Re: Re: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
Indeed. Can you guess why? On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > From what you say, also interesting is that democrats--those folks > who hate the rich--have made the rich richer. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/25/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-24, 12:03:15 > Subject: Re: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index > > Interesting Roger, > > According to these charts the richest people have always increased their > wealth under democratic presidents whereas they have always decreased > wealth under republican presidents except for the first half of Reagan, > which seemed to be a continuation of their increased wealth under Carter. > But the usual republican wealth decrease kicked in during Reagan's 2nd term > and continued under Bush. > Same thing happened under Bush II. The increase was followed by an equal > 2nd term decrease. > > Conservatism, at least the republican brand, does not work for the very > wealthy. > Richard > > > Richard > On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > >> Hi meekerdb >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States >> >> >> This graph shows the income of the given percentiles from >> 1947 to 2010 in 2010 dollars. The 2 columns of numbers in the >> right margin are the cumulative growth 1970-2010 and the >> annual growth rate over that period. The vertical scale is >> logarithmic, which makes constant percentage growth >> appear as a straight line. From 1947 to 1970, >> all percentiles grew at essentially the same rate; the light, straight >> lines for the different percentiles for those years all have the same >> slope. >> Since then, there has been substantial divergence, with >> different percentiles of the income distribution growing at different >> rates. >> For the median American family, this gap is $39,000 per year (just over >> $100 per day): >> If the economic growth during this period had been broadly shared >> as it was from 1947 to 1970, the median household income would >> have been $39,000 per year higher than it was in 2010. This plot was >> created by combining data from the US Census >> Bureau[48]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#cite_note-48> >> and the US Internal Revenue >> Service.[49]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#cite_note-49>There >> are systematic >> differences between these two sources, but the differences are small >> relative to the scale of this >> plot.[50]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#cite_note-50> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 12/24/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> *From:* meekerdb >> *Receiver:* everything-list >> *Time:* 2012-12-22, 15:35:27 >> *Subject:* Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index >> >> On 12/22/2012 3:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> >> Hi Hal Ruhl >> >> Sure, wealth inequality has gotten linearly greater, >> but the economy has grown much faster (exponentially), >> so we are all getting richer, fairness or not. >> >> >> >> That only means *some* of us are getting richer, specifically those that >> are rich. The median income, corrected for inflation is essentially flat. >> And "exponential" doesn't mean "faster" no matter what the media think. >> It's simple mathematics that the gini isn't going to "grow exponentially" >> because it's a fraction and it's bounded by 1.0 above (complete inequality >> in which everything belongs to one person). >> >> Brent >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/gr
Re: Re: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
Hi Richard Ruquist >From what you say, also interesting is that democrats--those folks who hate the rich--have made the rich richer. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/25/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-24, 12:03:15 Subject: Re: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index Interesting Roger, According to these charts the richest people have always increased their wealth under democratic presidents whereas they have always decreased wealth under republican presidents except for the first half of Reagan, which seemed to be a continuation of their increased wealth under Carter. But the usual republican wealth decrease kicked in during Reagan's 2nd term and continued under Bush. Same thing happened under Bush II. The increase was followed by an equal 2nd term decrease. Conservatism, at least the republican brand, does not work for the very wealthy. Richard Richard On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi meekerdb > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States > > > This graph shows the income of the given percentiles from > 1947 to 2010 in 2010 dollars. The 2 columns of numbers in the > right margin are the cumulative growth 1970-2010 and the > annual growth rate over that period. The vertical scale is > logarithmic, which makes constant percentage growth > appear as a straight line. From 1947 to 1970, > all percentiles grew at essentially the same rate; the light, straight > lines for the different percentiles for those years all have the same > slope. > Since then, there has been substantial divergence, with > different percentiles of the income distribution growing at different > rates. > For the median American family, this gap is $39,000 per year (just over > $100 per day): > If the economic growth during this period had been broadly shared > as it was from 1947 to 1970, the median household income would > have been $39,000 per year higher than it was in 2010. This plot was > created by combining data from the US Census > Bureau[48]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#cite_note-48> > and the US Internal Revenue > Service.[49]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#cite_note-49>There > are systematic > differences between these two sources, but the differences are small > relative to the scale of this > plot.[50]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#cite_note-50> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/24/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* meekerdb > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2012-12-22, 15:35:27 > *Subject:* Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index > > On 12/22/2012 3:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi Hal Ruhl > > Sure, wealth inequality has gotten linearly greater, > but the economy has grown much faster (exponentially), > so we are all getting richer, fairness or not. > > > > That only means *some* of us are getting richer, specifically those that > are rich. The median income, corrected for inflation is essentially flat. > And "exponential" doesn't mean "faster" no matter what the media think. > It's simple mathematics that the gini isn't going to "grow exponentially" > because it's a fraction and it's bounded by 1.0 above (complete inequality > in which everything belongs to one person). > > Brent > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 12/22/2012 3:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Hal Ruhl Sure, wealth inequality has gotten linearly greater, but the economy has grown much faster (exponentially), so we are all getting richer, fairness or not. That only means *some* of us are getting richer, specifically those that are rich. The median income, corrected for inflation is essentially flat. And "exponential" doesn't mean "faster" no matter what the media think. It's simple mathematics that the gini isn't going to "grow exponentially" because it's a fraction and it's bounded by 1.0 above (complete inequality in which everything belongs to one person). Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
Hi Roger : Then Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States Hal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 12/19/2012 4:08 PM, meekerdb wrote: Is there any indication of how much of that GDP number is actually built on sovereign and private debt? How would you define 'built-on'? If I borrow money to start a business and the money comes from a pool that Japanese and Germans invested in does that mean my business is "built-on" private debt? GDP is the value of what is produced. Hi Brent, I am interested in how economic models evolve to adapt to new economic processes. Consider how much money is made and lost in the investement in speculative instruments, stocks, bonds, credit systems, derivatives, etc. My question is considering such... -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
I do not intend to 'clear up' on a nonexisting "fairness Index". Democracy is an oxymoron: NO CHANCE the entire populace (demos) could exercise governance-power (cratos). There is a COMPROMISE in voting: what do I prefer to vote for from other goals I put temporarily to sleep - and who is the 'candidate' lying (=campaigning?) exactly towards THOSE chosen goals? What makes a REPRESENTATIONAL RESPUBLIC in which the representants keep their promises as it seems fit. To recall them? very rare. It is still better than an autocratic dictature, religious, financial, or political. Now what is fair? an existing system produces values in different proportions to different role-players. It is definitely NOT FAIR what the ultra-wealthy pocket (- a question drawn here in a discussion group: who are the ultra-wealthy? with an instant reply: whoever has more them himself). Approaching fairness: the values are used differently by diffeent segments of society, so should be the burden of contribution (tax etc.) factored upon the 'pocketed' (earned???) values to SUPPORT said beneficial values. Low income local workers draw less from foreign relations,transportation,finance, banking, intricate law (legislation - enforcement) perspective research projects, and a host of other topics "rich segments" live on. So the latter should pick up a larger burden of the expenses than the former, in all fairness. I don't even 'touch' the (moral) aspect of social conscientiousness. John M On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:23 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/18/2012 7:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi Craig Weinberg > > More liberal misrepresentation of the truth. The > gini for the USA is about average for the world. > > > But it's above the average, and the individual values, for the OECD AND > it's been steadily increasing since 1980 - when Ray-gun was elected. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
Then you can easily provide a link to that data On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > I already sent that out a few days ago, maybe > even yesterday. curve follows log (inflation-adjusted personal income) > vs time I think back perhaps a century or more. > > > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/19/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-19, 11:43:55 > Subject: Re: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index > > Hi Roger, > > Show me the exponential data. > Richard > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi meekerdb >> >> But while the gini index increases linearly with time, >> the individual wealth of each american >> (at least before Obama) increases exponentially >> with time. >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 12/19/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> ----- Receiving the following content - >> From: meekerdb >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2012-12-18, 14:23:12 >> Subject: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index >> >> On 12/18/2012 7:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> >> Hi Craig Weinberg >> >> More liberal misrepresentation of the truth. The >> gini for the USA is about average for the world. >> >> >> But it's above the average, and the individual values, for the OECD AND >> it's >> been steadily increasing since 1980 - when Ray-gun was elected. >> >> Brent > >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 17 Dec 2012, at 22:41, Roger Clough wrote: To try to clear up my mistaken interpretation of the gini coefficient, namely that USA inequality is not decreasing, it is actually increasing, I find that the per capita wealth is also increasing, so let's see what effect that will have. Although the fairness index (gini coefficient) has grown linearly with time in the USA, : The real per capital wealth has also increased, but exponentially: (Real means inflation-adjusted) : By eyeball, it looks as though the real per person income GDP increased over the range of the time duration of the gini coefficient growth by about 5/1.5 ~ 3.3 .. The gini coefficient only increased from .4 to .47 or is about 1.17 times larger, or is essentially constant in comparison with the growth in real GDP by a factor of 3.3. So I would say that everybody- the poor as well as the wealthy-- is getting appreciably richer, even though there has been a minimal increase in wealth inequality. The growth rate is not within our control. The questiion then is whether or not the gini coefficient is in control of the growth rate. If not, then the debate on taxation ends there. But if the gini coefficient can actually change the growth rate, artificially lowering the gini coefficient by increased taxation of the rich (redistributing the income) hurts the growth rate, so we all get poorer. Actually, a lot poorer. The data above shows that decreasing the gini coefficient a small amount will produce a much larger decrease in the per capita GDP, because the latter decreases exponentially with a linear decrease in the gini coefficient. So, in either case, taxing the wealthy can do no good. I think you are right. But we have to defend the individuals against corporatism, clubism, clientelism, special interest, etc. Money should not been used to make money based on lies. Press should be more diverse, and banks better regulated, etc. The powers should be better separated, and some domain should be out of the political, like religion and health, food, sports, etc. As long as drugs are not legal, I will not trust a politician (unless he says so). Being against drugs means being brainwashing, or being brainwashed, or both. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 12/19/2012 12:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:04:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/18/2012 4:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2012 8:02:12 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 5:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Taxing the rich does not redistribute the income, it adjusts the > expenses so that those who benefit disproportionately from the public > resources pay their share for an educated labor force, policed cities, > well maintained roads, bridges, ports, airports, the grotesquely > hypertrophied military to enforce monopolistic trade policies > worldwide, etc. Hi Craig, Could explain how it is that it is possible to "proportionally benefit" from public resources? Are you saying that resources are the natural property of the State and not of those willing to do the investment of time and labor to exploit them? In a democracy, they are the natural property of the taxpayers who pay for their construction and maintenance. The Port of Los Angeles is not the property of Onassis Shipping or whatever. If they are making hand over fist and bring in a dozen more tankers a week - who pays for the extra staffing of that? Who pays for the construction on the port to be upgraded. This is how corporations remain so profitable - privatize profit and socialize cost. Hi Craig, We are getting somewhere, but we need to stop and define some terms so we don't just confuse things. What exactly is the definition of "privatize profit and socialize cost" that we can agree upon? Let's use a real life example instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat "The 1954 Guatemalan coup d’état (18–27 June 1954) was the *CIA covert operation that deposed President Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán (1950–54)*, with Operation PBSUCCESS — paramilitary invasion by an anti-Communist “army of liberation”. In the early 1950s, the politically liberal, elected Árbenz Government had effected the socio-economics of Decree 900 (27 June 1952), the national agrarian-reform expropriation, for peasant use and ownership, of unused prime-farmlands that Guatemalan and multinational corporations had set aside as reserved business assets. The Decree 900 land reform especially threatened the agricultural monopoly of the *United Fruit Company (UFC), the American multinational corporation that owned 42 per cent of the arable land of Guatemala*; which landholdings either had been *bought by, or been ceded to, the UFC by the military dictatorships who preceded the Árbenz Government of Guatemala."* "Privatizing profits" seems to mean, in the context of your frame, the funneling of profits into the pockets of a few persons, perhaps undeservedly. "Socializing costs" seems to imply the spreading of costs to arbitrary many people, perhaps undeservedly. It's not a concept which needs to be abstracted or generalized very much. In the above case, a corporate monopoly, benefits by profits based on the virtual slave labor of Guatemalan peasants under a military dictatorship. The giant corporation (renamed Chiquita) has friends in the CIA who use the power and wealth of the US to overthrow the democracy of Guatemala and restore the Banana Republic to its previous status as a corporate asset. The costs of this are obvious in terms of the resources of the US used to depose a foreign government, but then there are innumerable less obvious costs to the people of the US and around the world. Labor is held at artificially low costs to UFC, and the costs in financial and real terms of quality of life of real people are billed to the societies of Central America, the West, and the world at large. Dear Craig, Would you agree that none of this activity would be possible without the intervention of and implicit involvement of government? The key point here is that only government has the legal right to use force. Corporations do not have that right unless allowed so by a government. My thesis is that governments are inherently dangerous because of their default monopoly on the *legal* use of force. Any use of force by an individual person, bussiness agent or corporate activity is illegitimate unless condoned by government. This, IMHO, obviates all a priori claims of of criminality against corporations and thus the argument by Progressives is shown to based on a false premise. So the key idea, if my interpretation is correct, hinges on the definition of "deservedly" and its opposite, "undeservedly". This seems to point to an idea of "fairness" that remains undefined. DO you care to define a canonical measure of fairness? You're trying to
Re: Re: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
Hi Richard Ruquist I already sent that out a few days ago, maybe even yesterday. curve follows log (inflation-adjusted personal income) vs time I think back perhaps a century or more. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-19, 11:43:55 Subject: Re: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index Hi Roger, Show me the exponential data. Richard On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi meekerdb > > But while the gini index increases linearly with time, > the individual wealth of each american > (at least before Obama) increases exponentially > with time. > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/19/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: meekerdb > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-18, 14:23:12 > Subject: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index > > On 12/18/2012 7:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi Craig Weinberg > > More liberal misrepresentation of the truth. The > gini for the USA is about average for the world. > > > But it's above the average, and the individual values, for the OECD AND it's > been steadily increasing since 1980 - when Ray-gun was elected. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:04:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > On 12/18/2012 4:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 17, 2012 8:02:12 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: >> >> On 12/17/2012 5:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> > Taxing the rich does not redistribute the income, it adjusts the >> > expenses so that those who benefit disproportionately from the public >> > resources pay their share for an educated labor force, policed cities, >> > well maintained roads, bridges, ports, airports, the grotesquely >> > hypertrophied military to enforce monopolistic trade policies >> > worldwide, etc. >> Hi Craig, >> >> Could explain how it is that it is possible to "proportionally >> benefit" from public resources? Are you saying that resources are the >> natural property of the State and not of those willing to do the >> investment of time and labor to exploit them? >> > > In a democracy, they are the natural property of the taxpayers who pay for > their construction and maintenance. The Port of Los Angeles is not the > property of Onassis Shipping or whatever. If they are making hand over fist > and bring in a dozen more tankers a week - who pays for the extra staffing > of that? Who pays for the construction on the port to be upgraded. This is > how corporations remain so profitable - privatize profit and socialize cost. > > Hi Craig, > > We are getting somewhere, but we need to stop and define some terms so > we don't just confuse things. What exactly is the definition of "privatize > profit and socialize cost" that we can agree upon? > Let's use a real life example instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat "The 1954 Guatemalan coup d’état (18–27 June 1954) was the *CIA covert > operation that deposed President Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán (1950–54)*, with > Operation PBSUCCESS — paramilitary invasion by an anti-Communist “army of > liberation”. In the early 1950s, the politically liberal, elected Árbenz > Government had effected the socio-economics of Decree 900 (27 June 1952), > the national agrarian-reform expropriation, for peasant use and ownership, > of unused prime-farmlands that Guatemalan and multinational corporations > had set aside as reserved business assets. The Decree 900 land reform > especially threatened the agricultural monopoly of the *United Fruit > Company (UFC), the American multinational corporation that owned 42 per > cent of the arable land of Guatemala*; which landholdings either had been > *bought by, or been ceded to, the UFC by the military dictatorships who > preceded the Árbenz Government of Guatemala."* > > "Privatizing profits" seems to mean, in the context of your frame, the > funneling of profits into the pockets of a few persons, perhaps > undeservedly. "Socializing costs" seems to imply the spreading of costs to > arbitrary many people, perhaps undeservedly. > It's not a concept which needs to be abstracted or generalized very much. In the above case, a corporate monopoly, benefits by profits based on the virtual slave labor of Guatemalan peasants under a military dictatorship. The giant corporation (renamed Chiquita) has friends in the CIA who use the power and wealth of the US to overthrow the democracy of Guatemala and restore the Banana Republic to its previous status as a corporate asset. The costs of this are obvious in terms of the resources of the US used to depose a foreign government, but then there are innumerable less obvious costs to the people of the US and around the world. Labor is held at artificially low costs to UFC, and the costs in financial and real terms of quality of life of real people are billed to the societies of Central America, the West, and the world at large. > So the key idea, if my interpretation is correct, hinges on the > definition of "deservedly" and its opposite, "undeservedly". This seems to > point to an idea of "fairness" that remains undefined. DO you care to > define a canonical measure of fairness? > You're trying to frame it into a 'social justice' talking point. A better frame is the obvious abuse of power. The reason you don't overthrow enslave people to make money on the bananas that grow in their country isn't because you don't deserve it, but because it is, how you say, the most evil thing that human beings can possibly do. It's like rounding up people who escaped Saddam's rape rooms and putting them back in there so you can keep raping them. When possible, atrocities should not be allowed to continue without trying to stop them. Is that unreasonable? Of course, this is not some isolated example. This is the template for much of US Foreign Policy, from Iran to Vietnam, Iraq, Kuwait, etc. The corps are driving the bus, the gov is just the passenger with the credit card for the gas. > > >> By my logic, if the taxes of the public where taken from individual >> people, the
Re: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
Hi Roger, Show me the exponential data. Richard On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi meekerdb > > But while the gini index increases linearly with time, > the individual wealth of each american > (at least before Obama) increases exponentially > with time. > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 12/19/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: meekerdb > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-18, 14:23:12 > Subject: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index > > On 12/18/2012 7:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > Hi Craig Weinberg > > More liberal misrepresentation of the truth. The > gini for the USA is about average for the world. > > > But it's above the average, and the individual values, for the OECD AND it's > been steadily increasing since 1980 - when Ray-gun was elected. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
Hi meekerdb But while the gini index increases linearly with time, the individual wealth of each american (at least before Obama) increases exponentially with time. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 14:23:12 Subject: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index On 12/18/2012 7:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg More liberal misrepresentation of the truth. The gini for the USA is about average for the world. But it's above the average, and the individual values, for the OECD AND it's been steadily increasing since 1980 - when Ray-gun was elected. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
Hi Craig Weinberg What is wrong with making profits ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/19/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-18, 16:40:35 Subject: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index On Monday, December 17, 2012 8:02:12 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 5:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Taxing the rich does not redistribute the income, it adjusts the > expenses so that those who benefit disproportionately from the public > resources pay their share for an educated labor force, policed cities, > well maintained roads, bridges, ports, airports, the grotesquely > hypertrophied military to enforce monopolistic trade policies > worldwide, etc. Hi Craig, Could explain how it is that it is possible to "proportionally benefit" from public resources? Are you saying that resources are the natural property of the State and not of those willing to do the investment of time and labor to exploit them? In a democracy, they are the natural property of the taxpayers who pay for their construction and maintenance. The Port of Los Angeles is not the property of Onassis Shipping or whatever. If they are making hand over fist and bring in a dozen more tankers a week - who pays for the extra staffing of that? Who pays for the construction on the port to be upgraded. This is how corporations remain so profitable - privatize profit and socialize cost. By my logic, if the taxes of the public where taken from individual people, then the public resources belong proportionately to those individuals that paid the taxes. This means that if Fred paid more taxes than Albert then the public resources belong that much more to Fred than Albert. Simple math... How do you calculate "benefit"? It's easy to calculate benefit - you look at the books. You see how much more money a corporation is making and how much more costs are incurred by the government to underwrite that volume of gains. I don't understand the collectivization of people into equivalence classes. Numbers are equivalence classes, not people! I am trying to understand your thesis, not saying your wrong. ;-) I'm open to being wrong, I just need to be pointed in the direction of a reason why that might be the case. Craig -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/fGZL2V5pd3EJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 12/18/2012 4:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2012 8:02:12 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 12/17/2012 5:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Taxing the rich does not redistribute the income, it adjusts the > expenses so that those who benefit disproportionately from the public > resources pay their share for an educated labor force, policed cities, > well maintained roads, bridges, ports, airports, the grotesquely > hypertrophied military to enforce monopolistic trade policies > worldwide, etc. Hi Craig, Could explain how it is that it is possible to "proportionally benefit" from public resources? Are you saying that resources are the natural property of the State and not of those willing to do the investment of time and labor to exploit them? In a democracy, they are the natural property of the taxpayers who pay for their construction and maintenance. The Port of Los Angeles is not the property of Onassis Shipping or whatever. If they are making hand over fist and bring in a dozen more tankers a week - who pays for the extra staffing of that? Who pays for the construction on the port to be upgraded. This is how corporations remain so profitable - privatize profit and socialize cost. Hi Craig, We are getting somewhere, but we need to stop and define some terms so we don't just confuse things. What exactly is the definition of "privatize profit and socialize cost" that we can agree upon? "Privatizing profits" seems to mean, in the context of your frame, the funneling of profits into the pockets of a few persons, perhaps undeservedly. "Socializing costs" seems to imply the spreading of costs to arbitrary many people, perhaps undeservedly. So the key idea, if my interpretation is correct, hinges on the definition of "deservedly" and its opposite, "undeservedly". This seems to point to an idea of "fairness" that remains undefined. DO you care to define a canonical measure of fairness? By my logic, if the taxes of the public where taken from individual people, then the public resources belong proportionately to those individuals that paid the taxes. This means that if Fred paid more taxes than Albert then the public resources belong that much more to Fred than Albert. Simple math... How do you calculate "benefit"? It's easy to calculate benefit - you look at the books. You see how much more money a corporation is making and how much more costs are incurred by the government to underwrite that volume of gains. We need to compare apples to apples here. Governements are only bound, in their cost, by their ability to collect taxes, levies, fees, etc. and can do so with the force of law. Private citizens, or any collective thereof cannot use force unless allowed by the government to do so, so their ability to recoup costs will always be some smaller than the quantity that the government can collect. No? Another way we can look at this is to consider the concept of efficiency. Governments have fewer reasons to consider the efficiency. When you can legally print money out of thin air, the need for efficiency vanishes completely. Private citizens, nor their collectives, can do no such thing! I don't understand the collectivization of people into equivalence classes. Numbers are equivalence classes, not people! I am trying to understand your thesis, not saying your wrong. ;-) I'm open to being wrong, I just need to be pointed in the direction of a reason why that might be the case. What would be a clear indicator of "Craig being wrong"? You keep shifting the argument frame around. Could you address the questions I asked here now directly? 1) What is fairness? 2) Why does government not do at least what is it supposed to do? Enforce its own laws equally. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On Monday, December 17, 2012 8:02:12 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > On 12/17/2012 5:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > Taxing the rich does not redistribute the income, it adjusts the > > expenses so that those who benefit disproportionately from the public > > resources pay their share for an educated labor force, policed cities, > > well maintained roads, bridges, ports, airports, the grotesquely > > hypertrophied military to enforce monopolistic trade policies > > worldwide, etc. > Hi Craig, > > Could explain how it is that it is possible to "proportionally > benefit" from public resources? Are you saying that resources are the > natural property of the State and not of those willing to do the > investment of time and labor to exploit them? > In a democracy, they are the natural property of the taxpayers who pay for their construction and maintenance. The Port of Los Angeles is not the property of Onassis Shipping or whatever. If they are making hand over fist and bring in a dozen more tankers a week - who pays for the extra staffing of that? Who pays for the construction on the port to be upgraded. This is how corporations remain so profitable - privatize profit and socialize cost. > By my logic, if the taxes of the public where taken from individual > people, then the public resources belong proportionately to those > individuals that paid the taxes. This means that if Fred paid more taxes > than Albert then the public resources belong that much more to Fred than > Albert. Simple math... How do you calculate "benefit"? > It's easy to calculate benefit - you look at the books. You see how much more money a corporation is making and how much more costs are incurred by the government to underwrite that volume of gains. > I don't understand the collectivization of people into equivalence > classes. Numbers are equivalence classes, not people! I am trying to > understand your thesis, not saying your wrong. ;-) > I'm open to being wrong, I just need to be pointed in the direction of a reason why that might be the case. Craig > > -- > Onward! > > Stephen > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/fGZL2V5pd3EJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
Hi Roger : Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_distribution_in_the_United_States Then Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States Hal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 12/18/2012 7:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg More liberal misrepresentation of the truth. The gini for the USA is about average for the world. But it's above the average, and the individual values, for the OECD AND it's been steadily increasing since 1980 - when Ray-gun was elected. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
Hi meekerdb I should have said real per person income instead of growth rate, but they are in the same ball park: I subsequently found, in a followup email, that although the gini factor shows inequality in the USA to becoming greater, the effect over the last 40 years (gini up by a factor of 1.17) is small in comparison to the inflation-adjusted GDP per person (up by a factor of 3.3) and inflation-adjusted per person income (up by a factor of about 2.5). So, taking the least figure, while the gini increased by 17%, the income increased by about 250%, or greater than ten times the increase in gamma. So we're all doing much better. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/18/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-17, 20:13:12 Subject: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index On 12/17/2012 1:41 PM, Roger Clough wrote: But if the gini coefficient can actually change the growth rate, artificially lowering the gini coefficient by increased taxation of the rich (redistributing the income) hurts the growth rate, so we all get poorer. A Reaganomics myth. It wasn't true in the 1950's and it isn't true now. Where's your data. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 12/17/2012 1:41 PM, Roger Clough wrote: But if the gini coefficient can actually change the growth rate, artificially lowering the gini coefficient by increased taxation of the rich (redistributing the income) hurts the growth rate, so we all get poorer. A Reaganomics myth. It wasn't true in the 1950's and it isn't true now. Where's your data. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 12/17/2012 5:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: How about this: Everyone gets their taxes cut in half, and then double that half is collected in addition but only by those whose total incomes increased and to the proportion that they increased from the previous year. Seems fair to me. How about this: We go back in history and look at all public policy and pick out the ones that can be proven to increase both the pool of available jobs and tax revenue to implement. Can we stop tinkering blindly with peoples lives? Look at what worked for cities and states and what failed. Have you seen Detroit lately! Don't do that kinda shit! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 12/17/2012 5:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: So first you were going to use the Gini as evidence that things are improving for the average person - now that you see it means just the opposite you try to claim that inflation actually makes the inequality somehow better. Wrong. Inflation was factored for by using 2000 dollars in the graph. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 12/17/2012 5:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: We all get poorer by letting the richest turn the entire country into indentured servants. So, the people that are actually paying taxes are not the indentured servants of those that are not actually paying taxes? -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On 12/17/2012 5:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Taxing the rich does not redistribute the income, it adjusts the expenses so that those who benefit disproportionately from the public resources pay their share for an educated labor force, policed cities, well maintained roads, bridges, ports, airports, the grotesquely hypertrophied military to enforce monopolistic trade policies worldwide, etc. Hi Craig, Could explain how it is that it is possible to "proportionally benefit" from public resources? Are you saying that resources are the natural property of the State and not of those willing to do the investment of time and labor to exploit them? By my logic, if the taxes of the public where taken from individual people, then the public resources belong proportionately to those individuals that paid the taxes. This means that if Fred paid more taxes than Albert then the public resources belong that much more to Fred than Albert. Simple math... How do you calculate "benefit"? I don't understand the collectivization of people into equivalence classes. Numbers are equivalence classes, not people! I am trying to understand your thesis, not saying your wrong. ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
How about this: Everyone gets their taxes cut in half, and then double that half is collected in addition but only by those whose total incomes increased and to the proportion that they increased from the previous year. Seems fair to me. On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:41:32 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > To try to clear up my mistaken interpretation of the gini coefficient, > namely that USA inequality is not decreasing, it is actually increasing, > I find that the per capita wealth is also increasing, so > let's see what effect that will have. > > Although the fairness index (gini coefficient) has > grown linearly with time in the USA, > : > > > The real per capital wealth has also increased, but exponentially: > (Real means inflation-adjusted) > : > > By eyeball, it looks as though the real per person income GDP increased > over the range > of the time duration of the gini coefficient growth by about 5/1.5 ~ 3.3 > .. The gini > coefficient only increased from .4 to .47 or is about 1.17 times > larger, or is essentially > constant in comparison with the growth in real GDP by a factor of 3.3. So > I would say that > everybody- the poor as well as the wealthy-- is getting appreciably > richer, even > though there has been a minimal increase in wealth inequality. > > The growth rate is not within our control. The questiion then is whether or > not the gini coefficient is in control of the growth rate. If not, then > the debate on taxation ends there. > > But if the gini coefficient can actually change the growth rate, > artificially lowering > the gini coefficient by increased taxation of the rich (redistributing the > income) > hurts the growth rate, so we all get poorer. Actually, a lot poorer. > The data above shows that decreasing the gini coefficient a small > amount will produce a much larger decrease in the per capita GDP, > because the latter decreases exponentially with a linear decrease in > the gini coefficient. > > So, in either case, taxing the wealthy can do no good. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/wxRfpcCbd2AJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:41:32 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote: > > To try to clear up my mistaken interpretation of the gini coefficient, > namely that USA inequality is not decreasing, it is actually increasing, > I find that the per capita wealth is also increasing, so > let's see what effect that will have. > > Although the fairness index (gini coefficient) has > grown linearly with time in the USA, > : > > > The real per capital wealth has also increased, but exponentially: > (Real means inflation-adjusted) > : > > By eyeball, it looks as though the real per person income GDP increased > over the range > of the time duration of the gini coefficient growth by about 5/1.5 ~ 3.3 > .. The gini > coefficient only increased from .4 to .47 or is about 1.17 times > larger, or is essentially > constant in comparison with the growth in real GDP by a factor of 3.3. So > I would say that > everybody- the poor as well as the wealthy-- is getting appreciably > richer, even > though there has been a minimal increase in wealth inequality. > No. It means the opposite. Even if the Gini doesn't increase at all it is still so high that any increase in GDP means that it will disproportionately benefit the rich - which is exactly what we have seen. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/in-2010-93-percent-of-income-gains-went-to-the-top-1-percent/2011/08/25/gIQA0qxhsR_blog.html > > The growth rate is not within our control. The questiion then is whether or > not the gini coefficient is in control of the growth rate. If not, then > the debate on taxation ends there. > > But if the gini coefficient can actually change the growth rate, > artificially lowering > the gini coefficient by increased taxation of the rich (redistributing the > income) > hurts the growth rate, so we all get poorer. > No. Taxing the rich does not redistribute the income, it adjusts the expenses so that those who benefit disproportionately from the public resources pay their share for an educated labor force, policed cities, well maintained roads, bridges, ports, airports, the grotesquely hypertrophied military to enforce monopolistic trade policies worldwide, etc. We all get poorer by letting the richest turn the entire country into indentured servants. > Actually, a lot poorer. > The data above shows that decreasing the gini coefficient a small > amount will produce a much larger decrease in the per capita GDP, > because the latter decreases exponentially with a linear decrease in > the gini coefficient. > > So, in either case, taxing the wealthy can do no good. > So first you were going to use the Gini as evidence that things are improving for the average person - now that you see it means just the opposite you try to claim that inflation actually makes the inequality somehow better. The most prosperous times in US history correlate directly with the highest taxes on the rich. Your analysis is complete fiction. Maybe you're super rich, in which case I can understand why you would want to believe these fairy tales, and why you would want others to believe them also, but anyone who believes this and is not a multimillionaire is being played by highly paid propagandists. Craig > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/3Itob5VZ3QEJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
