I have a rather large extended family who enjoy logic puzzles at gatherings and this one surfaced on the weekend.

There are a group of 5 bushrangers who though thieves form a strict code around authority and distribution from which they do not waver.

It is decided that upon a successful raid the most senior ranking bushranger will propose a distribution scheme, if the majority agree or there is a tied vote then it is implemented, if not he is shot and it falls to the next most senior ranked bushranger to state a distribution proposal and so on.

Each bushranger of course wants to live, wants as much loot as possible for himself, but being a blood thirsty lot is happy to see a fellow bushranger shot if everything else is even.

Outside these rules there is no honour among thieves thus no trust nor any obligation to honour deals done outside the above stated rules.

After a successful stagecoach robbery they have in their possession 100 gold crowns. How do they get distributed?

*Spoiler alert. Read no further if you want to attempt the puzzle before continuing.*

What makes the puzzle quirky is the only logical distribution given the rules is quite counter intuitive though we have to include the proviso that all the bushrangers are highly rational men. It ends up that the most senior of the group will get ninety eight coins, the third most senior just one and the least of the five also gets one.

What makes it fascinating though is the realisation that the hyper-capitalistic United States has a distribution of wealth that is not that far from this. The top 20% have over 85% of the wealth. It is they who decided how the wealth is distributed as politics there is very much decided by the deepest pockets.

I am interested to hear thoughts on what this says about democracy in a capitalistic society, is it a case of 'give them the illusion that they are part of the decision making process and they will accept such inequities'?

steely gRASP/ON THE TOPIC/Quote.<<..wealth is distributed as politics there is very much decided by the deepest pockets.>>

YOU ARE TOO TRUE..but lets go..WITH THESE 5..EARNING 100bucks
wiTH A WRTONG DECISION COSTing me my life/my suffestion is a 20.20 split..5 ways[we aLL GET..25]..FOR REASONN BEING THIS AMMOUNT GIVES US AL EQUAL

NOW IF you kill me..there will be my 20 divided..between ony four/but its likely the OTHERS WILL THEN VOTE TO..KILL YOU FOR YOUR 25..TO GET 32.50..[is itwORTH POINTING OUT THE LAST GET A CLEAN TWO WAY spit..50 BUCKS EAch/but no leader to..decide it

ANYHOW..THE REALITY..IS YES 85 Own half
i feel its a matter of disrespect..THSE 85THInk so little of the rest of us..ITS TIME THEY TOOK HONORA OVER ASSET..meaning they get TO KEEP HALF..OF WHAT THEY DECLARE..AND NONE OF WHAT THEY FAIL TO DECLare

then every limited liability cooperation..gets to pAY A ONE OFF TAX
tO BUY BACK ALL GOVT SERVICES..AND RESTORE SERVICE AS ITS DUTY

THE Opposite of..finantialisation

http://investmentwatchblog.com/whats-the-primary-cause-of-wealth-inequality-financialization/

<<>>I am interested to hear thoughts..on what this says about democracy in a capitalistic society,..is it a case of..'give them the illusion that they are part of the decision making process and they will accept such inequities'?

YES YOU GOT IT IN ONE
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bankersinonechunk.php

welcome to THE CLUB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k67_imEHTPE
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/allwarsarebankerwars.php
http://xrepublic.tv/node/8086

Dear OUG,

Sorry mate, I tend to forget these are a bit of a guilty pleasure for us and so possibly a little more versed in nutting them out.

You wrote;

“is itwORTH POINTING OUT THE LAST GET A CLEAN TWO WAY spit..50 BUCKS EAch/but no leader to..decide it”.

Think about the situation of just two left. If you were the most lowly bushranger and I was the second most lowly I am still the most senior. How much do you think I would give you? After all I'm one greedy sod. I will tell you, zip, nothing, ziltch, not one brass rahzoo because you need a majority to have me shot and you don't have it.

Now think what might happen if there were three left.

STELLY EYED REDUX/QUOTE..<<..Think about the situation of just two left. If you were the most lowly bushranger and I was the second most lowly I am still the most senior.>>

ok there is just you/the decider
aND ME THE JUDGE OF IF YOU LIVE OR DIE

so if you claim leader..i need only pull the TRIGGER AS I KNOW THE VOTE BELONS TO ME.WETHER YOU LIVE OR DIE[YOU GOT EXECUTIVE POWERS ONLY OVER WHO GETS WHGAT

but the non leader decides who liVES AND DIES

<<>.How much do you think I would give you?>>

YOU IF Sensible/WILL give me half
then let me deciDE IF YOU GET TO LIVE
[or visa versa..[BUT..im no leader][BUT A WORSE FOLOWER]

<<..After all I'm one greedy sod...I will tell you, zip,..>>

NO..nothing, ziltch, not one W NOW MR CHAIR
THE CHAIR HOLDS THe caSting vote..only in cASE OF A TIE*

SO REAlly the vote iS ONE TO ZIP..
And that means WE DONT NEED your casting VOTE

BESIDES I PUT poiswen..in your water
aND RADIATION IN YOUR TV..SO EVEN IF you win../you loose

see those that think..they own it all
DONT REALISe..that we GOT NOTHING TO LOOSE
[WE GOT NO SKIN IN THE GAME..BUT THATS ALL THEY GOT..[Sin]..a damm thick hide*

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

'a brass rahzoo'..haS THE VALUE..OF THE BRASS
JUST AS OUR MONEY..USED TO BE SILVER AND GOLD..[IM GLAD WE STOLE THE GOLD COIN..CAUSE THE PAPER..ISNT WORTH WIPING OUR BUMS WITH..ONCE THEY START Spending the bailout..and upcoming fireball treason..*tHE BAIL IN

First..THEY STOLE THE GOLD
THEY STOLE THE SILVER..THATS HOW THEY GOT HALF OF EVERYTHING

THEFT[and proceeds of crime
-never gain/say a clear title

IN THE END..HE who HAS..not of HIM
SHALL BE TAKEN..THAT HE THOUGHT HE HAS..[by his own.

<<..because you need a majority..to have me shot
and you don't have it...>>

ok back to the reAL WORLD
WE got the numbers..3/5 billion to 85

your outvoted..vetoed...HUNG ON THYNE OWN PETARD
[if your the boss/THE MANY BOSSES MUST ACCOUNT FOR THE MANY LOSSES.].

<<..Now think what might happen if there were three left.>>

THEIR PLAN..IS TO DWINDLE US DOWN TO HALF A BILLION ..OR SO
THATS ALL THEY need to rig the vote..and protect their WEALTH FROM THE OTHER 84,,[HECK IF I WAS ONE OF THE 85..ID BE WORRIED ABOUT THE OTHER 84..OR WORSE THE 86..TH WHO ARE ON THE RISE

THE new enron guy..[THE ONE HIDING OUT IN GEORGE BUSHES farm]
next to thE ARMY BASE/The one that 'died/was cremated..two days before his judgment day..[how MANY YEARS AGO NOW?..IF YOU DIDN'T KILL ANYOne..does 7 years forgive?..or maybe a presidential pardon?

i wouldnt want TO BE ONE Of the 85..or indeed any of the 144,000
that really RUN THINGS..[THE Useless eaters..who only live to scam away our wealth by taxing us to early graves/poisoning our waters soils airs..and PUTTING GMO VIRUS IN OUR FOOD..ENDLESS MURDER/eternal war..thieves keeping their misbegotten booty..IT HAS TO STOP.

VOTING DONT WORK..WE NEED A LEVEL OF govt that protects the majority..who should get all govt cash[that the 85 THEM MUST TEMPT US INTO GIVING TO THEN

BOTTOM UP
NOT TOP DOWN./.HANG EM ALL/LET GOD DECIDE.

Dear SteeleRedux,

I checked your puzzle and the result is correct.

So the question is, "Is there a point in living in a world where there is no trust, no love, only rationality"?

If it were absolutely so, then the answer is 'No'.

However, even in the valley of the shadow of death, one always has free choice and it only takes just ONE person who loves all others unconditionally and refuses to play that cruel game, for the rules to change.

Those evil bushrangers will kill one another and... The meek shall inherit the earth!

As for democracy - it's a farce, an unacceptable trampling on the freedoms of minorities and it also attracts Asura politicians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asura_%28Buddhism%29#Character_of_the_Asuras

If you got to have hierarchy, then monarchy is better because it doesn't attract the same. A king/queen who isn't afraid to lose their seat or their head can naturally afford to be genuinely kind and benevolent. I would recommend the Jordanian model, where there is a democratically-elected parliament, but its decisions are only advisory and the king has the last say. In their unique and fortunate situation, the king cannot be toppled because he is a direct descendent of Muhammad, hence he can and does afford to love and care for his people - and listen to their requests when reasonable.

The reason it sounds unbelievable is that in history, most kings WERE constantly afraid to lose their seat and/or their head... but then, so do our democratic politicians!

... "But how can I trust? What if there is no love?", you ask...

Well, if you can't trust in love, then you already live in hell, so what's there to lose?

Dear UOG,

The votes include the proposer therefore if there were just the two of us left it would be your vote against mine therefore you would not have a majority therefore no right under these rules to do away with me. Remember these guys are committed to this code.

Dear Yuyutsu,

It is interesting to be musing on royalty with Abbott heading us back toward knights and dames. Be that as it may I do feel there are numerous historical examples of less than benevolent kings and queens inflicting their capriciousness on their poor subjects. The problem of course is that in order to 'vote them out' bloody revolution in the norm. The Shah of Iran is an immediate example.

But looking at the bushranger puzzle the question for me is how can applying a set of democratic rules to a hierarchy result in such an uneven distribution of wealth both in the confines of the puzzle and in real life.

Look at it in the Australian context.

Let's set up the following hiererachy,

1. Gina, Twiggy and Prince Clive (GTC)
2. The former Labour government (LAB)
3. The former Liberal opposition (LIB)
4. Australia's middle class (MC)
5. Australia's 'Lower' Class (LC)

The second most senior - LAB went to MC and LC with a distribution scheme that would have benefited them but impacted on GTC.

So GTC went to number three bushranger LIB and between put in plans to convince the fourth bushranger MC that the benefit from the LAB distribution plan would be spread between them and the fifth ie LC with increases in super etc. They then warned that this could well put at risk highly paid MC jobs.

Result, LAB gets the bullet, LIB gets number 2 spot in the hierarchy, GTC retain top spot and LC get shafted.

Uneven distribution retained and strengthened.

All a bit crude but you get the idea.

Dear SteelRedux,

Mathematical game theory is fascinating - situations often result in a "local minimum" where nobody is really happy.

The Shah may have been bad, but most ordinary Iranians would be excited to have him back, compared with the unintended Islamic oppression they have today. The Ayatollahs do not feel safe in their seats, that's why they cannot relax and allow the people more freedom.

‘morning SteeleRedux,

I used a different method for solving this puzzle. I just substituted the word “bushrangers” with five “trade union officials” and the solution appeared in the newspapers.

Simples, chick!

It must be dreadful to go through life, always feeling sorry for your, & jealously hating any who have done better than you.

I almost feel sorry for you Steely.

THANKS HEAPS SPIN DOc

<<..I used a different method for solving this puzzle. I just substituted the word “bushrangers” with five “trade union officials” and the solution appeared in the newspapers.

Simples, chick!>>

I APPLIED YOUR TOO Simplis reply
I 2.BEEN TRYING TO TRACK DOWN THAT MOB OF 5..BASH WACNKERS
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=NEWS+media++OWNED+BY+5
but then refined the search..

for these..5..GLOBAL BUSCHE rANGERING Pillaging plundering

runniNG THE GROUP OF 8..OOPS 7?..OOPS 5?

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

https://docjt.ky.gov/forms/legal/Model%20Policy%20For%20Forfeiture%20of%20Assets%20By%20Law%20Enforcement%20Agencies.pdf
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=the+world+is+owned+by+5+companies

its the graphs..thats so frightening
http://www.google.com.au/images?q=the+world+is+owned+by+5+companies&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=BxQyU8q2OKL1iQfkg4HABQ&ved=0CEMQsAQ

SO YOUR THE CHAIR>..who amoung the 5 = you?
WHO THE four that hold power of life/death?

OK THAT DIDNT POst..so flesh it out more jojo

INDEED WHO..IS THE TU..THE SPINNER/Dokker..INDEED THE STEEL..And the me/TOO..

so who holds the CHAIR..GRAYMAN?
WHO ARE WE VOTING ON..and whats his offer..to divide the not yet desPOILED..[REMAINDER OF THE SPOIL]

SteeleRedux and others,

Gee I am glad we don't have any bushrangers in Australia.

What a mess we'd be in.

We only have politicians, billionaires and greenies.

Wow! What a mess were ARE in.

Just heard on the radio our hourly interest bill is now

$350,000 a minute.

Wow! What a mess were ARE in.

Could that have something to do with politicians, billionaires and greenies.

Maybe we should go back to bushrangers

Dear Yutusu,

The Iranians would be even more excited to get their democracy back, you remember, the one they had before the CIA ripped it away.

As to game theory Wired.com did a great piece titled CUTTHROAT CAPITALISM - An Economic Analysis of the Somali Pirate Business Model. To illustrate their point they created a game based on the economic drivers in their business model. It does take a bit of a time investment but it is very revealing and shows why they continue to engage in it.
http://www.wired.com/special_multimedia/2009/cutthroatCapitalismTheGame

Dear spindoc,

I have no problem applying it to which ever group you choose. Do you have a view on why it works as it does?

Dear Hasbeen,

In to give the thread the good ol' Hasbeen touch. I bow to the master of course but I hope you don't mind if I give it a go?

Start;

You call yourself an Australian? Your sir are nothing of the sort! You want to see the wealth of this nation shipped overseas with very little of the benefits going to ordinary hard working Aussies. Most of the companies digging up that wealth are not Australian so you want to see money that should be going to working folk shipped out and into the pockets of wealth foreign shareholders. To show just how low and despicable you are you want educational assistance to the kids of Aussies who died serving this country to be stripped from them and deposited into those same gaping pockets. Shame! If I had my way you would be run out of here. We don't need traitorous sorts like you!

Finish.

How did I go? Certainly not up to your rhetorical heights but I am but a pup.

Just for your information I have worked for myself for most of my working life and probably have less than $1000 in super. The benefits from the mining tax was not going to end up in my pockets but I was happy to champion for those it was going to assist. That is what being an Australian should be about.

‘morning OUG,

I think your progressiveness is not only deeply entrenched, it is also becoming progressive. You need to relax, take a Bex Powder and find something to do that does not trigger your obtuse “wackiness”.

In attempting to dominate threads with shouting, flooding us with links, multiple similar posts, diversions, the use of “mystic” symbols and incomprehensible word imagery, you are running the risk of a serious neural malfunction.

SteeleRedux’s puzzle is of course intended to be an ideological barb rather than a riddle. Just look at the conversation between fellow travelers and useful idiots, all pumping each other up. How desperate do you have to be to find Unicorns nowadays?

The electorates are rapidly distancing themselves from progressive politics, assisted by foul mouthed protestors, some journalists, the ABC, Fairfax, The Guardian, the Conversation, many academics and social engineers. Some, like SteeleRedux for instance, are trying desperately to find new ways to launch their “narrative theories”.

Eventually they will be found out and their contributions forgotten. In the meantime the incessant squawking, like fingernails down a blackboard, will continue to grate however, the upside is that this process “bouncing dead cats” will provide many hours of mirth

Dear Yutusu,

Just a follow on point. I'm not sure you are familiar with Joe Bageant's writings but in his book he tries to explain how the poor, uneducated, un-unionised, underpaid, uninsured white southerners keep fronting up every four years to vote for that mouthpiece of big business the Republican party. It is obviously against their interest but they do it with fierce determination.

Is it a question of education? Is that why our version of democracy seems so incapable of delivering fair outcomes?

Joe makes this point in an essay titled Revenge of the Mutt People;

“So we will either see that Americans, religious or not, get educated equally so they won’t be suckered by political and religious hucksters. If not, then we must accept that uneducated people interpret politics in an uninformed and emotional manner, and accept the consequences. America can no longer withstand the political naiveté of this ignored white class. Middle class American liberals cannot have it both ways. It has come down to the simplest and most profound element of democracy: Fairness. Someday middle class American liberals will have to cop to fraternity and justice and the fact that we are our brother’s keeper, whether we like it or not. They’re going to have to sit down and actually speak to these people they consider ugly, overweight, ill educated and in poor taste. At some point down the road all the Montessori schools and Ivy League degrees in the world are not going to save your children and grandchildren from what our intellectual peasantry, whether born of neglect or purposefully maintained, is capable of supporting politically. We’ve all seen the gritty black and white newsreels from the 1930s.”

Or is the structure broken in some other way?

Dear SteeleRedux,

Thanks for the game, I had a look, bookmarked it and may play it when I have time!

My knowledge of America is very limited and I'm not interested in what goes in that country, nor am I familiar with either Joe Bageant or with newsreels from the 1930s. My uninformed and wild guess is that, unlike the bushrangers whose priorities we know very well, their poor are voting based on who offers them respect rather than on how many coins they end up with or how many others they manage to kill.

yea/thanks spindoc..here is content/rather than link

[THE PIRATE RULES/LINK]..the worst THING IS VISITING THE DAMM LINK..ENABLES THEM TO INSERT THAT INTO MY FILE

ANYHOW/I IMAGINE..WE GIVE REAL PIRITES IDEAS..EVEN PLAYING THE DUMB GAme

The negotiation:
Your goal is to increase your profit..with tactics..[spin//implied rarity/volatility..OR SHORTAGE]..that keep the ransom[price]..artificially high..and lead to a quick resolution.

How to play:

*..Demand your ransom:[SET/YA-PRICE]..Remember the largest ransom ever paid was $3 million for the Sirius Star.[WHICH Is pennies/to THE 4 TRIllion dollar bailout.then the quadrillion dollar BAIL-IN]..

Bid high,..but be prepared for disappointment.
*..Handle hostages:..You can feed,..threaten,..beat..MAKE SICK/POISEN/THREATEN/enlist/exploit..or kill hostages.[WORKERS/USEFUL IDIOTS..SEREVANTS SLAVES OR lessors

Watch the..Hostage Health/wealth..INDEXES..meter carefully...Very few hostages..are Never killed,..so be prepared for..harsh action if you go..that far.

*..Call negotiator:[gets most/the kickback/washes the source.from THE RECIPIENT/RECEIVING BUT A TOKEN/RELATIVELY Speaking../negotiator is/the brains/MEANS/WAY....You can be cordial,..erratic..or aggressive..with your negotiator.

If you're too aggressive,.the naval forces..[PRIVATE/POLICE]..may arrive...If you're too soft,..your pirate crew..may lose confidence in you..and jump ship...directly/with..'negotiator'..

Feel like the negotiations..are going nowhere?..Then walk out.
*..Negotiate:Once you've set your demand,..[its case/closed]..and decided..how to handle..your hostages/SUICIDE[SEE THE BANKERS]..and conduct your negotiation,..clicHE Negotiate.[LOL]

Pay attention..to advice from your..ENRON-SION-elders!
They'll offer..helpful tips..[FOR/KICK-BACK]..throughout the negotiations.[see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16158&page=0

*..SettlMENT
Ready to accept the negotiator's counter-offer?..Click Settle...it wont/do anything..but give-em..a laugh...THEN/THEY SAY JUMP.

Failure?
Evaluate your negotiation tactics..and try again.
You'll go bankrupt..[thats rule..1/you cant take YA CHIPS OFF THE TABLE..if you lose too many times, and then it's Game Over. Success? Distribute your earnings to your crew,..TO THE WRONG PEOPLE//welcome your new pirate crew member..and keep delaying!
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6293&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6282&page=0

‘morning SteeleRedux,

Thank you for your question.

<< Dear spindoc, I have no problem applying it to which ever group you choose. Do you have a view on why it works as it does? >>

You didn’t nominate “what” when you asked why “it” works? Do you mean the puzzle, what this says about democracy in a capitalistic society, or the example of substituting trade union officials?

On indulgence I’ll take all three.

The puzzle is simply a vehicle for introducing, yet again, the progressive ideology vs. democracy and capitalism. You can have ownership of both the vehicle and the ideology, all yours, I don’t buy into self centric justification.

In relation to the metaphor, that of “bushrangers vs. union leaders” The difference is stark. You stress that honor (or lack thereof) among thieves is the basis for re-distribution of wealth. I have highlighted that that our modern society is perfectly capable of dealing with thieves. No ideology required, just the law of the land. (Check out the recent Court Rulings)

Your position is untenable because it relies on your ideology to solve the problem, mine does not. All we need is democracy, the will of the people and the legal institutions we have created to deal with fraudsters.

As always, you seek to interpret your position based upon your value/moral proposition. If you could leave that alone for the purpose of debate you may make some progress. If you cannot, you are a self declared bigot and a creator of the myth that the maintenance of your perspective is that contrary opinion is of no value, neither is there any value in those who express it.

Crooks are crooks. It’s not my crooks in the limelight, its yours. Get over it and your futile Unicorn hunt, it is no longer sustainable. Unless of course you wish to persist in the pursuit of that which is contrary to self interest. On the other hand that’s where you always head

Hi OUG,

Sad to see that you neglected to take your Bex!

Perhaps if you provided some context and relevance to your links/posts as this might have the potential to be seen as something other than rants.

I have no idea what you are “on”, obviously something more hallucinogenic than Bex? Good for you, what ever gets you through the day.

I have occasionally visited your website, it is unquestionably a zone that few could make any sense of, Acid would be a pre-requisite for just logging on. It was rather like having been transferred to the brain of a rabbit for a few nano-seconds. It was a traumatic, sensually deprived, Alice in Wonderland like and, so far divorced from reality that one has to wonder what sort of mentality could survive such an experience.

What is it about you that promotes such resolute defense of the things that make you so incomprehensible? Further, why do you continue to do that which makes you so incomprehensible?

Is there some element of intellectual capability that you think absolves you from the real world? Do you enjoy talking down to the proletariat? Does it make you feel superior? Do you get your “jollies” from assuming a godlike persona that distances you from the rest of humanity? Is the sheer gobbledegooke of your posts a defense machanism?

OUG, how would you feel if the omnipotent being to which you subscribe told you that you were an unmitigated idiot? Or am I just a Bigot?

Don’t answer that, you are already in over your head.

alex jones taks of..ground truth
training to battle..on line/THose..they they see as terrorists..INTO SOCIALIST TYRANNY..[SOCIALISM/LIKE BAILING OUT THE CORRUPT ELITES..via a nigh of the long knives..[like ukrane/iraq..lybia iran..etc]..

BUT..THATS ABOUT GOLD RESERVES THIS TIME[noting iraq/just bought 35 tons of the stuFF/HOPING/OR PREPARING THE GOUND FOr the next usa coup..where they take the 35 tons and convert it into more fast deflating yanki paper

http://rss.infowars.com/20140325_Tue_Alex.mp3

THE 5..WOULD Need be 85..just to havE REASONABLE NUMBERS TO HIDE AMMOUNG

Excellent OUG,

Let me see if I’ve got this right?

So Alex Jones is using “truth” for training in battle, terrorists are being converted into socialist tyranny to bail out corrupt elites in the night of the long knives. Meanwhile, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine and Libya are buying gold reserves to prepare for a coupe by the USA somewhere, possibly against themselves, by buying deflating $US.

The mysterious “five” need to grow to the equally mysterious “eighty five” in order for the mysterious “five” to hide amongst the equally mysterious “eighty five” so that they can remain undetected in their own country, or some other country, or some other “mysterious group” for as long as it takes to buy the 35 tones of bullion which they must have to outsmart the mysterious “five” in the purchase of Greenbacks.

Yep, OK, I think I’ve got that.

You freekin’ imbecile!

gee spin doc..IF YE CUT ME..Do i not bleed
it was only a tHREAD....GET OVER IT

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6282&page=0
MATE..YOUR BACKING THE WRONG TEAm play..unspin the spin
get TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE..EVERY WAR WAS PAID FOR BY Bankers both sides
who always take the gold and silver
leaving the devalued colony..under debt..in fiat paper/at intrest..that becomeS A GUGE GOVT DEBT..[till govt taxes its own to death/just so the bankers can get YOUR HOUSE..AND IN THE END LEASE IT BACK OFF SOME SLUM LANDLORD who gets tax EDEDUCTION FOR DRIVING UP THE PRICE OF HOUSING/SO PROPERTY TAXES EVER GET MORE EXPEnsive

just so bankers can buy sweraGE WATER GAS AND POWWEr systems/THEY LEWASE BACK TO GOVT.THEN DOUBLE AND TRIPPle these quasi govt private cash cows[like speed cammeras to raise corperate money..or private prisons or drug LAWS FOR LAWYER INBCOME,.,Or vacinations and poisens in our bodies water food

ya mates a scum/chum
get over it

DONT SWEAT ON IT BRO..we can stil have fun times
read the links and un spin the spin..
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16158&page=0

RESist..dont just give iN/
LOVE YA..SEE YA ON THE OTHER SIDE OF WWW..

[WORLD WIDE WAR]..
OR W3..4 SHORT

come in spinner..START REVEALING INSTEAD OF CONCEALING

Hi OUG,

OK, I get it, it’s only a thread?

When push comes to shove you don’t actually mean it, you are just a sh!t stirrer, an agent provocateur, you didn’t actually mean it, it was just a comment to provoke, no belief or commitment to your position, when criticized or held to account, you just fold?

Of course, how on earth could I have ever imagined that this was not your opinion, it was just a “thread”?

What you really need to consider is all your quasi-intellectual followers that try to convince us that they actually “understand” your posts, your comment leaves them all looking right pratts, and rightly so you fraud

Dear spindoc,

Thank you for your reply.

What you call “progressive ideology vs. democracy and capitalism” I call supporting an Australian ethic of fairness. That ethic has us with one of the more equitable distributions of wealth among developed nations. This piece is from Huffington Post lists the amount of wealth owned by the bottom 90% of society in certain developed nations.

“The most authoritative source comparing wealth-concentration in the various countries is the successor to the reports that used to be done for the United Nations, now performed as the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook. The latest (2013) edition of it finds (p. 146) that in the U.S., 75.4% of all wealth is owned by the richest 10% of the people. The comparable figures for the other developed countries are: Australia 50.3%, Canada 57.4%, Denmark 72.2%, Finland 44.9%, France 51.8%, Germany 61.7%, Ireland 58.4%, Israel 68.9%, Italy 49.8%, Japan 49.1%, Netherlands 54.6%, New Zealand 57.6%, Norway 65.9%, Singapore 61.1%, Spain 54.0%, Sweden 71.1%, Switzerland 71.5%, and U.K. 53.3%. Those are the top 20 developed nations, and the U.S. has the most extreme wealth-concentration of them all.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/us-is-now-the-most-unequa_b_4408647.html

For a hyper-democratic and hyper-capitalistic country like the US to be the most unequal in the list surely forces an examination of what factors of each drives this inequity. The most sobering part of this is the number of its citizens the US must put behind bars to keep control of its society. They outstrip virtually every other nation in the world.

Is this what you want for us spindoc? I don't.

Cont...

Cont...

You said;
“Your position is untenable because it relies on your ideology to solve the problem, mine does not. All we need is democracy, the will of the people and the legal institutions we have created to deal with fraudsters.”

Although not mentioned by Abbott, at least as far as I know, one of the prime themes at Davos this year was combating rising inequity citing it as the second greatest risk to continuing global recovery. We need the will of our government to recognise the issue then be prepared to explore ways of correcting it. There is no signs of that happening.

Finally to your fraudsters, Thompson deserves to do jail time but his impact was minimal compared to what the rogues at places like JP Morgan and Chase inflicted not only in the world markets but here in Australia where even our councils were reemed millions of dollars because of the illegal dealings of these institutions. The number of hedge fund managers doing jail time over the GFC? None.

The reason why? The money these organisations pump into the political system in the States is substantial. Surely political donations would be an area to focus on if we wanted to protect the fairness of our distribution programs.

Hi Steelie,

Likewise, so good to hear from you, or at least via you. (Channeling the opinion of others)

I’m curious as to why you don’t have an opinion of your own? Huffington Post? Davos?

When are you going to formulate or express your OWN opinion?

You said << What you call “progressive ideology vs. democracy and capitalism” I call supporting an Australian ethic of fairness.>> really? Is this my comment or yours?

I said << “Your position is untenable because it relies on your ideology to solve the problem, mine does not. All we need is democracy, the will of the people and the legal institutions we have created to deal with fraudsters.” >>.

And you said Davos?

Is this a misdirection or just a miss direction?

There are a few omissions from your list of acknowledgements. Thompson is noted, what about Williamson, Obeid, Wilson, Gillard, Shorten, Roxon, Judge Murphy, Slater and Gordon, FWA’s Nassios etc, etc. Did these just “slip” off your list of distractions? To which you offered Thompson deserves to do goal time? But not the other fraudsters?

To take your hyper-comments to hyper extremes, your hyper-misdirection’s are an example of hyper-Unicorns based upon hyper value/moral judgments of hyper-noncritical nonsense.

Accordingly, if we strip out the nonsense padding you have inserted in your response, we end up with nothing? Entirely predictable if you don’t have your own opinion.

Where is your opinion Steelie

Dear spindoc,

What on earth are you on about mate?

There was no opinion offered in my quote from Huffington Post just a summary of the publication Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook.

The opinion offered below that quote was mine. As always I placed the source link directly under the material I am quoting from and use “ and “ to delineate what is being quoted to my own words. This is standard practice but if it is something you are not across I can see where misreadings might occur.

I flagged Davos because all the countries mentioned are democracies supposedly expressing the will of the people and with well developed legal institutions but virtually all of them agreed something needed to be done at a policy level to combat growing inequalities within their own countries. The obviously would not agree with your 'hands off' approach and of course neither do I.

But I suspect all this beating the drums about my opinion is because I directly asked you for yours yet did not receive an answer therefore I will bring you back to it.

Do you want this for our country? A growing divide between the rich and poor? More people in prisons to deal with the civil unrest that would accompany this move to greater inequality?

If you do perhaps I can offer you some cabin space with Hasbeen, I hear America is quite lovely this time of the year.

Do I get an answer or more bombastic froth?

IRS...Makes..Bitcoin Rules Simple..for Wall Street,
Impossible..for Everyday Users

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/irs-makes-bitcoin-rules-simple-for-wall-street-impossible-for-everyday-users_032014

The IRS..just issued tax guidance...for bitcoin and other virtual currencies...They classify bitcoins..as property,..instead of a currency,..where tax rules..of stocks..and barter will apply.[leasing optional/intellectual-property rights]..

It seems,..as always,..that Wall Street wins and people lose.

It essentially means Wall Street..has a new asset class..to exploit at low capital gains rates,..and retail businesses...get the benefit of low transaction fees of the Bitcoin payment system without extra accounting;..but everyday people..who use it as a currency..*must report*..every single transaction..for tax collection.

invasion/dividend
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26758788

Ukraine's interim government..says it will raise..gas prices for domestic consumers..by 50% in an effort to secure..an International Monetary Fund (IMF)..aid package...[THEY UNDERWROTE/WITH Ukraines looted gold-reserve]..traded..for Euro/debt paper]

An official at Ukraine's..Naftogaz state energy company..said the price rise would come in on 1 May,..and further rises would be scheduled..until 2018.

Ukrainians are accustomed..to buying gas..at heavily..subsidized rates...But the IMF..has made subsidy reform..a condition of its deal..plus/of course..selling-off..public/utilities.

LEAST WE FORGET..THE UKRAINE COUP..WAS WHERE THEY REPLACED AN ELECTED[BUT CORRUPT]..OLIGARCH..WITH AN IMF BANKER..NARC

TO SUM UP...THE Works OF THE SCUM..IS NON STOP
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/russian-officials-dump-ipads-spy-fears/
http://xrepublic.tv/node/8143

http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_US_Is_Now_Spending_26%25_Of_Available_Tax_Revenue_To_Pay_Interest/34030/0/0/0/Y/M.html

http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/apple-google-microsoft-nfl-suicide-greed/

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/the-anatomy-of-panic-how-a-rumor-mutated-into-a-three-day-chinese-bank-run_032014

[AS LONG AS IT..GOES BACK..into banks..it wont CAUSE INFLATION
TILL WE BEGIN SPENDING IT/THEN COMES HYPERINFLATION..THAT DRIves down..its buying cost[ie steals..from aLL..OF US/THE MONETARY VAlue..of money]..ups interest/prices..

especially note..'friendly societies[that got sent broke..
cause the bankers cant own..them/BIG STORY JUST THERE..ON HOW THE FED PROTECTS..THE MASTERS BANKING SYSTEM..VERSIS The peoples money system..[SOCIETIES]...only one doing the right thing..only one sacred/PROTECTED..cause the few own all of them.

but even THEN..there the exchange rates are rigged
they straddle share trades both sides/the winnings GO TO ONE TRADER..THE LOOSING TO A set up stooge..win win[UNLESS YA The stooge]
http://whatreallyhappened.com/node

PUTum cant lose..or the people loose
and the dead corporations win/the dead sukked.the life blood from the living..[again]..ONE QUATER..THE TAXES WE RAise...go directly on intrest.

govt needs take back money creation
THE BANKS WENT BROKE/THEN..SENT GOVT BROKE BAILING out..The scum

[dead corporate scum]..that reap the cream..off the top..from the low life serfs..aT THE BASE..who's life blood makes the financial system..go around..apparent Movement..but going nowhere
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/this-common-core-math-problem-asks-kids-to-write-the-friendly-answer-instead-of-the-correct-one_032014

and..then those..defending govt..spin/offending

Hi SteeleRedux,

Firstly to your question.

<< Do you want this for our country? A growing divide between the rich and poor? More people in prisons to deal with the civil unrest that would accompany this move to greater inequality? >>

This is a classic “when did you stop beating your wife?” question. The answer is of course no, like most sane I humans do not wish to see any of these things. By the same token I do not subscribe to the socialist solution of wealth redistribution that you tried to elicit from the answer.

You used the “Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook” to make your point about wealth concentration. This publication shows a comparative analysis of the top twenty developed nations

Like the author Eric Zueese, you totally misrepresent accrued personal wealth and try to correlate this with the national wealth factors of GDP, the economy or investment. You did this to make your case based upon envy for the classic socialist wealth re-distribution myth.

You can insist as long as you like that this is all your own opinion however, this is not true is it? You liked the article, it impressed you, it agreed with your socialist dogma, so you adopted it.

It is very convenient for socialism to forget that the accrued wealth of investors drives economic development. Without such investment there would be no economy. But that won’t stop you trying to get your grubby hands on other peoples money will it?

It serves little purpose for you to ask for opinion “on what this says about democracy in a capitalistic society?” and then when challenged, you deny the terminology you used and rephrase it to be the “Australian ethic of fairness”.

Slippery comes to mind.

Dear spindoc,

“socialist solution of wealth redistribution ... wealth concentration … envy for the classic socialist wealth re-distribution myth … your socialist dogma … you trying to get your grubby hands on other peoples money”

Now you are starting to sound like UOG.

Where on earth do you come up with all this drivel?

So calling for a fairer slice for ordinary Australians of the minerals owned by all Australians is a socialist redistribution plot?

Gina buys up media interests then places her little sock puppet Bolt in prime time and Clive purchases his own political party and the mining tax gets trashed and you think that is okay?

Now we can add spindoc to their list of loyal spruikers.

This is why the scenario of the bushrangers is so intriguing. The Ginas, Clives, and Twiggys don't even have to offer the lowest on the pecking order anything in order to retain their preferred distribution scheme. Just grab a seat on a few media boards, put in a bloke like Bolt to be their mouth piece and the likes of spindoc (LC) are covered, don't have to give them anything just spin them a good yarn and they are in the bag. Snaffle the balance of power with a off the shelf political party and that covers the second bushranger (LP).

And you dance around and think its the best thing since sliced bread.

You sir are a mug.

‘morning Steelie,

If the opinion you expressed about << wealth concentration>> was indeed your own and resulted from original thought, critical thinking and analysis, you would be able to defend your case.

Since it was non of the above you are now left with trying to defend the opinion of Eric Zueese however, rather than defending it you ignore the challenge and throw in a bunch of hissy fit distractions.

Lets try again.

You and Zueese try to make the case that personal wealth has no other value than personal wealth hoarding. You chose to ignore the fact that it is investment of this wealth that powers our economy. Through investment in businesses that generate profit, jobs and infrastructure, all these activities generate exposure to a very broad range of taxes. This means that the wider community and the national economics benefit.

Likewise with corporate and institutional wealth, our economy is powered by public investors which includes trade unions through their superannuation funds.

Now you have left yourself having to explain your perspective on the “difference” between private, institutional and corporate wealth.

When you have done this we might well come back to the private miners you so hate, then compare these with the role and function of the corporate miners powered by public wealth.

Then we might explore your plan to apply the same criticisms of public investors as you seek to apply to private investors.

Since this is all your “own” construct I’m sure you will knock this on the head pretty quickly, especially since I’m just a “mug” talking “drivel”.

Boom, Boom, Boom, after that barrage of body blows from Spindoc -- poor old Steele might in need of another REDUX!

Dear SPQR,

Lol. Yup I don't know how I am still standing after such a barrage of lucid argument, such a keen grasp of the issue, and such display of sparklingly sharp logic. Now when the pugilist spindoc stops giving his straw man such a frightful hiding I think I could be in serious trouble!

Dear spindoc,

*Sigh*

Once again mate the snippet I included from Huffigton post was just a summary of the figures presented by the publication “Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook”. It did not deliver any opinion.

Okay. I'm going to put this as simply as possible and the following are indeed my opinions.

That huge gaps in wealth distribution is undesirable for any country

That the wealth disparity in the US is not something we should wish for our country.

That the inequitable wealth distribution in the US is in part a result of a corrupt legal and political processes.

That the profits of the international mining industry operating in Australia should be exposed to a profits tax so that “that the wider community and the national economics benefit”.

Cont...

Cont...

That the actions of Gina and Clive in usurping our media and corrupting our own political process for their personal gain will serve to accelerate inequitable wealth distribution in this country. I will admit to having a bit more time for Twiggy than these two as he is doing some good things but the fact that his company as of last year had not handed the tax department one solitary dollar in company tax, ever, while he is worth 9 odd billion dollars, shows our system needs work.

That in a capitalist society a robust democracy, free press, and strong legal system are not by themselves enough to going to ensure that inequitable wealth distribution will not occur. It also needs the will of government and policy makers.

Now at the risk of having you start punching yourself in the face I will remind you that you claimed you thought the distribution of wealth in the US was not something you wanted for this country and you acknowledged that taxes are a vehicle for ensuring wealth is distributed so “that the wider community and the national economics benefit”.

It appears you are essentially agreeing with me but shouting 'Hands off our miners!'.

In my opinion it is evident the spindoc has been spun.

I must add this is good fun.

Hi Steelie,

I’m so glad you said << I must add this is good fun>>

Lets see if we can make this even more fun for you?

Your double post reply offered absolutely zero response to any of the points I raised with you. In order that the rest of OLO’ers can judge for themselves, I’ll post the bits you missed once again for your attention.

I’ll also do a separate post on the points you were not asked but in the interests of your diversions, you raised anyway. More on that later.

So lets try again.

You and Zueese try to make the case that personal wealth has no other value than personal wealth hoarding. You chose to ignore the fact that it is investment of this wealth that powers our economy. Through investment in businesses that generate profit, jobs and infrastructure, all these activities generate exposure to a very broad range of taxes. This means that the wider community and the national economics benefit.

Likewise with corporate and institutional wealth, our economy is powered by public investors which includes trade unions through their superannuation funds.

Now you have left yourself having to explain your perspective on the “difference” between private, institutional and corporate wealth.

When you have done this we might well come back to the private miners you so hate, then compare these with the role and function of the corporate miners powered by public wealth.

Then we might explore your plan to apply the same criticisms of public investors as you seek to apply to private investors.

How hard can it be to knock over a “mug” talking “drivel”.

Steely doesn't know how he is still standing after being shot down & destroyed by Spindoc.

Well we do. It is only because he/she/it is too stupid to know which way is up, or when his ideas are totally destroyed.

It must be hard to come up with any reasoned answer, when your whole being is dedicated to being objectionable, & offensive, rather than using any reasoned argument.

Perhaps you would be well advised to observe Foxy. She & I often disagree on things, but we can do it with respect & even admiration for the other. This on my part leads to considering her arguments seriously.

With you & a couple of your mates, with your posts filled with invective, I only bother to skim the stuff, rarely bothering to read them. If you want your opinions to be actually read, do try to do better.

I had another look at this model, with interesting finds:

Suppose, everything else being equal, bushrangers preferred their friends alive...

Result: The first-ranking bushranger takes everything!
(so much for mercy)

Suppose the opposite, bushrangers were willing to pay a golden crown to see their fellow killed...

Result: The first-ranking has to give more to his coalition.
(cruelty pays)

But this I like most:

Suppose there is a 1% chance for each bushranger, at each round, to catch a cold and not be able to attend the vote. Details:

A. If the first-ranking bushranger is sick, they stay in bed, alive but getting no share of the loot, then the next-ranking makes a new proposal.
B. If a different bushranger can't vote because they have a cold and the proposal is accepted, then their share goes to charity.
C. If all bushrangers are sick at the time it's their turn to propose, the loot goes to charity.

Result: The second-to-last-ranking bushranger comes best: All except the two last-ranking bushrangers will be shot. If the second-to-last is well (99%), then he'll get the whole loot, otherwise the last will get all (if well at the time).

Same if the chance of getting a cold is up to 10%.

With 11% chance to get a cold, the division will be: 9,10,1,73,8
With 15%: 10,14,2,63,11
With 20%: 14,19,3,52,12
With 30%: 20,27,6,35,12
With 40%: 25,34,9,23,9
With 50%: 30,38,12,13,7
With 60%: 36,39,14,7,4
With 70%: 44,36,15,3,2
With 80%: 56,29,13,1,1
With 90%: 72,17,9,1,1

How does it reflect on the real world?

It doesn't - because people are not rational beings!

You said the << Huffington post was just a summary of the figures presented by the publication “Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook”. It did not deliver any opinion >>.

Correct, but I didn’t say it did offer opinion, but Eric Zueese did!

What I said was that you adopted the opinion of the author Eric Zueese, who first the included the “Wealth Databook” in his article. You simply adopted the opinion of Zueese.

I evidence this assertion by the publication of “your” opinions in your last post;

You said << the following are indeed my opinions>>.

<< That huge gaps in wealth distribution is undesirable for any country>>

(Whose “wealth” any why?)

<<That the wealth disparity in the US is not something we should wish for our country>>.

(Again, whose “wealth” and why?)

<< That the inequitable wealth distribution in the US is in part a result of a corrupt legal and political processes>>.

(Whose “wealth” are you distributing and to whom? Is this “wealth” actually being distributed, how and if so how is this actual distribution inequitable?)

<< That the profits of the international mining industry operating in Australia should be exposed to a profits tax so that “that the wider community and the national economics benefit”>>.

(What taxes do they NOT pay, why is international mining different to local? What is the wider community?)

If these are indeed your opinions I guess you will be able to tell us how you arrived at them? Firstly of course, you must address the outstanding points related to your perspective on the “difference” between private, institutional and corporate wealth.

It might have recently dawned on you that without addressing these differences, your opinions listed above are completely invalid.

That’s what happens when you stitch together the opinions of others without thinking them through. Like I said earlier, you have adopted the opinions of others and now find you cannot “explain” them because they were never your original thoughts in the first place.

Still having fun?

My mistake: with a positive but 10% or less chance to catch a cold, the third-ranking bushranger would fear for their life because they cannot make any acceptable offer to the last two, so they will support ANY proposal by the first and second bushrangers.

This way, if the risk of catching a cold is 1%, the deal would be 100 crowns to the second-ranking, if 2%, it would be 1 crown to the first-ranking and 99 to the second-ranking, if 3%, it would be 2 crowns to the first-ranking and 98 to the second-ranking, etc.

Hey guys, this is much more interesting than silly talks about Americans, mining corporates and investors: if they or any of their coalition members catch a cold, or a bout of irrational-stupidity for that matter, then all their plans collapse, hence they do need some broader support!

There was the interminable buzzing of the blue-tailed fly.

Then the solid "THWACK" of a well-aimed swat.

spindoc, "Still having fun?"

An Australian Dirty Harry would have used that line as well.

Tears in eyes laughing. A keyboard coffee alert next time please.

Dear spindoc,

Gawd.

Are you really that dense mate?

Once again. I did not post any opinion from Zueese all I posted was a summary he made of the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook. I arrived at the article after accessing a Wikipedia page which mentioned the book then googling it and one of the sites returned was the Huffington Post one. All I included here were the figures.

If you want to take Zueese up on anything else he may have said in his article you are welcome to do so. I don't imagine he has any interest in Australia besides it being part of the group of developed countries that have a more equitable wealth distribution than the US.

But really you will have to explain where we differ on this because you agreed with me that a wealth distribution like the US is something we should avoid and that taxes play a role. I know you think the sun shines out of mining trios backsides so let's leave that aside for the moment because I think you have gotten so caught up in the anti-Gillard therefore anti-mining tax narrative that you can't see the wood for the trees. So other than that where exactly do we disagree?

Dear Hasbeen,

Did you really just post “he/she/it is too stupid to know which way is up” and follow it with “your posts filled with invective”? Thank you for brightening my day.

Dear three amigos (Hasbeen, spindoc, onthebeach), opps better not forget SPQR,

The reason why you lot are such good fun is that I don't get to engage with your types in any other medium nor in real life. For instance I do a lot of work on building sites and no one thinks the way you lot do, or at least not here in Victoria.

Cont...

Cont...

I have an uncle who plays the game but it is done with a twinkle in the eye and in more reflective discussions is far more measured. But you lot really do believe the mantras you post. It is serious business for you and that is why you end up tying yourselves in knots. When those inconsistencies are pointed out the vitriol starts and you're off frothing away. Then if someone nibbles back (not something foxy would ever do but I'm not above dishing it out when it comes my way) then you scream blue murder. Brilliant stuff all round.

This is why the OLO forum has become such a special place. No where else would I find a collection of such entertaining souls at one gathering.

Dear Yutusu,

Thank you for the interesting diversion.

You asked; “Suppose the opposite, bushrangers were willing to pay a golden crown to see their fellow killed...” In that case the split would be 96 to the head BR, 2 to the third BR and 2 to the least senior.

As to the last scenario you proposed I must be missing something.

A. If the first-ranking bushranger is sick, they stay in bed, alive but getting no share of the loot, then the next-ranking makes a new proposal.
Isn't this the same as getting shot? He is getting nothing regardless.

B. If a different bushranger can't vote because they have a cold and the proposal is accepted, then their share goes to charity.
But if it goes to charity then it will not impact what the others receive. Plus as all your totals add up to 100 do I assume none has gone to charity?

C. If all bushrangers are sick at the time it's their turn to propose, the loot goes to charity.
So if the chances of each BRs getting sick is 90% then there will be a 60% chance all the loot goes to charity?

Were am I going wrong?

Dear SteelRedux,

<<In that case the split would be 96 to the head BR, 2 to the third BR and 2 to the least senior.>

Correct!

As to the last scenario:

A. Being sick in bed is not like being shot. My assumption is that a bushranger's 1st priority is to remain alive, 2nd priority is to maximise their loot and 3rd to see the other bushrangers dead.

B. If one's share of the loot goes to charity (because they are sick in bed), it affects him alone. It is a disincentive for him (which is included in my calculations), but not an incentive to the others.

C. Correct. If the chance to be sick is 90% then the chance that the whole loot will go to charity is 59%. However, 90% illness is unrealistic, in an average winter you should find only about 2-3% having a flu.

One crucial point is, that any bushranger's first goal would be to eliminate their possibility of being killed. The senior bushranger therefore needs ALL others to agree to their proposal, because otherwise, they risk that their subset of favourites may all happen to be sick on the day!

The most interesting result, is that the 3rd-ranking bushranger, who if the sickness-rate is 10% or less cannot make a sufficient offer to the 4th and 5th, would do everything to avoid the position of making a proposal. Thus he would accept whatever the 1st proposes, even if he didn't receive anything, because if he votes against it and the 1st is shot, then the 2nd may happen to be sick and the burden of proposing falls on him, in which case he can consider himself dead.

Hi Steelie,

You said, <<All I included here were the figures >>.

So no opinion, yours or otherwise was offered?

Then you said, <<There was no opinion offered in my quote from Huffington Post>>
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 9:19:13 PM

Then you said, <<The opinion offered below that quote was mine>>
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 26 March 2014 9:19:13 PM

Then you said, <<I did not post any opinion from Zueese all I posted was a summary he made of the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook>>.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 28 March 2014 4:38:37 PM

You have a choice on all these. Either you prove me right that you borrowed the opinion of Zueese by offering us a “summary” of his opinion, or this was a non-opinion of yours because there was no opinion offered from the Huffington Post article, or the opinion you offered is in fact yours, but not really, or you offered no opinion at all and you just offered OLO’ers an opinion that was indeed “yours”, but it was not connected to the Huffington Post, Zueese or the “Wealth Databook”? Duh!

Did I get that right?

I’m sure that “your own” comments must be a bit overwhelming for you however, for the third time of posting I will simplify the question you refuse to answer;

What is the difference between private, institutional and corporate wealth?

Now how simple is it to answer such a question? Especially since it is the whole basis for your thread!

We are in awe that you have an Uncle, that you use Wikipedia as a source of your intellectual capacity, that you do a << a lot of work on building sites>> , and that in Victoria the people on building sites don’t think like OLO’ers.

There is a message for YOU in all this.

Try to avoid OLO, building site intellect, Uncles, Zueese, Wikipedia, other peoples’ opinion, whacky backie, Green manifesto pamphlets, critical thinking, reality, computer keyboards and anything written by Lewis Carol.

Idiot

Dear spindoc,

It seems I lay things out quite clearly for you then you go and muddle things up all over again. I mean what of earth is this?

“Either you prove me right that you borrowed the opinion of Zueese by offering us a “summary” of his opinion, or this was a non-opinion of yours because there was no opinion offered from the Huffington Post article, or the opinion you offered is in fact yours, but not really, or you offered no opinion at all and you just offered OLO’ers an opinion that was indeed “yours”, but it was not connected to the Huffington Post, Zueese or the “Wealth Databook”?”

Sorry old chap but I don't have an earthly clue what you are trying to say, couldn't finish the rest of your post because my head was hurting so much. Remember mate clarity is your friend when you are trying to make a point. I listed my opinions for you many posts ago but you have just ignored them and keep banging on about Zueese. It's about time you let go of that bone ol' fella.

As to calling me an 'idiot' well you have to know that cut me to the quick. Here I was espousing how unique you lot are and you start slinging insults. But then again it is exactly what makes you guys so special, I mean if one goes to the zoo to see the Tassy Devils one really doesn't want to see them all docile and cute or if you sit down to see an episode of 'Married with Children' you really want Al Bundy at his miserable best. Actually, wait a moment...spindoc=Al Bundy...? Oh yes! Lol.

Dear Yutusu,

Ah ha. I see why I was having a problem. When you said “first-ranking bushranger is sick, they stay in bed, alive but getting no share of the loot” I had assumed he could not be shot but I take it he can be killed. In any case if he is not present why do the lesser bushrangers need to include him at all?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I think you might enjoy this little clip. It is from the game Golden Balls. At the end of the show two players face off over a sum of money, in this case 13,000 pounds.

Each has a choice of choosing 'split' or 'steal'. If both choose split they divided the cash, if both choose steal they each walk away with nothing but if one picks steal and the other split then the 'stealer' walks away with the lot.

Player 2 adopts an interesting strategy.

http://youtu.be/S0qjK3TWZE8

‘morning Steelie,

Fourth time of posting the question;

“What is the difference between private, institutional and corporate wealth?

How is the answer to the question coming along?

In response to the litany of excuses you said << Sorry old chap but I don't have an earthly clue what you are trying to say, couldn't finish the rest of your post because my head was hurting so much. >>

Now you know how the rest of us feel, they were all YOUR excuses I pulled them from your posts!

How’s your headache now?

ITS funny how some measure wealth
and other measure values

REGARDLESS..THE QUESTION/HAS BECOME..<<..
“What is the difference between private,>>wealth

OK PRIVATE WEALTH..IS A PERSONAL BURDEN..OR ADVANTAGE
SOME PUT HIGHER WORTH ON THE Quality..0THERS ON THE Quantity
BUT AT THE HUMANE LEVEL..[even moral]..Levels..ITS ALL BY PERSONAL CHOICE..personal control..personal accounting

remembering that some got their wealth/by fair mean
others by foul..THESE ARE CONDITIONAL FACTORS RE THE WEALTH measure
the individual HAS ASSETS AND MAY BE SUED FOR FUlL RECOVERY OF DAMAGES

UNLESS THEY HID THE WEALTH..IN A PRIVATE TRUST..OR corperation
often pathetically enough a trust free charity..OR MASKING AS A PERSONAL FACE.UNDER Cooperate Limited liabilities

<<..institutional>.WEALTH..IS THE VALUE OF THE CORPORATION/MINUS ITS OBLIGATIONS[MOST 'INSTITUTIONS ARE LEVERAGED TO THE Max[often LEASING Back their own BUSINESS NAME //LEASING back THEIR OWN SHOP AND BUYING THEIR Own product..into av tax free trust held in amsterdam London or any number of tax avoidance.lurks..govt has given to corperate 'PERSON'[WHO/TOOK THE ADVANTAGES OF PERSON HOOD..AWAY FROM THE LIVING/TO BAILOUT THE DEAD corporate PERSON/under the act

<<>.and..corporate wealth?>JUST AS ALL OTHER FORMS OF NON LIVING PERSONAL/WEALTH..BELONGS TO THE SHAREHOLDER/TRUST[Except where thaT Shareholding is held by other corperate'person'HOOD

[ie a wealth sucking AWAY AT PUBLIC 'trust'..run by mindless over paid criminals with too much dishonor in their true name/.thus hide under a corporate vail.

How is..the REAL/question coming along?

Dear spindoc,

You wrote;

“they were all YOUR excuses I pulled them from your posts!”. Still chomping on that good ol bone I see.

Thankfully a new day brings some clarity so I have attempted to go back and tease out where you went so astray. I am treating it like a logic puzzle since as I stated earlier they can be great source of amusement.

This is what I wrote below the quote from Huffington Post;

“For a hyper-democratic and hyper-capitalistic country like the US to be the most unequal in the list surely forces an examination of what factors of each drives this inequity. The most sobering part of this is the number of its citizens the US must put behind bars to keep control of its society. They outstrip virtually every other nation in the world.”

End Quote!

You asked “I’m curious as to why you don’t have an opinion of your own? Huffington Post?” then “When are you going to formulate or express your OWN opinion?” and finally “Where is your opinion Steelie”.

I have since gone back and read the article in its entirety. Zuesse makes no mention of capitalism and only mentions democracy in the context of political donations. He makes no mention of America's prison population or measures required to keep control of a disgruntled citizenry. There is no call to examine the factors driving the inequity from him either.

Yet this is what you went with;

“If the opinion you expressed about << wealth concentration>> was indeed your own and resulted from original thought, critical thinking and analysis, you would be able to defend your case. Since it was non(sic) of the above you are now left with trying to defend the opinion of Eric Zueese”.

I then made numerous attempts to make the situation clear to you. I said;

1. “There was no opinion offered in my quote from Huffington Post” and most demonstrably there was not since it was just figures.

Cont...

Cont...

2. “The opinion offered below that quote was mine” as is patently evident from any reading of it and the rest of the article.

3. “I did not post any opinion from Zueese all I posted was a summary he made of the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook” which is entirely correct and indisputable.

You then offered me the following choices;

“you prove me right that you borrowed the opinion of Zueese by offering us a “summary” of his opinion”. How could I do that when I demonstrably did not borrow his opinion as has been illustrated above.

“this was a non-opinion of yours because there was no opinion offered from the Huffington Post article” I certainly offered no opinion from the article only figures instead I offered my own which I wrote below the figures using them to support my proposition.

“the opinion you offered is in fact yours, but not really,” The opinion offered was mine, yes really.

“you offered no opinion at all and you just offered OLO’ers an opinion that was indeed “yours”, but it was not connected to the Huffington Post, Zueese or the “Wealth Databook”?” I certainly offered an opinion as I have detailed. That opinion was indeed mine. The connection with Huffington Post, Zuesse and the Wealth Databook was purely with the figures I quoted. I made no other representations.

So these were not EXCUSES as you seem to think but explanations, attempts help you understand, to clear up any misapprehensions.

As to my headache thank you for caring, I will admit to it being partly the result of an excellent red so not entirely your fault.

I feel if we could amicably settle this issue we can move on.

‘morning Steelie,

Fifth time of posting the question;

“What is the difference between private, institutional and corporate wealth?

Wow, a double post to avoid answering the question this time?

Of course we can amicably settle the issue, that’s how OLO is supposed to deal with different perspectives.

Someone asks a valid question related to the core of an opinion, the other ignores it!

I keep posting it, you keep ignoring it!

Of course I can’t demand an answer and you are not obliged to provide one. But you could do the right thing and withdraw if you are unwilling or unable to answer.

What do you suggest?

Proof Corporate Tax Cuts Have Done More Harm Than Good
http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/proof-corporate-tax-cuts-done-harm-good/

The taxes paid by corporations today are near record lows as a percentage of the United States’ total tax bill, even as they are recording massive profits. Yet the unemployment rate is still high. However, if we turned back the clock on corporate tax rates and returned to Nixon-era levels and closed loopholes, millions of American jobs would be created, according to The Disappearing Corporate Tax Base, a new report released today.

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/03/everything-ever-taught-lie.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-spoils-of-war-afghanistan-s-multibillion-dollar-heroin-trade/91

http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2014/03/natural-food-farms-compared-to-organic.html

http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/monsantos-pesticides-are-partly-responsible-for-the-collapse-of-the-bee/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/27/us-climatechange-idUSBREA2Q1FX20140327

http://warisacrime.org/content/lies-about-rwanda-mean-more-wars-if-not-corrected

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/new-report-shrinking-corporate-tax-base-wreaking-havoc-state-budgets/

http://investmentwatchblog.com/justice-dept-tracking-your-cash-welcome-to-operation-choke-point/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lauraheller/2014/03/28/walmart-just-revealed-how-poor-u-s-shoppers-are/?partner=yahootix

http://sana.sy/eng/22/2014/03/27/535687.htm
LOOK ! Proof That Craft or Blackwater Agents
did the Boston Marathon Bombing Event !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjocGidSLJw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-xCjbgrWSk
http://www.john-friend.net/2014/03/how-holocaust-was-faked.html

Dear spindoc,

Thank you for your considered reply.

You have kindly asked “What do you suggest?”

I think it is entirely appropriate that we deal with these matters in the order they were raised on the thread.

You questioned whether the opinion I offered was my own without a shred of evidence to back up the allegation, well before the question you later posed to me. I have gone to great pains to lay out all the reasons why you were incorrect and yet you refuse to address them, which of course is your right but how can we proceed without this issue being dealt with?

Yet deal with it we must since in answering any further questions from you I face exactly the same unwarranted charge being used to dismiss any proposition I put forward. I would need to know that you were able to respond in an honest manner and not resort to unsubstantiated, thread derailing, allegations about any opinion I were to offer.

So the question is quite simple, do you accept that the opinion I posted after the Huffington Post figures was my own or instead was that of Zuesse or the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook?

Kind regards,

SteeleRedux

corporate Sovereignty Provisions Called Into Question Around The World
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140325/10074526680/corporate-sovereignty-provisions-called-into-question-around-world.shtml

A couple of weeks ago, we noted that Germany just threw a big spanner in the TTIP works by calling for corporate sovereignty provisions to be excluded. Although perhaps the most dramatic repudiation of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), it's by no means the only one. Indeed, the tide really seems turning, as country after country calls into question the need to put corporations on the same level as entire nations

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-the-corporate-annexation-for-cargill-chevron-monsanto-its-a-gold-mine-of-profits/5375170

http://investmentwatchblog.com/koos-jansen-ondon-gold-vaults-are-empty-everything-is-shipped-to-china-the-chinese-dont-want-dollars-they-want-gold/

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=16169
Is CIA Fueling New U.S. Drug Epidemic Using Cheap Heroin from Afghanistan?; CIA, Obama Team Up to Hide Darkest Secrets
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/28/thrupney-bits-tits-new-pound-coin-is-elite-schoolboy-joke-for-unwashed-masses/
Osborne is telling us that new pound will have the equivalent value of the old 3 pence and we had all better smile and be thankful for our new, worthless, shiny currency and join the breadline and shut-up like obedient poor-folk always have.

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/35157/IMF-Exposed-in-Ukraine-Promotion-with-Two-Year-Bailout/

http://investmentwatchblog.com/is-government-ethical-cpac-2014/
http://www.blacklistednews.com/How_the_vampire_squid_is_controlling_our_lives%3A_They_helped_cause_the_crash._Then_profited_from_it./34073/0/38/38/Y/M.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/www.undergroundmedic.com
http://intellihub.com/imf-eu-capture-ukraine/

Inequity is the natural order, without which there would be no working class willing to do all the hard, nasty or menial jobs, or the 'trades' and lower technical jobs, all of which are nonetheless essential to any successful civilization; and without a wealthy private and corporate sector (paying taxes) there would be no charity and little provision for the disabled, the sick, and those simply unwilling to undertake work suitable to their abilities or lack thereof or in any way alien to their 'sensibilities'.

A powerful economy needs concentrated wealth-creation to elicit the higher taxes needed to power infrastructure development and to provide for universal education, healthcare and welfare, and both private and corporate wealth are needed to spur innovation and entrepreneurship to establish new industries and new enterprises, and to build new housing for both rich and poor.

Communism has been far less successful than capitalism at least in part because it fails to take best advantage of individual abilities and motivation, has tended to give power to rogues or those most corruptible, and as it stifles individual creativity and capacity, opportunity and willingness to innovate.

So then, what is a purely egalitarian society, offering totally equitable wealth distribution and one size fits all, if not a communist one?

And, do we truly want that? I think we can do, and are currently doing, so much better.

And, the big miners pay company tax on their profits. If the tax rate is not high enough, then maybe it should be hiked; but an extra, 'special' super-profits tax? Why should this be necessary?
As for Twiggy, I would imagine his personal tax would be very substantial, but if Fortescue is plowing its net returns into further development - and maybe some small dividends to investors - that should not be seen as unreasonable, as long as the investors think it will pay dividends in the long run for both them and the economy - and don't forget that there are royalties paid to the States for every tonne mined and sold.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Thanks for the clip - it's the classical game-theory "prisoner-dilemma".

It's not an interesting case if the very first-ranking bushranger is sick - then the proposal simply passes on down the chain, but the possibility that the second or third would become sick when it's their turn to propose, is significant and those below them take it very seriously in their calculations when deciding whether or not to accept the first's proposal.

‘morning Steelie,

Why is it that I feel you just tried to poke me in the eye with the “Olive Branch”.

You nominated what you want out of the deal but failed to nominate your concession?

You ask me to accept << that the opinion I posted after the Huffington Post figures was my own or instead was that of Zueese or the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook? >>

I asked you to answer the question << What is the difference between private, institutional and corporate wealth? >>

Sounds like a deal to me?

So here goes;

Spindoc accepts and apologizes for the allegation that SteeleRedux had adopted an opinion in relation to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook.

Over to you Steelie. What is the difference between private, institutional and corporate wealth?

Dear spindoc,

Again thank you for your considered reply.

You wrote;

“You nominated what you want out of the deal but failed to nominate your concession?”

My dear friend I most certainly did not offer a 'deal' of any description rather it was what I deemed to be a logical pathway forward, one that you were free to accept or reject. My proposal simply was that we deal with the matters in the order that they had been raised between us on this thread and I'm more than happy to stick with that. If we encounter a contentious point that can not be resolved to the satisfaction of the both of us then we either both agree to move past it or we part ways, hopefully in an amicable fashion.

Now as to your apology there would be those here who are far less generous than myself who may well call it 'half-arsed at best' and 'downright childish at worst'. Not being that pugnacious nor crude I would just make the point that it is lacking in certain aspects. I suppose it would be like me replying to your later question regarding differences with; “private has 7 letters and starts with a 'p', institutional has 13 letters and starts with an 'i', and corporate has 9 letters and starts with a 'c'.”

Others, equally less generous, might also conclude that your 'apology' was written in such a fashion as to be able to be read as a complete non-apology.

“Spindoc accepts and apologizes for the allegation that SteeleRedux had adopted an opinion in relation to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook.”

It could mean I did not offer an apology at all, or that it was that of Zuesse whom you did not include.

I make no such judgement only to reiterate that it is lacking. I'm equally sure you have the skill required to bring it up to a standard that would reflect the 'honesty' for which we have agreed we are striving.

Kind regards,

SteeleRedux

Dear Yuyutsu,

Strictly speaking in the 'prisoner's dilemma' there was no negotiation allowed between the prisoners yet in the Golden Balls there was, altering the dynamic significantly. From what we can gather from the clip the larger gentleman was involved in supporting charities while the other was some kind of financial currency trader.

Why it is so interesting is that Mr Charity feels Mr Currency probably has enough money to roll the dice on a 'trade' and be prepared to risk the lot. What he effectively did was to take the dice away without compromising his own propensity to ultimately share the prize.

Quite well done but something he could only play once.

Probably the best puzzle for illustrating how much the addition of a very minimal amount of information is the following;

A religious order in India were devout followers of a certain guru and had sworn to adhere to his teachings of deep respect for intellectual and rational pursuits. One day the guru fell gravely ill and his followers gathered at his bedside. In a moment of lucidity in his otherwise overpowering delirium he rose on one elbow and commanded all those who had adorned themselves with the 'Bindi' to leave with the words “All those with the 'red eye' must remove themselves”. To him their sign of respect was instead a repudiation of all that he had taught. The guru succumbed to his illness a short time later.

Cont...

Cont...

His followers were mortified and 100 of them chose to live in a hilltop community away from everyone else and in a complete misinterpretation (as is the propensity of religious orders) of the guru's words took the following vow, if any of them found out that they had red eyes they would kill themselves that night.

Within a few short months their number had dwindled to 20 with winter being especially tragic in terms of lives lost. A meeting was called and it was determined that if they were all to die the memory of their guru was at risk of disappearing. But they did not want to retreat from their vows so it was decided that a follower would only be required to kill themselves during the night if they knew without any doubt they indeed had red eyes. The followers then removed all mirrors from their community and took a vow of utter silence in the belief that this would prevent anyone learning the state of their own eyes.

The scheme worked brilliantly and no deaths occurred for a year. Then one day a traveller, close to death himself, was found at the community gate. The followers took him in and nursed him back to health. As he was leaving, knowing nothing of the vow, he thanked them profusely and said he knew they had stayed up through the night because he could see one or more of them with bright red eyes. He then departed.

The question is what happens after that? Note before the traveller arrived they could all see followers with red eyes but this could not be communicated so their lives were spared.

My apologies if I have presented this before on OLO

redUxum/absurd-0oHMMM../..

key*..<,.A religious order in India
were devout followers of a certain guru..
and..had sworn to adhere to his teachings
[BECAUSE]..of deep respect for intellectual..and rational pursuits.

HE NO DOUBT WOULD have defined as his teaching the differentiation..OF RATIONAL/AS Distinct]..of irrational
[ya get where this is going?]

<<..One day the guru fell gravely ill and his followers gathered at his bedside...>>clearly in a delusional delirium[HENCE WHY/THE Following script

<<..In a moment of lucidity*>>..key,..aLL PRIOR WASNT..
<<..in his otherwise overpowering delirium..he rose on one elbow and commanded all those..who had adorned themselves with the 'Bindi' to leave>>

Traditionally, the area between the eyebrows (where the bindi is placed) is said to be the sixth chakra, ajna, the seat of "concealed wisdom". The bindi is said to retain energy and strengthen concentration. [1] The bindi also represents the third eye.[2] It is also used in festivals such as Holi.[3] According to Jabala upanishad "Avimukta"(i.e the middle of the eye-brows) is the abode of Brahman in all beings.

TO ASK ALL With the red eye..means to tell the married ones to leave
[YOUR WISDOM..LIES in thYne unseen mate]..[YOU IN PAIR-BOND..regain energies..AND STRENGTHEN..YOUR MUTUAL Concentration..[CHI]..THE THIRD EYE [SIGNIFIES THE TRIBUNE]

<<..with the words “All those with the 'red eye' must remove themselves”.>>>

signifies only the singular

then..a strange injection..
after we can presume all under the bindi leave
NOT HAVING TO THUS witness any of the further insanity..SUCH AS

<<.To him>>..in his delirium..<<..their sign of respect
was instead a repudiation of all that he had taught>>IN HIS UN DELIRIUM-ED STATE.

WHAT WAS THE POINT?
30 WERE Remaining?..BUT LETS NOT LOOK AT THE RED EYE?
[NEVER STARE AT the one eyed TROUSER snake?,,dont dot the eyes..nor crosS THE T's..[sorrY WATCHING A WAR MOVIE/WAR DRIVES my guides nuts.]

Dear SteeleRedux,

Those followers were indeed a bunch of idiots and it wasn't their guru's fault.

Anyway, if there were N followers with red eyes, then they would all kill themselves on the N'th night, but if I were in their place then I would have run away from that place much earlier.

Actually, if I saw M others with red eyes, then I would have escaped on the M'th night.

Tragically, running away would not save the others... unless the terms of the first vow allowed the followers to find a secluded cave and kill themselves there where none of the others would find their body.

If that was allowed and a person with red eyes escaped on the (N-1)th night, then everyone will be saved!

However, why would a red-eyed person escape BEFORE their M'th night?

So if there was no other reason to escape (such as the poor food), then all others are still doomed.

Dear spindoc,

Permit me a slight correction.

The sentence “It could mean I did not offer an apology at all, or that it was that of Zuesse whom you did not include.” should of course read “It could mean I did not offer an opinion at all, or that it was that of Zuesse whom you did not include.”

Regards

Dear Yuyutsu,

For me the main conundrum of the puzzle is not the conduct of of the participants (it is after all a fiction) but rather why deaths resulted because of some one imparting information that was already known to the followers. I of course acknowledge it was an outside agent so to speak but I'm not sure why this would make a difference. If you have any clue at all I would be grateful if you could share it with me.

Dear SteeleRedux,

The foreigner DID indeed impart new information:

If there was only one follower with red eyes, then he learned about it for the first time while the others then knew that now everyone knows that some have red eyes.

If there were two followers with red eyes, then those two learned for the first time that everyone else also knows that there are some with red eyes while the others knew that everyone now knows that everyone knows that some have red eyes.

If there were three followers with red eyes, then those three learned for the first time that everyone else knows that everyone knows that some have red eyes while the others knew that everyone now knows that everyone knows that everyone knows that some have red eyes.

... and so on ...

Religions goes by shades of gray..red eyes is a matrter of degree
no mirrors is an absurdity as we each reflect each others expressions

if i got red eyes people dont need say nuthiNG..[IKE l;eprocy..thery will avoid me]

much like its no secrete TO ANYONE ELSE
INSTEAD OF RED EYES THINK OF STINK..WE ALL KNOW WHO STINKS[OUR NOSE KNOWS..JUST AS PEOPLES EYES SEE INEVITABLY..THOSE WITH RED EYES..WHATEVER THAT MEANS..its no surprise to those who can Look around see alL the other red eyes..and surmise..[THE DREADED TRUTH

looks like can be deceiving
like A GENETIC DOG..CAN LOOK LIKE [YET Never be]..a CAT
UNLIKE SAY SIN..WHICH SOMEHOW WE CAN Distance from our own 'sins'..[recall it took jesus to look at leprosy..and say you aint got leprosy

i think of it like that saying''dont tak of the war''

or see no evil
or those who lead you are clearly insane/so ignore theM

‘morning Steelie,

I think we can conclude that you have no intention of answering the question after six postings of it.

<< What is the difference between private, institutional and corporate wealth? >>

Since you have now expended 11 lengthy posts in avoiding any answer, it’s time to examine why this innocuous question is so impossible for you?

You suggest << it is entirely appropriate that we deal with these matters in the order they were raised on the thread>>. I agree.

You started your thread with a puzzle however, by only your second post you had already converted the theme and focus to your “private wealth” targets of “Gina, Twiggy and Prince Clive” when you posted;

<< Let's set up the following hierarchy,

1. Gina, Twiggy and Prince Clive (GTC)
2. The former Labour government (LAB)
3. The former Liberal opposition (LIB)
4. Australia's middle class (MC)
5. Australia's 'Lower' Class (LC) >>

Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 11:08:35 PM

By changing the purpose and intent you hoisted the piñata to take a swing at your ideological enemies.

So before you get too far into pointing to my “thread derailing, allegations”. Perhaps you need to acknowledge just who introduced that change?

It’s your thread however, try to avoid using your own hypocrisy as a valid defense.

You then tried to justify your case by pointing to the Huffington Post article and the Credit Suisse report.

The difficulty you have with my question is that having changed the purpose and intent, you are now faced with acknowledging that there are many different “types” of wealth which would be counter to your private wealth case, and in fact demolish it.

You selectively allude to the private wealth of such as “Gina, Twiggy and Prince Clive” but you avoid addressing the vast private wealth accrued by superstars in the entertainment industry, the media, sports, trade unions and former politicians.

It is also counter to your case to allow examination of the corporate or institutional wealth, which likewise fund capital investment in our societies.

Cont’d.

Cont’d.

What you also failed to mention in your “not too subtle” change of motive and purpose, was that the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook was focused on “households” and not on the type of “private wealth” you so despise and want to see re-distributed. It might have been wise if you had actually read it rather than just the associated article.

Typically you chose to ignore all other forms of private, institutional or corporate wealth in order to make room for your case against the likes of “Gina, Twiggy and Prince Clive”.

The Wealth Report has this to say;

“The aim of the Credit Suisse Global Wealth project is to provide the best available estimates of the wealth holdings of households around the world for the period”.

You just “bent” this by the omission of “households” to suit your ideological needs.

Your modus operandi is both interesting and informative. Your use of motive questioning, thought numbing clichés, inducing guilt, providing over simplistic answers to the confusion you create, absolutism, blind acceptance of your orthodoxy, rejection of logic through complex responses (11 posts?) with incomprehensible doctrines, just to mention a few.

In your case we can also add omission, obfuscation, hypocrisy, diversion and a level of desperation to be right that goes way beyond the boundary defined by honor.

All because you refused to entertain any questioning of your proposition or to acknowledge the basis for not providing any answer, won’t or can’t.
(This comes under Cult Attribute No 1, “Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged”).

Just how does a person justify 11 lengthy, convoluted and diversionary posts, just to avoid one question?

We may never know the answer to this because you exist in a closed doctrinaire bubble that is self referential. Since no critical questions are seen as legitimate I guess we will see either more of the same from you, or you will shift to the mantra that being criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".

FOR SOME REASON..I KEEP HEARING THE WORDS ''Credit Suisse ''
SO I ADD IN A KEY WORD SCANDEL
TWO choices 2008/2012
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=credit+suisse+scandal&

sometimes those paid to spin dont as such point away..but to

so the 2008..RESULTED IN A MERE TRILLION FINES THANK GOD GOVTS BEEN BAILING OUT

BUT GOVT HASNT BEEN BAILING THE FED RESERVE HAS
WELL THE FED NOW IS haVING A LOT OF TROUBLE

BUT HECK YA KNEW THAT
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

http://www.voltairenet.org/article159686.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC8zGrOVq7w
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/29/beyond-a-doubt-our-media-war-propaganda-and-the-film-that-you-almost-didnt-see/

Dear spindoc,

Now, now son that's jumping the gun a bit don't you think?

All these things can be raised when we get to your question and I look forward to doing so, but there were other matters that preceded it and this will make it your 10th attempt not to address them.

On Wednesday, 26 March 2014 5:35:56 PM you posted the following this charge;
“Hi Steelie, Likewise, so good to hear from you, or at least via you. (Channeling the opinion of others). I’m curious as to why you don’t have an opinion of your own? Huffington Post? Davos? When are you going to formulate or express your OWN opinion?”

On Thursday, 27 March 2014 3:16:33 PM after a detailed explanation from me you chose to further reinforced the point;
“You can insist as long as you like that this is all your own opinion however, this is not true is it?”

And on Friday, 28 March 2014 7:55:57 AM you had another crack with;
“Since it was non of the above you are now left with trying to defend the opinion of Eric Zueese”

All delivered before you put your question to me. I have repeatedly asked you to address your charge but it has been 10 posts from you of obfuscation culminating in a faux apology. I wasn't after an apology, just an acknowledgement that you were incorrect in your charge against me. All your bleating does not change this chronology and as previously stated the only logical way forward is to address these matters in the order they were put. If you feel this simple thing is too onerous then so be it but I'm not the one who should be wearing the blame for it.

Hi Steelie,

Relax, you no longer need to answer the question, I just did it for you!

Perhaps you should do more “reading” of posts and less “feeling” then you might have noticed.

I guess we just got tired of getting jerked around.

Thanks anyway.

Dear spindoc,

You wrote;

“I guess we just got tired of getting jerked around.”

Indeed. Yet I do feel we achieved a small measure of reasonable debate and gave each other the courtesy of allowing the other to fully elucidate their point of contention.

In closing I will just raise a small point of clarification. You wrote;

“Relax, you no longer need to answer the question, I just did it for you!”

Well not the original one you didn't. You had put to me; “explain your perspective on the “difference” between private, institutional and corporate wealth.” and “you must address the outstanding points related to your perspective on the “difference” between private, institutional and corporate wealth”. You do not know my perspective you have just given yours and assumed it to be the answer just like you assumed the opinion I posted was not mine.

Be that as it may I was pleased to see the epitaphs disappear from the conversation. 'Slippery' to 'Mug' to 'Idiot' to 'Al Bundy' plus I acknowledge I do have to ease up on tit for tat exchanges. Likewise always meeting belligerence with belligerence is a bit like forever eating McDonalds, enjoyable at the time but hardly substantial fare.

Finally my thanks to your good self as well.