does not have to be the case; homo-sapiens have the same genetics everywhere) - and even then it fails upon closer consideration of how taxation actually works.

GnosticChristian

MayCaesar said:

@GnosticChristian

Statistics is neither a moral nor immoral science; 

I did not say that at all..

I said that governments and their oligarch owners are immoral for imposing poverty on the population.

Show any demographic pyramid for any country and they all look somewhat like the one for the U.S.

We all live in oligarchies and those only have slight differences. That may be why Gandhi spoke on the issue.

"Whether I am moral or immoral is highly subjective; my morals are different from yours."

Not in any major way if you are part of the 80%  of the population shown in surveys.

Why you would choose to be obtuse here must just be your debate style.

Regards
DL

MayCaesar

@GnosticChristian

I do not know how much you have travelled around the world, but I suspect that not much; otherwise you would not say that there are "only slight differences" between different systems. Even within the US systems between two nearby states can differ in very significant ways. California and Arizona have fairly little in common as far as their economical systems go.

No, we do not all live in oligarchies. People like Bill Gates have virtually zero political power, and those who do have it do it not because they are rich, but because they have connections in the government. Most rich people do not actually care about politics and just enjoy their lives; politics seems to be the drug of the poor who watch the government carefully, hoping that someone will hear their plight and magically solve their problems. Rich people are typically too busy with their businesses, jobs, families and hobbies to waste time on that stuff.

I agree with you that the primary role of the government is to make people's lives harder, but you are completely misidentifying the causes behind that. It has nothing to do with the rich and their lust for more money and power; it is just a very basic perverse incentive issue.

GnosticChristian

M C

Nowhere have I said that that the primary role of the government is to make people's lives harder.

The slight differences was referring more to the demographic pyramid of the country, but if you think there are major differences in the basic lives of people, statistics show how wrong you are. 

I do not see us getting anywhere here, when you make so many unqualified statements, while ignoring what I put in the O.P.

Thanks for the chat.

Regards
DL 

  

AlofRI

Absolutely! It wasn't like that until we lost "No Drama, Obama". Now there is strife and uncertainty every day. We HAD friends that trusted us, we knew who our enemies were, our government officials didn't all have nasty nicknames, if someone had a disagreement they could speak up without the fear of retribution, our judicial branch considered the President as responsible for his actions as anyone else, we KNEW how much he was earning and how much his vacation days cost U.S., we knew what his daughters were doing …. certainly not promoting child labor, etc.. It was a much calmer atmosphere.

Now the governments (as you made it, plural: Trump's, Putin's, Kim's, Mbs's, etc.) ARE killing U.S. with stress … as the science genius points out.) It would be better if we had an actual genius in the White House … instead of the stable-cleaner type, MUCH more relaxing. 

MayCaesar

@GnosticChristian

If there are no major differences in the basic lives of people domestically, then what is the problem exactly? Both the rich and the poor basically live the same then.
If there are no major differences in the basic lives of people internationally, then you are just wrong. People in North Korea have very different lives from people in South Korea.

There are major differences on both counts, of course. Systems are different, cultures are different, geopolitical situations are different. Your attempts to simplify everything down to "the rich are killing the poor with stress" are pretty dishonest and emotional.

My statements are backed up by solid reasoning which you have not really addressed; you just said that I need to do some research and an not moral, which does not disprove anything. No offense, but your narrative seems to be the usual "the rich are evil" stuff with little substance behind it.

GnosticChristian

@AlofRI ;

A good commentary. Thanks.

I think that Obama was likely the best president that American's have had in a long time.

I do fault him for showing too much patience and allowing too many to go past the line in the sand which might have turned some on the center right against the Democrats. 

The best examples of this I recall are when he could not force his judge appointed to the supreme court, --- I would have shut down the government till the republicans squealed, and the other was when he did not send a hit squad or killer drone to take out Bashar al-Assad for his crimes against humanity.

That would have kept Russia in check and done what those he wanted to help in the region wanted him to do.

I know that those are extreme issues but it would have saved the American face.

Not backing the Ukrainians more would have also been good but that would take all of NATO to be on the same page and that would have been a hard sell.

It is hard for me to fault Obama for not being more of a warmonger, so I am being slightly two faced here. 

Regards
DL

GnosticChristian

MayCaesar said:

@GnosticChristian

If there are no major differences in the basic lives of people domestically, then what is the problem exactly? Both the rich and the poor basically live the same then.
If there are no major differences in the basic lives of people internationally, then you are just wrong. People in North Korea have very different lives from people in South Korea.

There are major differences on both counts, of course. Systems are different, cultures are different, geopolitical situations are different. Your attempts to simplify everything down to "the rich are killing the poor with stress" are pretty dishonest and emotional.

My statements are backed up by solid reasoning which you have not really addressed; you just said that I need to do some research and an not moral, which does not disprove anything. No offense, but your narrative seems to be the usual "the rich are evil" stuff with little substance behind it.

Would you say that those who make a mockery of and undermine your democracy are evil.

https://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think?c=upw1&u=94acbbeb6bbd6d664157009a896e71b014efbf27

"If there are no major differences"

There are. Look at the graph in the O.P.

"Both the rich and the poor basically live the same then."

"Your attempts to simplify everything down to "the rich are killing the poor with stress" are pretty dishonest and emotional."

Listen to the profesor who has been named a genius by his peers. He is stating what I do without my emotional content because he is not directly speaking with obtuse and biligerant interlocutors who make foolish statements of denial against evidece that refutes them.

Regards
DL

MayCaesar

@GnosticChristian

I do not see democracy as that great of a system in the first place, so no, undermining it is not necessarily evil, and can even be good, depending on the exact means used.

Lack of major differences in some narrow statistical aspects does not mean lack of major differences overall.

But I am responding to you, not to that professor. With that professor I could have a separate discussion, but here I am addressing your arguments and interpretation of the data you have provided, not him.

GnosticChristian

MayCaesar said:

@GnosticChristian

I do not see democracy as that great of a system in the first place, so no, undermining it is not necessarily evil, and can even be good, depending on the exact means used.

We all live in oligarchies so liking democracy or not is irrelevant.

The fact that you do not care  about and even think it good to have your system of governance undermined shows how little you care about your constitution.

Regards
DL

MayCaesar

@GnosticChristian

Oligarchy implies that access to the governing tools can be bought with money. While to *some* extent it is true everywhere, in most civilized nations this extent is quite limited.
Do not confuse also natural free market power purchasing with oligarchic one. On a free market power can and is bought with money; the difference from oligarchy is that that power cannot be coercive.

If a system of governance is flawed and is undermined in order to correct those flaws, then, indeed, I think it might be good. Constitution is not the Bible, and while it is a great document, it is not absolute and can be questioned and criticized.
The US system is quite good as far as political systems worldwide go, but there are better systems possible in principle, and even, I would argue, existing today - for example, I see the Swizz system in principle as preferable to the American one, albeit I dislike it to what end the Swizz choose to use that system.

In any case, in general, the interaction between the rich and the poor does not quite work the way you have suggested. These are actually fairly independent groups in most societies; the rich become the rich not at the expense of the poor, but with voluntary assistance of the poor.

GnosticChristian

MayCaesar said:

@GnosticChristian

; the difference from oligarchy is that that power cannot be coercive.

If a system of governance is flawed and is undermined in order to correct those flaws, then, indeed, I think it might be good. Constitution is not the Bible, and while it is a great document, it is not absolute and can be questioned and criticized.
The US system is quite good as far as political systems worldwide go, but there are better systems possible in principle, and even, I would argue, existing today - for example, I see the Swizz system in principle as preferable to the American one, albeit I dislike it to what end the Swizz choose to use that system.

In any case, in general, the interaction between the rich and the poor does not quite work the way you have suggested. These are actually fairly independent groups in most societies; the rich become the rich not at the expense of the poor, but with voluntary assistance of the poor.

Every law is coercive and our oligarchs control the law. Their cash buys the law and is therefore coercive.

I like some of your thinking but your last is counterintuitive and disingenuous.

The poor do not volunteer to be poor. 

What, do you think they are? Crazy or Christians doing what Jesus askes of Christians?

Can't have people thinking such silliness.

Regards
DL

MayCaesar

@GnosticChristian

People do not volunteer to be poor, but there are many reasons of them being poor, most of which seems to have most to do with their own habits and life choices. Aside maybe from the richest 0.01% that actually have enough resources to seriously influence the system as a whole, mostly everyone is on their own - and even those 0.01% collectively have a fairly small amount of wealth, compared to the government.

The whole anti-rich sentiment is actually a tool for the government to misdirect people's wrath at the only group of people reasonably able to oppose the governmental expansion. You are seriously misdirecting your wrath at the only people who make this high quality of life in America and other countries possible.

GnosticChristian

I am not anti-rich. 

I am anti the rich forgetting who made them rich and buying governments to use the tax system to create poverty.

My wrath is against all of us as we collectively allow our own slavery.

You are correct that people do not choose to be poor. The tax systems make them poor.

Regards
DL