There are fairly strict laws regulating the imposition of unwanted treatment, requiring judicial intervention. — Hanover

Up until the late 60s and early 70s, it was possible for a family or a state agency to commit a problematic person to a psychiatric hospital without much concern about civil rights. As bad as that was, it was just as bad that most state hospitals were not really doing much to effectively treat patients. They were, for all practical purposes, merely custodial.

Do you have any clue about the history of the slave trade? I can absolutely assure you that the reason people thought it OK to enslave black people was not because they changed the meaning of the word "person". — Isaac

Well of course. People traded in slaves because it was a profitable, low-overhead, and sustainable business. And, important point, it began and was firmly established way before the issue of defining 'person' became an issue in the English Colonies, late 18th Century.

My guess is that classifying black slaves as less than human made it easier to exploit them in a totally dehumanizing way.

I haven't taken a course in Comparative Slavery. I'm guessing that Moslem slave traders who traded both black and white slaves didn't discount their humanity in the same way. (Partly because Moslem slavers already counted heathens as less human than Islamic believers. Same thing, only different,)

@Anaxagoras, @I like sushi,

the outrage machine — DingoJones

It's the operation of "the outrage machine" that give some advocates for a better world a bad name (trying to avoid the SJW term for a moment).

Outrage that is turned on and off with the flick of a forkéd tongue is disingenuous at best and goes down hill from there. It is a crude social control mechanism more typical of fascist groups (where disagreement is hammered down, rather than engaged in argument). It is an extremism which brooks no limit (something the right has embraced as much as the left).

People who employ the outrage machine are engaging in adolescent behavior. The knee-jerk resort to outrage is caused by (and aggravates) an inability to tolerate dissonance and ambiguity. It is most comfortable in a black and white world. Gray scale drives the SJW types and right wing nuts crazy.

SJW types will probably grow out of regular use of outrage -- just because of their own outrage fatigue [speed the day!!!]. I hope they will develop more nuanced, ambiguity tolerant, thinking -- but don't hold your breath.

That's not why, especially because there's zero evidence of the behavior/belief connection. — Terrapin Station

Wait a minute. Are you claiming that behaviors in the social realm of politics, culture, and so on are unrelated to belief? When one votes, is lever pulling (old fashioned) or circle filling on a ballot merely a behavioral tick, like foot tapping or idly scratching?

You have beliefs which seem to be related to your expression of free speech absolutism behavior. I assume your statements on absolute free speech aren't just knee-jerk typing.

I'll readily grant that I perform behaviors that are not based on belief in areas that involve little cognition, like the way I brush my teeth or tie my shoes. But when it comes to idea-expression-behavior, I don't see how the behavior can be separated from belief.

Medicine is supposed to be science based — unenlightened

Medicine is a practice, and in so saying I'm not knocking it. Ditto for psychiatry. Ditto for dentistry. On their way to practice, students study science (like, major in molecular biology), then take more classes, and rotate through clinics. Along the way a good deal of solid science is encountered and (we hope) absorbed. But let us face a fact: The various sciences behind medicine, and all their content, is way too voluminous for the brightest doctor to carry around in his or her head.

Students mostly learn how to be doctors and dentists (and psychiatrists) by practicing on patients. Once they get good at it, they keep 'practicing'. They go with what works, what makes patients happier, or at least not dead.

@Hanover, lawyers used to prepare for the bar just by reading and practicing. Abe Lincoln became a lawyer that way. Worked for him. The Mayo brothers weren't master scientists, they were very good organizers.

So, a psychiatrist is presented with two different patients, The first is clearly out of his mind -- screaming incoherently, flailing about, totally nuts. The other patient is unhappy, is doing poorly in life, but is functional. What to do?

In the first case, administer Thorazine, put him in a padded cell, and wait for the drugs to work. Then out of the cell into a locked ward, then into an unlocked ward, and eventually, home with an Rx for lithium. The psychiatrist doesn't need to know (and doesn't, in fact know) how Thorazine and lithium work, just that they do what they do. Patient gets better.

The unhappy patient doing poorly in life, but who is behaving more or less 'appropriately' presents a lot more difficulty in a way, because there is no particular drug or intervention that will dramatically change his behavior. From his practical experience, the psychiatrist knows that soothing words help, some drug or placebo will help; encouragement, helping the patient develop some insight, and so on may all be helpful--or not.

Where psychiatrists really earn their status is in dealing with major mental illness, where life and death issues are at hand. Their waiting room full of merely unhappy, dissatisfied, pissed off, worried sick patients will mostly get better on their own, as they always have, but he gets paid to help them, so...

Welcome to My[safe]Space.

Well that's an interesting tangent, to say the least.

I know I bring up intersectional feminism more than I should (as if it is a bogeyman), but it's just so damn relevant because it's the ideological and academic source for contemporary identity-based politics. — VagabondSpectre

Keep bringing it up. Is Andrea Dworkin a 3/4th wave feminist? I encountered her loathsomeness back in the 1980s. Quite repellent. She's still around; she gotten written up in some paper recently.

Gay liberation was my entre into this stuff in the early 1970s, and at the time it seemed like gays and women were kind of all on the same side, but I was probably tuning into older earlier feminists who were more 2nd wave. "the main thrust that made MLK so effective (peace, love and unity)" God, the issues around sex, race, and class were so much simpler back then! One of the gay groups back then was "Black and White Men Together (BWMT). I was going to say it doesn't exist these days but a quick Google reveals that it still does, sort of. Back then it was about black and white sex, now it's about racism and homophobia (and dining out). I suggest they will have more fun if they stick to sex. And, they might be more successful.

The reason I say that is that by partnering across racial lines, they are the change they want to see. A very unkind critique of BWMT was raised back in the 70s (it's just white guys out slumming). Today the criticisms would be harsher, grinding on power differentials, oppressive roles, exploitation, reverse racism, etc.

"white guilt" — VagabondSpectre

I'm white and I plead NOT GUILTY, your honor, and I am not a white-hyphen-something, other than live-white-male. I only know (for sure) 1 white supremacist--a brother in law. We don't spent much time together--I've been banned for a good 15 years, at least. I'm not a separatist or a nationalist. On the other hand, I like white western culture (English, French, Mozart, Van Gogh, all that). I don't feel guilty about the Amerindians (I feel deep regret) nor do I feel guilty about slavery--again, deep regret -- really. What history and anthropology tells us is that we are one vicious species, as often as not, and we have all employed similar strategies to promote our particular aspirations.

Personally, I think we would be farther ahead of we stopped talking about racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and so forth. What we are saying a good share of the time is social justice boiler plate, and it prevents us from seeing nuance or progress. Like, do Somali's in Minneapolis run into racist attitudes? Sure they do. On the other hand, a Somali was elected to Congress from a Minneapolis district that contains more Christian and Jewish voters than Somalis. We also elected a [home grown] Moslem as Attorney General, after he had served in Congress. White (mostly Democrats) people electing a black [home grown] Moslem is progress, no matter how you slice it.

We know we belong to the land
And the land we belong to is grand!
Rogers & Hammerstein, Oklahoma!

It's about having roots in the soil, having a particular terroir.

The Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe who came to the United States between roughly 1880 and 1920 didn't immediately belong to this land. They still belonged to land a long ways away. They were, however, here to stay and they sank roots into this soil and where they settled (New York City, in particular) was changed, but remained American. The same thing has happened over and over here before and since.

The Irish came in very battered condition earlier in the 1800s. They came from famine, they were largely rural/village dwellers, and were not seasoned urbanites. The Irish immigrants appalled the established earlier immigrants from the UK and the various German states. In time the Irish sank roots into American soil as deeply as everyone else.

To belong to this country means "sinking roots into the soil" -- coming to stay; giving allegiance to a new government; accepting (even if not liking) the extreme plurality of religions and habits.

Some immigrants have put down roots, and then been pulled up periodically to see whether they really were rooted. The rootedness of Asian immigrants in California seems to have been doubted more than the rooty commitments of Scandinavians on the west coast. Eventually Asian roots were acknowledged (but not so much that Japanese citizens weren't sequestered during WWII).

If in circumstances where S would fail to approximate looking a certain way, S would feel deeply inadequate, then S is neurotically vain. — Welkin Rogue

I didn't know @S was neurotic in that way. Let's ask him.

Is this all some neuroticism or "self-actualization"? — Wallows

It follows that an insightful fellow like Wallows will allow that homo sapiens are regular hot houses of neuroticism. Wikipedia provides this handy definition:

Neuroticism is one of the Big Five higher-order personality traits in the study of psychology. Individuals who score high on neuroticism are more likely than average to be moody and to experience such feelings as anxiety, worry, fear, anger, frustration, envy, jealousy, guilt, depressed mood, and loneliness. People who are neurotic respond worse to stressors and are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. They are often self-conscious and shy, and they may have trouble controlling urges and delaying gratification.

Right! So, there you go.

Personally, I wanted to look more like Olympic gold swimmers or Tour d'France winners than Schwartzenegger. Fat chance. At this stage of the game, I'm doing strength training so that I'll be able to get into my wheel chair some time down the road.

But you have raised a good point here: Men are not immune to the plague of body image issues. That doesn't mean that guys who want to lift weights should be cleared first by a psychoanalyst. Weight lifting doesn't make people neurotic; neurotics get carried away with it. Neuroticism distorts a healthy activity when it becomes compulsive; when one's sense of psychological well-being is impaired if delineation of some muscle group isn't perfect; when it begins to displace other, important, areas of life.

Don't get me wrong: If one can manage it (and most people can, theoretically) a man should be fairly lean. We should have enough cardio conditioning and be muscular enough to perform certain kinds of tasks like: swimming at least a quarter of a mile (9 laps of an olympic pool); jogging for an hour; bicycling 50 miles on a decent bike; walking 5 miles without difficulty; carrying heavy items; digging up soil for a garden; painting a house; shoveling a heavy snow fall; and so forth. We should maintain some level of fitness into our 60s and 70s, if possible.

In other words, over-all fitness rather than focussing on only 1 area of fitness.

Your observations are very interesting. I finished high school in 1964. In the fairly small middling quality school I attended there was the usual distribution of rank from not-very-bright to smart, as well as social rank. As far as I can remember, there was very little status to be gained by not performing well, or by sneering at classmates who were upward and outward bound. My peers in college and in the early 70s reported pretty much the same thing.

Maybe it was in the late '80s that I started to hear of black children claiming status by "not acting white" -- which meant doing well in school. It's quite possible that I was not in that particular loop and just didn't hear about it earlier, but it seems like a significant cultural change occurred. But it is strange that you would have observed the same thing, because the inner city slums of the US are presumably quite different than Finland.

Did a lot of young people in the late 1980s come to the pessimistic, self-defeating conclusion that there was "no future for them"? (assuming that "no future" actually was a pessimistic view, and not realism...) and that there was no point in excelling? Or was it something else?

I'm with ZhouBoTong, whatever crap I say is good is good. — T Clark

This is sound art theory ever since Marcel Duchamp, which is over a century ago, now.

Well, Pink Flamingoes is definitely not the greatest movie in history (since at least the reign of Nebuchadnezzar). Casablanca would be in the running for the honor of best film of all time. No, Pink Flamingoes is merely one of the top ten most tasteless movies on record. It is funny in its tastelessness (I like an atrociously tasteless comedy sometimes), and the final fecal focused scene at the end of the flick is one among many tasteless scenes. Well, actually all the senes are tasteless.

Mother's Day - Andy Samberg and Justin Timberlake — T Clark

I couldn't quite rate it as "greatest SNL sketch ever. Greatest television broadcast event ever. High point of all Western culture. No, really, seriously." But that's just me.

It's always a huge and dangerous risk to reveal what one thinks is really, really funny or really, really outrageous. Did you see Pink Flamingoes, by any chance?

Who, other than Bitter Crank, can tell me where that pop culture reference comes from. — T Clark

So as it happens, I had not a clue to where it came from. I have huge gaps in my database of popular culture (just for one example). Somebody at work asked me "Are you sure you are gay?" when I couldn't place Donna Summers. I suppose I heard her at the queer bars a thousand times, but I wasn't there for pop-music appreciation. I was busy pursuing carnal goals.

In my dotage I've been going back (with the help of YouTube) to fill in some holes I don't have enough years left to fill them all in, so a lot of the holes will just stay empty.

Black Americans are now citizens of the country that used to practice slavery, they should view it that way instead of seeing themselves as former slaves. What are your thoughts on this? — Judaka

The side truth of the species is that we are not very nice. We engage in all sorts of bad behaviors: ruthless conquest, mass murder, slavery, exploitation... the list goes on and on. We can, we should, we must accept our species' history as it is, since we can't change it. We can only change things in the present,

I see no benefit in dwelling on one's ancestor's status as slaves. Slavery is now 160 years, or about 8 generations distant. Later, more recent history matters more. Dropping out of high school will cause an individual far more problems than being the descendent of slaves. In fact, if one drops out of school, it won't matter all that much whether one's ancestors were black or white; it is a very stupid move. It's also a stupid move to learn nothing in high school.

Getting involved in drug dealing, drug use, and petty crime is a very bad idea for young people, black white, yellow or red. Don't do it. The measly short-term gains of petty cash and fun aren't worth the longer term downsides, like an addled brain, a criminal record, or getting shot by a rival dealer.

If you want to be a success, dress the part, speak the part, and get some skills to actually play the part. This is just universal good advice for anybody. Employers expect performance and production, and if you fail to deliver, you will get fired, whether you are a privileged white or a disadvantage black or asian.

If you tend to business in school, shape up, and work hard, you too can be successful. Not rich, probably, but even small success is a lot better than getting a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

HOUSING FIRST is an excellent strategy employed sometimes, but too seldom in the United States. It just rubs some people the wrong way to hand somebody a key to a room and tell them, "this is yours". It takes a significant up-front appropriation to provide funds for rent, and it needs to be followed up with social service. And, of course, there need to be units available which the state can afford to rent. In San Francisco, which has a big homeless population, housing is absurdly expensive.

Your city ignoring the fact that it has hundreds on up to thousands of people living without shelter in the streets is a measure of how dehumanized a place one is living in.

One of the programs I like is an American Indian housing program for "public inebriates". These are people whose alcoholism will be terminal if they are not protected. The residents receive a small unit in a purpose built apartment building with very few strings attached. They can't drink in the hallways, and they can't cause problems in the building (like fighting). There is no expectation that they will stop drinking. It gives protection and a measure of dignity. (Its housing with services.)

A lot of people who are social service recipients need two things: they need some money and they need their own shelter. Give them at least their own shelter and some cash and they can start dealing with their other problems--mental illness, drug addiction, criminal history, history of abuse, maladaptive behavior, etc.

We can at least agree that screwy looniness is evenly distributed across the population.

Dream on.

Good example of a sensible policy.

A number of housing programs in the United States have started to distribute public housing across urban territory in relatively small units. Chicago, for instance, has demolished several of its giant high-rise concrete ghettos in the sky (Robert Taylor and Cabrini Green). Residents were then relocated in distributed smaller units. At least, that's officially what happened. There is some question about how well that actually worked out there.

Distribution in small public housing units that are well managed and maintained is a desirable strategy.

You seem to be having a cognition problem here. The source you cited says the average United States Wealth per Adult is $403,974. You apparently do not understand that this $403,974 is a statistical fiction produced by dividing the total wealth of the country by the adult population. The average adult IN FACT has either no net assets or net assets under $10,000.

If you had not been visiting Mars for the last several years, you would probably have heard about a severely disproportionate concentration of wealth in the United States (and in many other countries). A few people have most of the wealth; most people have very little of the wealth. It fucking does not matter what the average fictional wealth is.

What wasn't an accident? I accept the historical grounding for the imbalance in wealth between whites vs blacks as groups. — Judaka

What was not an accident is the racial distribution of populations and home ownership in metropolitan areas (where most Americans live). As Richard Rothstein shows in The Color of Law, the FHA (Federal Housing Administration) pursued a strict policy of racial segregation from its inception in the 1930s going forward. The FHA didn't invent racial segregation, of course. What they did was effectively restrict the suddenly created and rapidly expanding suburbs to whites. Jews, blacks, asians, Mexicans, et al were barred. How did they do this? They would underwrite mortgages only to white people, and it was up to the local banking and real estate industries to make sure that only white people applied for and received mortgages.

Access to the new and growing suburbs post WWII is the basis for much of the wealth disparity among middle class people. The houses which were built in the 40s, 50s, and 60s and which white people occupied appreciated very nicely. The appreciated value was the foundation of future wealth accumulation. In addition to the FHA, the Veterans Administration followed racialized policies in handing out money for college after WWII. The VA gave an economic boost to millions of white men who served in WWII and later. Lots of non-veteran whites also attending college in the post war boom because they were able to afford what was then MUCH lower tuition than people have to pay now.

So, one might ask, how did it happen that the FHA and VA served mainly whites?

Well, at the time (late 1800s, early 1900s up until the late 60s) southern Democrats had control of enough Senate and House seats and committees to enforce segregation policy on New Deal and post WWII programs. This grip was tight enough that many black workers were initially excluded from Social Security!

All that is what was not accidental.

You've laid out the problem but you haven't told me what you want to do. — Judaka

I want a reduction in the large structured economic disparities with which most Americans live. This can be addressed without reference to race, up to a point.

My answer is to reduce the interpretative relevance of race, stop focusing on whether those struggling in poverty are white and black and aim to tackle problems without racialising them. So let's lay things out: — Judaka

I'll drink to that; BUT, we have to acknowledge that economics have been racialized for quite some time. It isn't the whole story by any means, but it is part of the problem. If our goal is to be 'race blind' then we would definitely stop talking about race so much.

1. We're both trying to reduce poverty
2. We both recognise that a variety of problems within society that impact people and need to be fixed
You want to add:
3. Prioritise poor black communities over poor white communities?
4. Make special rules and exceptions that only apply to people based on race? — Judaka

Yes to Nos. 1 and 2. No on #3: we should definitely not "prioritize poor blacks over poor whites". No on #4: Special rules like Affirmative Action, quotas, and so forth generally backfire and create more intense resentment.

As for culture, I don't know, if they weren't poorer than the majority, they'd try to make better lives for themselves, I know that. — Judaka

So, race-blind, class-based redistribution of wealth is the key step (there are various mechanisms to do this -- it's been done before).

@Judaka et al: Here are 5 books that do a good job at explaining how a critical portion of our racial and economic problems were engineered. It wasn't an accident.

The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, Richard Rothstein, 2018 (This is a history of the Federal Housing Administration)
Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City, Matthew Desmond, 2016 (Desmond 'embedded' himself among Milwaukee black slum, white trash trailer park dwellers, and two respective slum lords, one black, one white.)
Not in My Neighborhood: How Bigotry Shaped a Great American City [Baltimore]Antero Pietila, 2010 -- @ssu Pietila is a Finn by birth --
Family properties, Beryl Satter, 2009 - a history of racial succession in the Lawndale section of Chicago
White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America, Nancy Isenberg, 2016

The game is to feed the four trillion dollar annual expenditure of the government. — fishfry

One of the reasons we have a deficit is that a few years ago (and 3 decades ago) we lowered the tax on the wealthiest Americans. Lower taxes on the wealthiest people is one of the reasons income distribution is so disproportionate.

The largest area of the Federal Budget is Mandated Spending--entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the like. that's $2.841 trillion in FY 2020. Is this money wasted?

Hardly. Every dollar of mandated spending is injected back into the economy in the form of social security checks, and payments to care providers at various levels. Social security checks are mostly spent at the neighborhood or county level. People use it to buy what they need. Medicare and medicaid dollars are spent at local medical facilities. (Pharmaceutical companies are ripping the government off, because of Republic sponsored legislation which prevents medicare from negotiating the price of drugs!)

A secondary benefit of Medicaid, especially, is that it maintains the health of the poorest population. From a public health standpoint, this is highly desirable. Better to nip communicable disease in the bud.

Another area of "mandatory spending", not quite mandated, is payments on the debt. This year the payment on the national debt is 389 billion in fiscal year 2019. In 2028 the interest on the debt will be $914 billion.

The national debt has been risen and fallen for our entire history, but it is at a historical high. However, I don't know whether the chart represents constant dollars. It's worth noting that we eventually paid off WWII debt around the middle of the 1960s, thanks to the post WWII boom. Our present high debt is a result of the class war, not a hot war. It's the tax laws passed to please the rich at the expense of the poor that causes the current high level of debt.

Bitter Crank has your last disposible nickel in his sights. He (and others sharing his opinion) claim he'll only soak the rich. But there aren't enough rich to soak. If someone lays out some numbers that refute my point I'll stand corrected. — fishfry

A technical issue: If you want to put a participant in blue, you have to do it this way: @ " bitter Crank " (but with no spaces around the @ or the ")

I commend you for your financial prudence. Keep it up.

I do not have your last nickel in my expropriating sights. It is not necessary for you to glue it to the gun you keep under your pillow to protect it from socialists. What I have been trying to get through Fishfry's highly resistant and pre-cast concrete skull is that there are enough rich to soak, and that the rich I plan on soaking have more than enough money to solve our problems.

The reason why economists are disturbed about highly uneven distributions of wealth is that the rich have under their control such a large share of resources that funds for productive investment and public and social infrastructure is not available. The rich don't build schools with their wealth. They don't build bridges, subways, hospitals, and the like. (They might make a donation here and there to a school or a hospital, if they can get their name on the building.)

It's not just in the United States. The same disproportion of wealth distribution exists in many countries and globally as well. Oxfam International estimates that the richest people in the world (most of whom are not American) have more wealth than half of the world's population of 3 billion.

It didn't happen over night, and by and large the rich are not "criminals" in the ordinary sense of the word. They just followed the money, and the rich tend to get richer. That's because they started with a lot of money to invest, and they could hire experts to help them. People like you and me tend to get poorer as time goes on. We are lucky to have a pot to piss in; we don't have much money at all to invest, and if we wanted to invest $2,000, we wouldn't be able to afford professional advice on how to turn that $2,000 into $6,000 in a day or two of clever manipulation.

Show me some numbers. — fishfry

I did, but here are some more:

The financial position of the United States includes assets of at least $269.6 trillion (1576% of GDP) and debts of $145.8 trillion (852% of GDP) to produce a net worth of at least $123.8 trillion (723% of GDP) as of Q1 2014. Wikipedia

"Wealth" is not the same as income. A man who outright owns a house worth $100,000, has no debts, no savings, and has an income of $30,000 per year is "worth" $100,000. If he had debts of $10,000, he would be worth $90,000. If he had paid off his debts and had $10,000 in savings, he'd be worth $110,000. His yearly income doesn't count as "wealth" unless part of it is saved.

That's how worth is calculated.

When we talk about the "wealth" of the USA or any country, we are taking about assets, not income. So, the net worth of the USA is $124 Trillion. No income is figured into that number.

What is all that debt? It's mortgages, credit card debt, student loans, business debt, and government debt (bonds--federal, state, county, city) and so on.

What are all those assets? It's houses, farms, urban land (often worth a very very great deal of $$$), its cars, boats, jewels, factories, stock in businesses, airplanes (one 747 is worth around 380,000,000), ships, railroads, warehouses, stores, cash, port facilities, airports, buses, subways, food in warehouses, your stash of weed, forests--just about everything that can be bought and sold.

As I mentioned, "income" is not counted as an asset. The personal income received in the United states per year is currently about $16 Trillion. The median income (half of the people make more, half of the people make less) is 31,100 (2016) per year. 10% of earners had incomes exceeding $100,000 a year. 10% is about 20,755,000 wage earners. This 10% earns about $2 Trillion a year. wikipedia

But this is where it gets complicated. A "wage" is earned, based on hours worked at a certain rate. There are other forms of income that are not wages. If Jack has $1,000,000 in investments that yield 5%, he receives $50,000 in unearned income. Jack's $50k isn't counted in the $2 Trillion of wage income. This is where the major income disparity comes in. The wealthiest 1% of the population may be employed, and may collect a paycheck. It is probably a big paycheck. But the 1%'s real source of income is "unearned" -- that is, it derives from the wealth they have accumulated.

It is from unearned income that the rich get richer, not by getting raises from the boss. They, after all, usually ARE the boss.

When we say that the richest .1%, 1%, 5%, or 10% own more wealth than everybody else, we are saying that they own most of the fixed assets--not that they receive 80% or 90% of the earned income. What they receive is UNEARNED income, which is derived from assets, not from work performed.

Why isn't income counted as wealth? One reason is that it is, for most people, in their possession for a very short period of time. Most people do, and must, spend most of their income to support whatever lifestyle they maintain. It just doesn't stay around long enough to be counted as an asset.

So, Brother Fishfry, you are as capable as I am of Googling income and wealth stats. Have at it.

but fail to recognize and treat a hormone deficiency (thyroid) known to cloud the thoughts and cause low mood and unshakable fatigue. — Chisholm

Thyroid dysfunction can be pretty serious, I agree, but how common is undiagnosed thyroid deficiency?

It does seem to be the case that "depression" has become a sink into which all sorts of conditions are tossed. Lots of people are lonely, angry, frustrated, tired, resentful, broke, terrified, alcoholic, addicted, unhappy, shat upon, spat upon, anxious, bi-polar, catatonic, psychotic, and just plain bitches and sons of bitches. Me, for instance.

All these various miserable people end up on psychiatry's doorstep. They might all be diagnosed as "depressed" and treated with the same medication. What's a good doctor to do? Give them a pill that might help them feel better.

I believe there are actually D-E-P-R-E-S-S-E-D people. People who are bi-polar, for instance, really do swing back and forth between mania and depression. There are people whose whole affect, mental functioning, appetite, libido, etc. are suppressed. They are properly "depressed". These people are part of the 1 in 10 people who will experience mental illness at some point in their lives. One in Ten seems about right. Most of these people will get better and do fine in the long run. Even the bi-polar, schizophrenic, and psychotic people will feel fine and will function normally at least some of the time. They need drugs. Sometimes they need a padded cell in an hospital; sometimes they just need a protective institution / mental hospital in which to live.

It's all the other wretched refuse of a crazy society that I worry about. They aren't mentally ill, per se, they are just very unhappy, and they don't seem to know what to do about it. Hey, I didn't either.

I have been depressed, properly defined. But, I also have ended up in that depression sink, when what I really needed was not an antidepressant, but a clearer vision of reality, an attitude readjustment, or a major change of scenery, or something. Looking back over the last 72 years of my life, it's hard to sort it all out.

So I've taken antidepressants of several kinds and benzodiazepines over the last 30 years. The period of actual depression was fairly short (and followed a bad injury while jogging in the winter). The rest of the time I was just part of that wretched refuse blowing around in the streets. I was employed, properly housed, in relationships, had friends, was never alcoholic or addicted, etc. I was just chronically dissatisfied and unhappy.

Was there an intervention that professional could have delivered? I really don't know. What really improved things was a major change in scenery brought about by unemployment and early social security, and the death of my mate, now 10 years ago. Leaving the workforce certainly helped, and the end of my partner's suffering from cancer was, inadvertently, the shock treatment that made the difference.

The upshot? I've regained full mental functioning. I'm not chronically unhappy and dissatisfied. My mind is again firing on all 8 cylinders again, (yeah, yeah, I know; most cars don't have 8 cylinders any more). Life is not perfect of course. I'm not living in la la land. Like millions of other 72 year olds, there are challenges today and more ahead. But I feel balanced, centered, focussed, and all that.

"You will see more before you see less!" @Bitter Crank said, obscurely. Or did he mean "you will see less and then you will see more!"? I don't know. It's all too mystically cloudy with heavy rain expected during the rush hour.

... bone idle.... ... redundant people...

Watch out ( Poor ) people, your days are numbered. — Nort Fragrant

I assume you live in the UK? Based on "bone idle" and "redundant". True? False.

When the lion and the lamb lay down together, we can be assured that the lion will sleep a lot better than the lamb. I was planning on the many poor people ganging up on the few uber rich people and financially skinning them alive--leaving them with the same share of wealth that everybody else gets. Back to lambs and lions. The few lions will be supervised by sharp horned ungulates with bad attitudes. The lambs will sleep well. The lions will sleep OK if they do what they are told. Otherwise, they will get gored by the sharp horned cud chewers.

If you take a billion dollars from every billionaire — fishfry

If you take a million dollars from every millionaire — fishfry

Ah, well... I was going to take a good deal more than 1 billion and 1 million from the B and M aires. I was going to take the lion's share -- that is, all of it. The B and M aires would get the same share that everybody else has. Secondly, I wouldn't just hand it to the government to cover their expenses. Giving the gov 94 trillion dollars would be a bad idea. The gov should earn their money the old fashioned way, by reasoned tax systems and even more reasoned spending systems. Giving 94 trillion to a bunch of corrupt politicians to allocate... well, you might as well burn it.

After paying off the national debt (20+ trillion) and setting aside a slug of money for climate change spending (14 trillion), 60 trillion would remain to be divided up among the 300 million people in the country. Each individual would have, in one form or another, a couple hundred thousand dollars to help take care of themselves.

Presumably people would keep on working (200,000 would be great in a bank or invested; as spending money, it wouldn't last all that long. I know people who could chew through a couple hundred thousand in quite short order. The GDP would be taxed progressively to prevent social-warping by extreme maldistribution of assets.

horses that purr — S

It is a well known fact that motors purr, yet motors are not cats.

Women have cat fights, yet yet are not cats. But that is readily explainable: All women are cats, all men are dogs. Positive and negative connotations apply to both.

I don't know where you live. Part of my take on race relations derives from living in Minneapolis, MN. This state has one of the most extreme inequality gaps. Blacks in MN do much worse in health, wealth, and education than whites. There are demographic reasons for this. 40 or 50 years ago, Minnesota had much smaller minority populations than it does now. MN has been a destination state for people fleeing disaster, either in Gary, Indiana, south Chicago, Somalia, or Central America.

It's visible on public transit. Most of the black people on MN public transit look and act poor. When I go to Chicago, there are definitely more blacks on public transit who share a solid economic status with whites. It is visible in clothing, speech, deportment, and so forth. The total number of poor blacks in Chicago is far greater than in Minneapolis, but the poverty gap seems to be smaller.

Milwaukee, however, is more like Minneapolis. The number of poor blacks is greater, and the wealth gap seems to be about as wide.

Why does this disparity exist? Well part of it is that as parts of the industrial Midwest turned into de-industrialized shit holes, those blacks who could get out moved to other cities (Milwaukee, Minneapolis...) which weren't quite as bad. They still lived in the slums, but they were slightly safer slums with slightly better social services and city maintenance.

There is a distinct difference between blacks and other minorities. SE Asians, Central Americans, NE Africans, and so on may come from relatively disrupted places (i.e., Mogadishu) but they do not come from "cultures of poverty". That makes a huge difference. They may be poor (many of them are), but they have a distinctly positive mindset which enables them to get on here fairly well.

As far as I know, no one has any idea of how to impart positive, success oriented values into people who have been immersed in a culture of poverty, disadvantage, and discrimination for many generations. It's a tough nut to crack.

You can't just extrapolate me disagreeing with racial/ethnic pride and histories to... — Judaka

Well, don't take it personally. You know, the problem with e-mail, texts, forums such as this, and similar kinds of communication is that misinterpretation is endemic. In a face-to-face conversation, body language, tone of voice, and real-time interaction eliminates a lot of the text-based problem. In conversation, what would be a clarifying quibble, comes off as a body slam in print.

Like honestly, what do you want to do? Nobody here is denying the past, blacks as a group are disadvantaged by their history but once you strip the racial focus and start caring about individuals and towns/cities, what is the advantage in continuing the same racialised thinking that created the very problems you're talking about? — Judaka

What do I want to do?

I worked in social services and education for 40+ years. The stated goals of most social service and education institutions are to ameliorate disadvantage and build individual and community capacity. There are all sorts of strategies employed to achieve these goals. Some strategies work well, some work poorly. Some, furthermore, backfire and make things worse.

Our country was built on a foundation of crude exploitation of black slaves and the white working class, and then a black and white working class (which composes most people in the country). The social conditions and status of poor blacks and poor whites is baked into The American Way. How do we undo the black and white marble cake of disadvantage and prejudice?

I very much want to see the black and white marble cake unmade. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do it, and from what I can tell, nobody else does either.

Various groups have had some pretty good ideas about it over the years. The earlier 20th century socialists and progressive labor organizers had a solid foundation of "material factors". The civil rights groups of the 50s and 60s had worthwhile and doable goals. The various liberation movements of the 60s and 70s had some good ideas.

Unfortunately, none of these good ideas were in place long enough, and/or were not implemented with conviction for long enough to achieve the stated goals.

Moreover, it has never been in the interests of the ruling class (in any country, not just in the United States) to have the mass of the population cohesively united with clear goals and sound strategies to achieve their aims. So, at every step along the way, the powers that be have intervened from above to sabotage the works of bottom-up social change.

Take the issue of justice to counteract racial discrimination: After Brown Vs. the Board of Education in the 1950s, which declared segregated public schools unconstitutional, there was a wave (which continues into the present) of all white private schools created in the south. This contributed to the decline of the public schools, which became heavily black. Being black doesn't make a school bad, of course, but being a school of poor blacks without the resources to deliver an acceptable education does make a black school bad (and poor white children and minimal financing makes a white school bad too). Various forced integration schemes have not accomplished much.

Needless to say, most of the children of the ruling class have always gone to private schools. They always get a good education, and most of the working class get the current estimated minimum education.

Reasonably stable, financially healthy suburban counties are usually white. Their schools are generally quite a bit better. Poor people (whatever color they are) can't afford to live in these suburbs, so they can't benefit from the schools. The existence of the white suburbs was, in many cases, deliberately engineered by the government through the FHA programs starting in the 1930s.

Over time, at least somewhat well off whites have been concentrated in suburbs with lots of amenities (like reasonably good schools) and blacks have been concentrated in cities with no amenities--slums, in other words. This has been going on for at least 3 generations.

Sorry for the long post, but the point is: how do we now undo 80 years and 3 or 4 generations of very divergent cultural development?

This divergence (which goes back to pre-civil war days) is what puts black people and white people in "two different countries" and its damned hard to devise ways of undoing this even slightly.

Your analysis misses a major point: Were we to claw back many trillions of dollars from the richest 1% (whose total wealth, as I cited above, is very huge) and distribute it among the remaining 99% of the population, the government would have plenty of money to maintain its operations, and certain operations which take up the largest portion of the budget -- entitlement programs like interest on the debt, medicare, medicaid, social security, and so on would be fully funded and would also be less needed, because the population would no longer be in much need.

So, the government's requirements would be quite significantly reduced. The other major factor is that the trillions of dollars transferred to the 99% of the population would be in circulation and, and from the resulting massive stimulus, the government would have more than enough revenue from reduced taxes to operate.

But NEVER MIND. It isn't going to happen anyway.

What the mental exercise of redistribution of the top 1%'s wealth shows is that the poor get poorer BECAUSE the rich get richer. Extreme concentration of wealth impoverishes the nation.

All I want is that everyone has enough money to live a decent life. Worthwhile work with decent pay. Affordable, safe, clean housing. Affordable medical care. Affordable education. Protection from emergencies. A decent life in old age. — T Clark

Those are admirable and attractive goals. I've always assumed that they are possible. Your goals are so desirable and presumably achievable, why have they not come to pass?

Concentration of wealth is clearly one reason. Maintaining the system of concentration deprives the many for the benefit of the few.

A question for which I do not have an answer: Is it possible for a few billion people to live well (per your aspirations) without a substantial number (a few billion, give or take) being forced to provide cheap goods and services? Like, I have numerous pieces of clothing, utensils, and so forth that are affordable because somebody else lives a meager existence.

For example, blueberries have been available all winter from near and far south of the border--all the way to Chile. The quality has been excellent, and the prices have been the same as they are when the berries come from the USA. How much are the farmworkers who produce blueberries getting per hour? Same with apples. The apples from Chile or New Zealand (bullet holes and all) are sometimes the same price as apples sold at the local farmers market or Washington state. They can't be making much in Chile or New Zealand.

Just fix the tax system so everyones paying the same percentage — DingoJones

Reforming the tax code would be highly appropriate, since earlier changes that contributed to the concentration of wealth.

Another thing that has helped the uber wealthy is that much of their income comes from manipulation of abstract assets, like currency and highly derivative instruments (like credit default swaps...). In the last 20 years, at least -- maybe longer -- this area of financial skullduggery has been unusually profitable, while serving no useful purpose, really.

If governments controlled disposable income of the .1 %, would poverty end? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

There isn't much chance that the government as it is now constituted would be able to seize the piles of the rich folk's wealth. Inconveniently, it isn't piled up in swimming pools full of gold coins. It's in the form of various equities, land, buildings, and so forth, so one could give shares of real assets, but one would have to convert the shares to cash, and in order to do that there would have to be buyers with cash to give, and so on and on. It gets very complicated.

But supposing it could be just cashed in and distributed? All households in the United States own a combined wealth of $94 Trillion. The top 1% control 90% of the 94 trillion. The bottom half of all households each own about $11,000 worth of wealth. If we divided all the wealth evenly, each household would get about $760,000. So, there you go.

Now, we don't know what would happen if this were actually carried out. How would 124 million households behave financially if their wealth was increased by many hundred percent? Would massive spending send us into an inflationary tizzy? It's likely that many of those households would opt to spend at least some of their $760,000. Some people would decide to buy cars, build houses, purchase education, drink much better liquor in better glasses, eat better food, wear better clothing and shoes, and so on.

A few hundred thousand uber rich people spend a lot on luxury goods, but there is only so much stuff even the richest pigs can buy. 124 million households holding a sudden large surplus of cash could, and probably would, buy much, much more stuff than a few hundred thousand overfed pigs. This sudden wave of consumption would quickly outstrip supplies, and market disruptions would occur around the world.

Giving a lot of money to the poor isn't a problem, per se. It's 124,000,000 householders' quite understandable desire to benefit from the cash right away that is the problem. Inflation could reduce the value of all that cash pretty fast.

So, some other method is needed.

One way of doing it is to nationalize equity, commercial land, and the assets that rich people hold. The wealth of the rich would become the collective property of the people, and the economy represented by all the equity, properties, buildings, factories, and so forth would go on as before, except that the profits would devolve to the people. The rich just wouldn't be rich any more.

$94 Trillion Dollars worth of assets would pay off the national de debt which is about $22 Trillion. Various entitlement funds could/should/would be fully funded. It would be a whole new ballgame.

Will this happen?

It has a snowball's chance on an unusually hot day in hell.

Why not?

Because it would take a revolution to accomplish this, and the government as now constituted would feel steeply inclined to protect the interests of the rich, and they would shoot you and me before they would shoot the rich folk. We would be dead and the rich would live on in plush comfort.

For this reason, the Absolute always implies a voyage, an abandonment of the originary place, an alienation and a being-outside. If the Absolute is the supreme idea of philosophy, then philosophy is truly, in the words of Novalis, nostalgia (Heimweh): that is, the ''desire to be at home everywhere" (Trieb uberall zu Hause zu sein), to recognize oneself in being-other. Philosophy is not initially at home, it is not originally in possession of itself, and thus it must return to itself" (Agamben, Language and Death). — StreetlightX

Scrieu vendium maximus.

The place is littered with these double barrelled obscurities, objective reality, absolute truth, sometimes you even find double headed monsters - truly absolute objectivity. — unenlightened

The People are recklessly employing all these allegedly useless modifiers and intensifiers because, in these times, there is no Grammar King and every man does as he pleases (to paraphrase Judges 21:25). Let us not elect the Supremely Infallable Grammarian, for then there would arise an even greater lamentation.

Still, what you say is totally true: truth is truth; it doesn't, it can't, get more true. It is what it is, what is not is not, and that's that.

…are nothing more than blind guesses.

Any thoughts on this from the group? — Frank Apisa

Our assertions about the gods are more than blind guesses. They are culturally engineered facts. In other words, we know that gods exist because we invented them. Bringing gods into existence is a highly significant and distinguished human activity, performed at a time when there were no other means of accounting for the damnable facts of existence: "How and why the hell did we get here?"

Inventing the gods also provided us with a dramatis personae for narratives informing us about why bad things happen to good, or famous, or noble, deserving or undeserving people? Or even more problematic, why do good things happen to disgustingly bad people?

Most people in the world (what, maybe 80%?) believe in some system of divinity. Obviously, belief in the divine (however conceived) is useful and compelling. Religion is compelling because the stories (narratives) are pretty good fiction, and a lot of behavior codes are comfortable vested in religious doctrine--like, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Believers daily reinvest in the gods, but are careful not think of it as "creating gods". Religion works best when the instrumentality of human invention is kept off the stage.

Do the gods really exist or are they mere invention? It just doesn't matter, as long as they are treated as real. The dollars or pounds or euros in your pocket are based on flimsy fictions, but it doesn't matter as long as we believe in them. If we stop believing in them, then we are in deep shit rather quickly.

"How the world began, from YOUR perspective"

Alas, I wasn't around at the time to have a personal perspective on the world's beginning. Nobody else was either, as far as I know.

My guess is that #3 is the most likely. Life might have begun in seemingly life-hostile deep ocean vents, and perhaps had little semblance to later life forms. When I was in college (the 60s) the theory was that life began in warm mud on the surface. Scalding hot water, warm mud... maybe something entirely different. At any rate, # 3 seems to be most on the right track.

#1, divine creation, is hands down the best literary version of creation. There are others, but I think the Jewish authors and editors produced the most satisfying text. Christians commentators put too much emphasis on original sin, which they wanted to counterpose to Christ. That makes literary sense, but it leaves way too much unnecessary guilt in its wake.

On the other hand, a tour of any century will reveal enough atrocious behavior on our part to justify the theory of original sin. That humans are prone to error is the single most believable doctrine to come out of the Bible.