What do you kiddies think of this?

[Dozyproductions]

Not really, it pretty much hit the nail on the head with what's wrong with both peoples' perception on the US and why their perception is wrong.

So this country was great when we were killing indians and other indigenous people? When we fought mexico and canada for land that wasn't ours, slavery, when we had a civil war (600,000+ died), womens rights? When the same bankers and other robber barons ruled this country even before 1913 and yadda yadda yadda? People weren't more informed, it was just that responsibility of survival was more in their hands so they were more occupied with their own affairs. People have been politically swayed and tricked for as long as this country has been around. Now we just have the technology to go into a true police state any time we want. But hell I can still love this country to death.

That link was weak sauce because it played on emotion.

But do you really think anywhere in Europe is any better? They're all part of a Union that is run by un-elected officials making laws that no one has a vote on. Western Europe hates the influx of immigrants... so they're also racist as fuck too? They may have better programs there and there but it doesn't come for free. If you want your kid to be smart then take responsibility for his/her education.

I agree that with the military budget. We don't need the 800+ bases around the world to keep US citizens safe. Being of Polish decent I can relate how it doesn't even take an event of invasion or occupation to make a populace hate the aggressor. It takes one military base, one civilian death, one moment. Oh but we can look past that because we will be greeted as liberators or we'll be protecting US citizens and don't worry about how many other civilians have to die for that. That I can agree with you.

This wage inequality is ridiculous. My dad and I were talking about this link a while ago. He worked for Bank of America with 20 people under him for about 27 years after coming to this country without even knowing english and nothing more than a suitcase for his clothes. He admittedly benefited from this system but this is how he described it to work.

A company like BofA hires a third party company to evaluate wage competitiveness of BofA to regards to other companies. This third party will always take in account inflation and the fact that perhaps people haven't had raises in a while so to keep competitive they will suggest to the board that salaries should be raised. But of course that only goes to the upper percentile in the company (my father was at the bottom of that %). Then the board votes on the findings to either raise or maintain current salaries. But the board of directors is full of CEO's from other companies and the likes, and wanting their own salaries and benefits increased, they will always vote for the increase so in the future in this company or another company they are apart of... their other benefits will be raised. It's like cops looking out for cops or congress voting for their own salary. Before you know it, these top people are earning an artificial pay raise based on the the buddy system. Times that one study by thousands over the last 30 years and by all the different companies involved and that would explain one reason for the huge inequality.


Politicians will only get worse, its the natural progression of any position of power that is backed by a gun. So how legitimate are our laws or even government if its enforced through the end of a barrel? Those are questions we need to start asking ourselves.

[decay]

That link was weak sauce because it played on emotion.

unfortunately, appeal to emotion is what works when addressing a largely uneducated audience that does not tend to think critically.

hence michael moore, glenn beck, etc etc etc

[Dozyproductions]

unfortunately, appeal to emotion is what works when addressing a largely uneducated audience that does not tend to think critically.

hence michael moore, glenn beck, etc etc etc

Economic, political and societal systems would be included in that as well.

It's how humanity is run and controlled.

[slaterd]

To Dozzy: Another question that needs to not be asked, but needs an answer with it is..."Can we, as citizens, really change anything about our country?" Constitutionally it says that we are capable...however, with the way the government, military, and large businesses have been structure it doesn't matter how many millions speak up because they are easily drowned out by the large income gaps that the link represents in a very disturbingly accurate way.

$$$, unfortunately, rules the world, not morals.

[z31maniac]

^

Really an even more nanny state sounds good to you??? Dont let the door hit ya in the ass on the way out..........


thank woody (Wilson) for starters

what you think I was kidding ??? what was so funny the Nanny state?? or the door impacting your ass upon your exit???

Address the fucking point of the video I posted.

You seriously can't defend 400 people having the same wealth as the bottom 50% of the country can you? Do you really believe the CEO of my company does 400x the work of me or any of the Engineers in my dept (you know, the people who design the stuff that gets built and sold)

I want you to present a well laid-out and analyzed response. One that doesn't include a bunch of bullshit quotes from guys who have been dead a few hundred years.

I know you haven't watched the video because you're ignoring the imbalance without accepting it can be more reasonable without being OH MY FUCKING GOD IT'S SOCIALISM WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!

[lambo]

lol off topic banter...

I am actually genuinely interested in people's analysis of the content that this video presents...

[mrsleeve]

Address the fucking point of the video I posted.

You seriously can't defend 400 people having the same wealth as the bottom 50% of the country can you? Do you really believe the CEO of my company does 400x the work of me or any of the Engineers in my dept (you know, the people who design the stuff that gets built and sold)

I want you to present a well laid-out and analyzed response. One that doesn't include a bunch of bullshit quotes from guys who have been dead a few hundred years.

I know you haven't watched the video because you're ignoring the imbalance without accepting it can be more reasonable without being OH MY FUCKING GOD IT'S SOCIALISM WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!

1: I watched this Video back in December and again about 2 weeks ago when it started making news and "going Viral"

2: I have been on record for a long while now that CEO pay is certainly a bit outta hand, and has been for a solid decade. You know this or at least you should we have had these talks before. I have no issues with these people making this kinda money so long as they continue to make the company profitable, grow the business and do the job they are hired to do. I think its bull shit they get paid when they fuck up and take the business down, and have to get a bail out from you and me.......

3: Are you and the engineers responsible for 1000's to tens of thousands of employees all over the country or globe??? Are you responsible for managing and overseeing BILLIONS of dollars worth of transactions on a monthly or annual basis??? Do you think you have the ability or skill set to take on one of those roles ??? Or do you have the willingness to have that kinda responsibility. DO you want to work those kinds of hours??? Nope didnt think so, with huge amounts of responsibility and the buck literately stops with you and the fate of an entire company ultimately falls on your shoulders, should come huge amounts of compensation.

Now on the flip side this is a huge by product of allowing the govt to get involved with everything and allowing those in certain positions with in a given industry to craft their own laws that will regulate said industries. I have issues with this, I believe the term is crony capitalism?

Yes there are a FEW ULTRA wealthy individuals in this country that have amassed HUGE fortunes many of which started their business from their mothers garage or parents basements!!!!!!!! Should they have to give some of that wealth away to those that dont have it??? Based on the shear fact that they have so much.

I am sorry I have no ill will toward the rich and even the ultra rich based on what they have. I do have issue with many of them dating back to the robber barons that have and continue to rig the game making it that much harder for others who are willing to take the same type of risks and make the same kind of sacrifices to achieve the same kind of successes.

Like I said, Woody and the Federal reserve act, I think you will find many of your top 400 on the list of current beneficiaries of this act. You want one of the wost and most divisive wealth transfer instruments that has done nothing but bleed the middle class, the 30 year Mortgage and its LEGAL.


Slaterd: Like I have said before this country is not with out its faults, but 2761377 summed it up nicely for you.

For once I think I agree completely with Dozzy, other than maybe the implied guilt about colonialism in the 1st paragraph of post #16. As to our global military presence, I am personally divided on it as to should we really have that much in country foreign presence, though based on out standing in the world as the only real super power are they a necessary evil and by product of that stature???

[Pinepig]

To Dozzy: Another question that needs to not be asked, but needs an answer with it is..."Can we, as citizens, really change anything about our country?" Constitutionally it says that we are capable...however, with the way the government, military, and large businesses have been structure it doesn't matter how many millions speak up because they are easily drowned out by the large income gaps that the link represents in a very disturbingly accurate way.

$$$, unfortunately, rules the world, not morals.

Morals ruling the world would be just as bad ( if not worse ) than the almighty dollar doing it.

[rwh11385]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=QPKKQnijnsM

I knew it was bad, but not this bad.

I think Bill Mahr said the top 400 people have as much wealth as the bottom 150 million people.

Pretty good display of information. Proper data visualization and presentation is a rarity - especially if so many people making horridly designed infographics. And the message wasn't too slanted - just looking to spark a discussion of perception vs. reality. (Like what you said, unaware of magnitude)

The trouble is self-interest and emotional response rather than discussion on logic. Like with the mortgage interest deduction which makes little to no sense but homebuilders support it and taxpayers think they need it, even if few make use of it.

There are a couple things that could be done to improve things, but the two biggest would be bring up the poor and ensure that the wealthy are rewarded in a fair way.

First, I think that the US could do a much better job at improving the bottom 20%. This is habitually a problem since the GOP and Democrats seem to think that this requires more handouts, while it is more about helping people with hand-ups... and not necessarily the government's job solely. I think that a great responsibility ought to be with privately driven NGOs that take in donations from those concerned about the poor and use those funds to improve their housing options (Habitat for Humanity), job placement, education and training, food security, paying for school and education, etc. The government ought to help provide a fair environment and opportunity, but private management seems to do more than governmental bureaucracy. Some people do take advantage of the system while not trying to strive upwards, while others need it to survive and a few work very hard to make something of themselves. For those who succeed academically, they can attend some of the top private universities debt-free - and then their offspring will have a better foundation. You can also look at things such as family planning, like in Texas's recent reversal as a possible cause of poverty - having kids when not able to afford or raise and then dependent on the system.

Second, you need to ensure that the tax system is fair. This can mean many things, but like I posted somewhere before about FairTax or consumption tax, the analysis that lead to the Reagan tax cuts studied what is fair and it generally means that people who make the same amount should paid roughly the same. The deductions we have skew that, as does things such as carried interest. I've never felt great about the carried interest loophole and feel that it is the result of people who benefit from it lobbying a crapton of money to keep it, which in turn encourages politicians to keep letting them benefit and fill their election campaign funding, rather than the Treasury's coffers. Normal people get their bonuses taxed fairly, but not private equity?

http://blogs.wsj.com/privateequity/2013/02/25/the-morning-leverage-is-carried-interest-just-a-government-hand-out/

The Morning Leverage: Is Carried Interest Just a Government Hand-Out?

E.L. Rothschild Chief Executive Lynn Forester de Rothschild takes a firm stand against carried interest in an op-ed piece for the New York Times, calling it a “tax-payer subsidized fee” for managing client money. Rothschild posits that carried interest reform should receive bi-partisan support as it plays “to Republicans’ supposed hatred of government handouts and to Democrats’ commitment to social justice,” – but because of the clout of the financial lobby “the loophole most likely won’t be closed…giving us another reason to distrust our democracy and our capitalist system.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/opinion/carried-interest-an-unjust-privilege-for-financiers.html?_r=1&

Millions of general partners in investment funds receive carried-interest income when they earn profits for their clients. Since these partners do not have to risk any of their own capital, carried interest is really a taxpayer-subsidized fee for managing their clients’ money — often 20 percent of the profits generated in the fund, and sometimes significantly more than that.

No other affluent Americans enjoy this benefit. A brain surgeon, stockbroker, corporate lawyer or actor will have to pay the new top marginal rate percent, while a general partner who manages other people’s money pays, on carried-interest income, only the 20 percent rate on long-term capital gains.

This state of affairs denies our Treasury much-needed revenue; fuels public cynicism in government; and is evidence of the “crony capitalism” that favors some economic sectors over others. When plutocrats join with both parties to protect their own vested interests, the result is a corrosion of confidence in the free-market system.

The carried-interest loophole may seem small compared with this year’s projected $900 billion deficit, but ending it would be a major signal that Washington is ready to put an end to business as usual.

Lynn Forester de Rothschild is the chief executive of E. L. Rothschild, a family-owned investment holding company.

Which mentions the growing concern that some have that government is an arm of the lobbyists that support politicians, rather than a body for the good of the country. It is supposed to be the government of and for the people, not just for the largest donors.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/republicans_find_a_tax_hike_they_actually_like-222576-1.html

Speaker John A. Boehner “can probably offer a carried interest amendment as one tax increase that is warranted,” said a Republican lobbyist with relationships on both ends of Capitol Hill. “If we are forced into a sequester conference that demands taxes, Democrats can screw their big, rich donors.”

A GOP House aide confirmed Friday that carried interest was the most likely place where Republicans would compromise on tax increases — both because it would put top Democrats in a bind and because they believe its impact on the economy would be minimal.

Nonetheless, all the "eat the rich" talk is not productive. That one video with similar ability to communicate information and data showed that government cannot raise enough revenue from simply the "rich" - whatever definition you like for the US. If you had the tax system be less progressive, then it might be able to generate more revenue but at the risk of slowing down the economy and pissing off a lot of the middle class. However, improving education K-12 (maybe even kindergarten) and increasing acceptance and promotion of technical training for people not into the typical 4 year college approach can improve the people who might otherwise be HS dropouts, with low incomes, high unemployment, and need the safety nets.

Additionally, the $250K definition of rich draws the lower end of target towards people like doctors and engineers and other hardworking professionals who are far from "rich" and in some regions (CA, NY) would simply be getting by. If someone worked hard in their education and highly skilled, they should be able to be rewarded for that, and pay their fair share. But villianizing such success is disruptive to society and not productive. That one piece from the advisor who saw the difference between the top 10%, the 9-9.5%, and the last 0.5% was pretty telling.

And people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs who took risks and grew their businesses and revolutionized their industries and our countries should be rewarded as well. And Gate's Foundation is doing a lot of good in the world and giving back (like I mentioned in the first part). If someone magically finds a cheap and renewable replacement for gasoline, they should be rich because all of us would benefit incredibly. Or if someone cures cancer. We should have incentives to innovate and make things happen. But we shouldn't confuse management with leadership. (Poor direction from a bad CEO shouldn't be rewarded IMO but a turn-around or impactful change to society should be)


What will hopefully help is people being able to help fund projects and products they believe in. I posted about crowdfunding before and believe it takes down the walls of finance to things that people want or need and should drive growth in the future. Instead of ideas' futures being decided by some wealthy person, a bunch of middle class people can pitch in and support a product they'd like and then production can begin. I just received my Orapup dog tongue scraper that was made possible by Indiegogo. This product might not have existed if normal consumers didn't have a mechanism to fundraise its initial production.

If kids are told that they have the power to be creative and make solutions that serve people's needs or wants, the country can return to the home of the American Dream. The parents of yester-year were too focused on telling them to go to college (for anything) and get a corporate job and work their way up the ladder to happiness. A lot of people weren't happy and then the financial crisis took the job security away. But learning to deliver what people want is what the country needs. This story about teens designing a product and being little entrepeuners inspires me for the country's future:

http://www.fastcompany.com/3003663/meet-some-first-grads-high-school-startup-prodigy-camp-giraffelabs

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/giraffestand/the-giraffestand-an-ipad-bed-mount

The shifts in industries displaced some people and created a disconnect between labor supply and demand by companies, but kids these days are growing up with technology and should keep informed about skills companies need through the BLS outlooks. But also, they should try to be on the front line of tech and pursue the creation of their own jobs through entrepreneurship. It's not for everyone, but then neither are cubicles.

And obviously I support R&D for conquering the problems and challenges facing our country and the world. Great innovations and revolutions have come from government support of research into things such as networks, space travel and satellites, etc. We also need companies to spend on developing technologies and finding solutions that deliver happiness to their customers. And R&D and innovation can provide even the poorest improved situations and benefits that might not exist without such advances. At one point, no one had access to the internet, mobile phones, computers, A/C, cars, or electricity... but competition and innovation have improved these things and brought down their cost over the years. New tech sometimes is not affordable to all, but the presence of rich or wealthy that can buy and support infant product categories or tech can help make it accessible to all. Having new toys first can be incentive to succeed and innovate yourself, and afford to be an early adopter... but having technology improve everyone's life is fairness and what our the ideals of a free market would aspire to do.

[rwh11385]

I want you to present a well laid-out and analyzed response. One that doesn't include a bunch of bullshit quotes from guys who have been dead a few hundred years.

I know you haven't watched the video because you're ignoring the imbalance without accepting it can be more reasonable without being OH MY FUCKING GOD IT'S SOCIALISM WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!

Hilarious and well played.


slaterd, nice Newsroom clip. The biggest step in dealing with a problem is indeed admitting or realizing that there is one. Looking at the biased news battling each other on emotion rather than facts, with the country divided and without a rational way to agree on something like taxes or budgets is a problem. So is any confusion on what freedom actually is and whether or not it should be illegal to love someone else because of their gender, like it used to be a debate if people from different races should be allowed to marry.

Instead of dealing with problems, both sides deal with pointing blame. And we won't get very far that way, as has been demonstrated.

In what way though?
I would say Canada, New Zealand, nearly all of western Europe.
These countries are far more evolved than the US (health, education, better education systems, less incarcerated citizens, support of the sciences, non-militaristic etc. etc.)

In case you haven't seen this by chance, http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/24514113451

But maybe you have since you mentioned Australia and it topped the list last year.

Catering to my personal preferences, Switzerland beats out US and followed by Canada, Australia, and Norway. (then Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland) I'd really like to live and work in Scandinavia at some point in my career. At the very least I'd want to visit Norway and Switzerland, perhaps as soon as next year.

Speaking of which:

But do you really think anywhere in Europe is any better? They're all part of a Union that is run by un-elected officials making laws that no one has a vote on.

http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm

Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU, so your attack on European countries doesn't really apply to the two European countries at the top of the happiest index [for my settings].

Additionally, if the country could admit it has problems and not react with such hubris at the notion of learning from other countries, then we could improve our ways. We could look at Switzerland or Finland for their gun policies. Or Finland for its educational support. Or to Germany for its secondary education and options for technical vs. academic post-secondary. Or Germany's rise of manufacturing and cooperation between companies and its represented employees. Or how some countries handle religion of others respectfully.

And it doesn't have to be all or nothing, but we can pick and choose what we like and what could work from what wouldn't. We could find ways to improve our country while keeping what people value about America.

unfortunately, appeal to emotion is what works when addressing a largely uneducated audience that does not tend to think critically.

hence michael moore, glenn beck, etc etc etc

Bingo. It's why the local news is always trying to scare you, and it's a rarity for media to just try to inform you so that you can choose an opinion for yourself. Moore or Beck have found their voices repeated because of upsetting people, which doesn't result in much progress or compromise, just shouting and anger.

The money for all those ads, and all of that biased media, help to herd people into believing what politicians want people to think. People do have the freedom to educate themselves and be informed, but not everyone chooses to do so. Maybe some day the country with stand up and hold politicians accountable to what the voters want.

[Dozyproductions]

To Dozzy: Another question that needs to not be asked, but needs an answer with it is..."Can we, as citizens, really change anything about our country?" Constitutionally it says that we are capable...however, with the way the government, military, and large businesses have been structure it doesn't matter how many millions speak up because they are easily drowned out by the large income gaps that the link represents in a very disturbingly accurate way.

$$$, unfortunately, rules the world, not morals.

There is a practical way to challenge the very system based on our fake money and supposedly our fake laws. This guy from diymobileaudio.com has already spelled it out so I'm going link it for you.

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/off-topic/142804-one-peoples-public-trust-1776-oppt-you-free.html

Plus you can listen to this for other ways to explain the material in the above mentioned link.




This explains it a little bit better with a way better accent even though this particular situation applies for Australia and Australians.

http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm

Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU, so your attack on European countries doesn't really apply to the two European countries at the top of the happiest index [for my settings].

Additionally, if the country could admit it has problems and not react with such hubris at the notion of learning from other countries, then we could improve our ways.

And it doesn't have to be all or nothing, but we can pick and choose what we like and what could work from what wouldn't. We could find ways to improve our country while keeping what people value about America.

My so called 'attack' on Europe is putting your words as my own. What basis is this happy index founded upon? Since happiness isn't something that can possibly be explained let alone be agreed upon I'm going to disregard your argument you made that is based on it. Just because you can link me to death regarding anything you talk about, at the end of the day you're giving me nothing more than 'professional' opinion and not fact.

After that I can acknowledge that the United States of America (the real We the People) , and not the United States inc, has a lot of fixing up to do to be a nation that truly stands for the pursuit of life, liberty and property. I do like the idea that using the best ideas available from humanity to mold a more 'perfect' system and that ideas shouldn't arbitrarily be thrown out just because other people use them. It goes along with my belief of singular consciousness of humanity but that's another stupid story.

[rwh11385]

My so called 'attack' on Europe is putting your words as my own.

Um, you questioned if anywhere in Europe could possibly be better than the US and ruled out the possibility because "they're all in the EU"... even when they not. Your words were wrong, don't blame me for pointing that out.

What basis is this happy index founded upon?

Wouldn't that be a question that could be easily answered by looking at it before pushing it aside, like you did an entire continent?

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/about/better-life-initiative/

What’s the point of Your Better Life Index?

There’s been a lot of debate lately on measuring the well-being of societies – is wealth all that matters, or should we be looking at other things, like the balance between work and the rest of our lives? The Index aims to involve citizens in this debate, and to empower them to become more informed and engaged in the policy-making process that shapes all our lives.

Since happiness isn't something that can possibly be explained let alone be agreed upon...

Why choose 11 topics of well-being?

Since it was founded in 1961, the OECD has helped governments design better policies for better lives for their citizens. More recently, the OECD has been keenly involved in the debate on measuring well-being. Based on this experience, these 11 topics reflect what the OECD has identified as essential to well-being in terms of material living conditions (housing, income, jobs) and quality of life (community, education, environment, governance, health, life satisfaction, safety and work-life balance).

Each topic is built on one to three specific indicators: For example, the Jobs topic is based on four separate measures: the employment rate, personal earnings, the long-term unemployment rate and job security. For each indicator you can also compare results for men and women, and see how much your social and economic status affects results.

The basis is that looking at 11 topics of well-being, qualities of countries can be compared... per an individuals priorities and weighting. The scores are connected directly with hard data and measures - which provide objective facts to rank which country is better for you, rather than subjective "mine is the best, period"

Which country is #1?

That’s up to you! The OECD has not assigned rankings to countries. Instead, Your Better Life Indexis designed to let you, the user, investigate how each of the 11 topics can contribute to well-being. If you think Housing is more important than Environment, for example, just change the ratings in Your Better Life Index toolbar and instantly see how countries compare. When you’ve created your own Index, click “Compare” to see how your Index compares with other people in your country or around the world, and “Share this Index” to show it to your friends and further the debate on what makes for a better life.

The qualities that make for happiness or well-being in a country depend on the person and won't be agree upon universally, which is why the index can be tuned to you. Again, you attack something while knowing nothing about it.

... I'm going to disregard your argument you made that is based on it. Just because you can link me to death regarding anything you talk about, at the end of the day you're giving me nothing more than 'professional' opinion and not fact.

You can disregard all it all you want, but like your incorrect claim about all of Europe being in the EU... making conclusions while ignoring information will lead you to ignorant statements. The index gives you facts about how countries compare and provide a platform to discuss how they suit their citizens and how might they catch up or improve. Why wouldn't you want a source of information that provides specific indicators of quality of life when discussing different societies? Unless, of course, you simply want to blurt out baseless opinion and disregard facts... then you are just sharing beliefs, not discussing with an informed opinion.

[mrsleeve]

We know Europe is so much better.

[Farbin Kaiber]

$$$, unfortunately, rules the world, not morals.

Well, you can't legislate morality, but you can legislate the form of transfer for services rendered and goods received. So, it should be assumed that rule is based on what can, not what cannot be legislated.

[Dozyproductions]

Um, you questioned if anywhere in Europe could possibly be better than the US and ruled out the possibility because "they're all in the EU"... even when they not. Your words were wrong, don't blame me for pointing that out.

You can disregard all it all you want, but like your incorrect claim about all of Europe being in the EU... making conclusions while ignoring information will lead you to ignorant statements. The index gives you facts about how countries compare and provide a platform to discuss how they suit their citizens and how might they catch up or improve. Why wouldn't you want a source of information that provides specific indicators of quality of life when discussing different societies? Unless, of course, you simply want to blurt out baseless opinion and disregard facts... then you are just sharing beliefs, not discussing with an informed opinion.

You're nitpicking my writing style and not my point. Saving some time in typing isn't the same as being ignorant, but from observation it seems you enjoy being overly combative but, don't blame me for pointing that out ;)

And for the index, they admit that the determining factors are based on their opinion of what's important and measurements should be used based on individual preference. Those 'facts' are formed from theory which ultimately stems from informed opinions ... which are still opnions that aren't yours! I know what I deem as happiness and I know that you do too and I bet that there would be nuances in the comparison, especially if you add a couple of million other people to the mix. Being in control of yourself, you're able to determine how happy you feel as easy as being able to believe in achieving it. If the definition of what is being measured isn't conclusive then how legitimate are the facts based on such a foundation?

Discussing such tangents is so unproductive but does go in parallel with the unquestioning nature of law, which is merely enforceable opinions made by strangers... so wealth imbalance what now?