The Glade 4.0

Vindi -

That's horrible. I seriously hope they don't force a heart transplant.

The other article said they're funding the confiscation with a fee for lawful gun purchases/transfers so I doubt it. Califorinia, leading the nation totalitarianism dubbed as "progressivism" which is like calling Nazism funny happy sunshine chocolate easter egg collection dayism.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Arathain:

You didn't get a response because you were a douche when I started the discussion on reconciling terms and metrics. I asked you several legitimate questions, as showing my work requires you to at least understand what numbers we're going to use; what those numbers mean; and how to appropriately apply them to an economic discussion about real, actual, and perceived debt loads; actual payback pressures; actual leverage; and actual encumbrances in an accounting sense as well as a general economic sense.

The word income has about 40 meanings in current economic discussions, all of which are minutely separated and used for various different purposes. Very few of those meanings, particularly when they originate from government reporting agencies, actually tell the truth.

_________________

How is this tyranny? We're only talking about people who are already prohibited from owning guns. Are you objecting to (i) the fact that people with "a criminal conviction or serious mental illness" are prohibited from owning guns, (ii) the cross-referencing with the list of registered gun owners, or (iii) the funding mechanism being a fee on gun sales? I'm guessing it's item (ii), but that's the whole point of registration - i.e., to make enforcing item (i) possible.

_________________

I'll give you 47% douche. No more.



Right. So the bottom line is using statistics is the easiest way to lie. And yes, I know the problems inherent in using median numbers. It's what was readily available. My expectation is for you to explain that you're looking at a different set of numbers, which is fine. My recommendation to you, both here and in general, is to say what you used, why if it's not widely used, and explain how you came to your conclusion. It is not necessary to identify the entire extent of my knowledge of economics before explaining your thoughts. If there's something I don't understand in your explanation, I'll tell you.

As to your questions, several were focused on my rough stats produced. There's no reason to focus on my numbers as I have said. I have not done any level of analysis above "that sounds wrong". Focus on your own numbers. If you blow mine off completely, I'm fine with that.



If you feel compelled to use a term that you believe might be misinterpreted, feel free to explain your use of it. I'd suggest, however, that this informal discussion does not require copious details.

Depending on the details of the law, and the details of the confiscation program, legally tyranny insofar as:
Ex Post Facto
Seizure without Warrant

Philosophical tyranny insofar as (first is conditional upon beliefs regarding 2nd amendment restrictions):
Confiscation of weapons in general
Using lists to track private citizens' private affairs



I don't have a significant problem on either of the philosophical grounds, although I don't personally think felons should be disallowed from owning firearms.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

You forgot about confiscating them from people who are not legally barred from owning them because they happen to live with someone who is.

_________________

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manh ... CdvzFwsFqL







Nanny Bloomberg strikes again.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Arathain:

You're challenging my statements about things for which I'm a documented and published authority. As such, I actually do need to ask what sorts of numbers you want to use and why. I also need to know why you think it sounds wrong before I attempt to consolidate the results of my research into something that makes sense to you or any of the audience here. You said it felt wrong and your research indicates it is wrong; I need to know what numbers you want to use and why before I explain my position; otherwise, I'm just wasting my time, as Shuyung pointed out.

So, back to the questions at hand ...

If you want an answer, you tell me whose numbers and what numbers you want to use. My numbers won't show up here; that's not a luxury I have. I can, however, explain why using whatever numbers you choose.

The short answer is though ...

The vast majority of consumer debt is consolidated in the 2nd and 3rd quintiles of the income distribution. People above median income need less debt, have more savings, more investments, and more balancing items on their ledgers. While it's reasonable to assume most Gladers are probably above median income for a whole slew of reasons not readily apparent, the income/earning curve is not nearly as normalized as our government or pundits like to believe and median income is a terribly problematic number that comes from homogenizing 7 nation state level economies into a single system.

California is its own economy.
The rest of the Pacific Northwest is its own economy.
The North Eastern Megopolis is 2 economies: NYC and everyone else.
The South Eastern US is its own economy.
The Midwest is its own economy.
The Great Lakes industrial centers are their own economy.

Nevertheless, consumer debt -- credit cards, revolving lines of credit, etc. -- consolidates itself at the lower end of the income spectrum. As far as government numbers, Median AGI works these best for these kinds of comparisons: AGI is "real" income -- the actual amount of direct purchasing or economic power minus debt a person can leverage in a year. 1000% of AGI is currently the industry standard for a home loan or the maximum value of any collateral secured line of credit, which incidentally is precisely the problem with the Adjustable Rate Mortgage fiasco and collateralized debt obligations: our banks were selling goods people couldn't afford. That said, the median value of a home in the United States is between $170,000 and $440,000 depending on region. We will exclude the following markets from our calculations though -- California, Chicago, New York City, and Washington, D.C. We do so because that changes the median home value range from $170,000 to $240,000. Those 3 cities and California totally skew the numbers. See the comments above about our multiple economies.

$240,000 is 800% of median AGI, and median AGI is $33,000. That's a pretty safe number for this, because $33,000 in AGI includes a whole bunch of people who avoid being impoverished by Federal standards solely because of the EIC and other external shifts in income distributions created by government policy.

22% of Americans possess college degrees; average student loan debt is $22,000 or about 1 trillion dollars across 4.6 million Americans. Total household debt numbers are currently $12 trillion range for the nation, of that just over $8.5 trillion is houses and the other $3.5 trillion is consumer debt.

The thing you're probably missing is that using Gross Income vs. Net Economic Power skews the things downward and in the way expect. Net Economic Power indicates that people are leveraged at 900% of their salaries.

_________________

Interesting. I recently came across this map (spoilered for size), which is based on tracking the movement of dollar bills (and other denominations):

That map is super cool.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I want you to use whatever numbers drew you to your conclusion. Your request makes no sense; it's like if I made a statement such as "this area will flood", and you ask me to explain, and I respond with "which numbers would you like me to explain with?" I've made a statement, it's obviously based on something, I should easily be able to explain where my statement came from.



? Use whatever numbers you like.



No opinion. Take your word for it.



Intuitively obvious. Take your word for it.



I'm assuming this is a different AGI than what I see on my taxes returns - i.e. that ignores any debt.



Take your word for it on the 1000%, the second part is fairly obvious.



Fine, though it seems to me it would be easier to just look at one region.



A quick search put median AGI at $32,140 so we're in the ballpark. However, you just said above that median home values are $170k for the sample you are looking at. So, it should be ~5.2 times AGI, not 7.3 times AGI (as it would be if you used $240k).



I'll leave this alone, for now, because will related, I don't see how this is immediately important.



Well, you're throwing out some numbers I can't verify. But let's assume everything you say here is correct. I'm taking the following away from your statements:

1) Median house costs 5.2 times median AGI.
2) Houses are not "generally 10x salary initial purchase because of stupid politics."

Please correct any errors you see.

That's more consistent with my own experience.

Arathain:

AGI does not include the immediate economic force you gain by leverage some amount of future earnings, in installments, against your sustained or predicted future income. Thus, AGI is a given year's net economic power minus debt. Not sure why you would read that sentence in any other way.

That said, you're trying to argue against debt load analysis based on current housing prices; not housing prices paid relative to income. We're still in a depression caused primarily by encouraging too much consumer borrowing at the household level.

Student loan debt matters because while only 22% of Americans have college degrees, about 40% of our high school graduates attempt college. 60% of college attendees borrow money.

And I didn't even get into the credit card and resolving debt itemizations. I'd also point out that low-balling housing debt relative to current prices is how the government says things are prettier than they want to believe; but housing prices have been steadily declining for the last 6 years while the majority of loans were encumbered before the housing bubble burst; thus speculative pricing and overleveraged properties and the negative equity crisis.

$33,000 in net economic power.
$170,000-300,000 in average house principle
$22,000 in Student Loan Debt
$30,000 in Revolving Debt

And I haven't even started re-running the numbers for actual payments relative to the currency/inflation curves.


RangerDave:

That map isn't too terribly inaccurate, and pretty much confirms what I said. 7 is the number of probable nations we'd balkanize into over economic concerns should the Union collapse; and mostly along those lines. NYC really is its own economy. That said, there should no assumption that these things aren't interconnected; all of the American regional economies are linked in some form or fashion. For instance, your map makes note of the I-75 Freight Corridor, but I doubt that's something you'd recognize just by looking at the boundaries. The problem with using Where's George to talk about regional boundaries: it ignores the business side of the economy.

_________________

Its weird how Pioche and Ely are more a part of NV/CA than UT/Deseret.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

"Where's George?" provides a ton of useful ideas and useful information about tracking regional -- car distance -- travel and spending habits on the consumer level; it's not so terribly useful for tracking regional economic motion in its totality.

_________________

Yeah, just to be clear, I posted that article not as a counterpoint to your 7-region assertion but as a related/similar (indeed, supportive) perspective. It makes a lot of intuitive sense to me that, internet purchases aside, the economy is more regional than its commonly depicted to be.

RangerDave:

One thing yoru map highlights that's fantastically useful and important, for instance, is the I-75 Freight Corridor. The consumer region surrounding I-75 is probably the largest coherent spending region in the United States, despite the population density of the North Eastern Megapolis.

_________________

Everything of importance is this country is no more than 10 turns from I-75.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Yeah, it looks like the decision could still be made, but at least they have him back in their "custody":



I don't get how the CPS people can have any shred of integrity when they say the bit about "imminent risk of serious harm" and "insufficient time to obtain a court order", when the doc from Kaiser documented the opposite on the medical record, "I do not have concern for the safety of the child at home with his parents.", and the raid happened "the next day". Seems like both conditions are fail.

The line "Although they have regained control of his medical decision..." is completely false though, in light of the rest of the sentence. I'm guessing Sammy will never see the inside of Sutter Memorial Hospital again if his parents have any say...

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/nikola ... 00121.html

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Vindicarre:

Since women are not held legally responsible for their actions and behavior in our court system, and since men are nearly universally the legally less fit of two parents (if Mom is a cock and **** gobbling meth whore), it stands to reason that the only party actually capable of making a sound decision for your children is CPS.

_________________

If a woman isn't held legally responsible for killing their baby by seeking an abortion in the third trimester why should she be held legally responsible otherwise?

Obviously, "the people in charge" are much more knowledgeable than I about what's right for my children (that's why they're "the people in charge", duh!), and they should be able to dictate my actions regarding such. Yup, that's why the message that the children aren't "yours" is so resounding to collectivists.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Once again, I'm not arguing anything - merely trying to ascertain how you developed an assessment that "sounds wrong".



I'm not following why the percentage of graduates vs those who borrow money matters in terms of cost of houses against income. Sure, folks have college debt. Moving on....



Sounds like there is no reason to.



Sure, but since we're using your numbers, that doesn't matter.



Your previous post appeared to read that this was per median individual. Individuals don't buy houses. Households buy houses. To be sure, "household" includes some single folks and some families. If you want to use an individual AGI, you need to compare against a median household cost per individual - in other words, some house purchase debts are divided by more than one individual.



Ok, see above though to be sure we're comparing apples to apples.



Ok, however you just made the following statement: "Thus, AGI is a given year's net economic power minus debt." Therefore, these numbers are already factored into your $33k.

Now, assuming you meant $33k is the median HOUSEHOLD income instead of individual (which I doubt, but please verify), then the cost of initial housing purchase is $170k/$33k=5.2x household AGI, not 10x (I'll go ahead and assume you meant AGI when you said salary). If $33k is the median INDIVIDUAL AGI, then the ratio of cost to household AGI is less.

Correct?

So, for the 4th post in a row you've taken two random numbers without trying to grok the intervening explanations and just done basic division and said, "Welp, Khross is wrong."

Thanks for demonstrating why Shuyung said I was wasting time in his first response.

_________________