4 ms·

> This headline formulation is statistical malpractice You provided zero evidence for that claim. Let's look at the raw numbers, percentages first, as you sugg

> This headline formulation is statistical malpractice You provided zero evidence for that claim. Let's look at the raw numbers, percentages first, as you suggested: : share of wealth of top 0.1% : 2000 - 10.35%, 2025 - 14.4% share of wealth of top 10% : 2000 - 62.6%, 2025 - 68.01% share of wealth of bottom 50% : 2000 - 3.2% , 2025 - 2.4% > It's defines a "record" that will get regularly broken by default even when nothing interesting changes. This claim is mathematical malpractice - the numbers clearly show that the top is going up while the bottom is going down... percentage-wise! Mathematically, the up-side is limited by 100% and the down-side by 0%, there's no way this can be "regularity broken", ad infinitum, it will end with the top at 100 and the bottom at 0, aka nothing left to trickle up. > What we should be tracking and concerned-about is the proportional distribution of the total wealth among groups... [a couple of selective and confusing quotes] I did what you urged us to do, but the conclusion is the opposite of your "nothing interesting to see here".

Terr_ 10mo ago
Wow, I-don't-even. My short comment contained only two claims: 1. Nominal dollars held is a "record" that will get regularly broken by default even when nothing interesting happens, therefore it being "broken" tells us very little. 2. Instead, what we should be tracking and concerned-about is the proportional distribution. I didn't expect either to be controversial, but somehow you've created something wildly different in your mind in order to be excitedly outraged over it. ____________________________________________________________ > You provided zero evidence for that claim. In a thread about economics, you should already be aware that (A) inflation is typical and (B) the American economy is typically growing rather than shrinking. If you need to cry "SOURCE!?" over these concepts, then something is wrong. > the numbers clearly show that the top is going up while the bottom is going down... percentage-wise! Yes, looking at proportional amounts is exactly what I told you to do, and it's consistent with the numbers I quoted from the article showing an uptick for the 1%. I just don't know why you're acting like it's a surprise. > there's no way [percentage records] can be "regularity broken", ad infinitum Oh, I see, you've just imagined-up a dumb thing nobody said. I explicitly referred to the headline, and headline is in dollars, not percentages. Incidentally, you're also wrong: There are infinitely-many opportunities to exceed a real-number by infinitely small amounts. (As you go from ~17% to 100%.) > the conclusion is the opposite of your "nothing interesting to see here". *looks down at notepad* Is the "conclusion" inside the room with us now? Can you point to it's exact-words, so that the rest of us can see it?
- bigbadfeline 10mo ago
  Oh no, you were so right... or so you've convinced yourself. > Can you point to it's exact-words, so that the rest of us can see it? >>It's defines a "record" that will get regularly broken by default even when nothing interesting changes. > There are infinitely-many opportunities to exceed a real-number by infinitely small amounts. All of them existing only in the abstract and none of them applicable to changes of real data. What quantum theory did you study? Looking at what you wrote, any further discussions are pointless. Have a nice day/night/etc.
  - Terr_ 10mo ago
    A drama in three parts. 1. Article: "The neon sign is lit, which shows the convenience store is open." 2. Terr: "No, the neon sign is always on, even when the convenience store is closed. Instead, you should go look through those windows, see the cashier inside? 3. BigBadFeline : "OMG why are you saying the store is closed? It's open! You're crazy."

Terr_ 10mo ago

Wow, I-don't-even. My short comment contained only two claims: 1. Nominal dollars held is a "record" that will get regularly broken by default even when nothing interesting happens, therefore it being "broken" tells us very little. 2. Instead, what we should be tracking and concerned-about is the proportional distribution. I didn't expect either to be controversial, but somehow you've created something wildly different in your mind in order to be excitedly outraged over it. ____________________________________________________________ > You provided zero evidence for that claim. In a thread about economics, you should already be aware that (A) inflation is typical and (B) the American economy is typically growing rather than shrinking. If you need to cry "SOURCE!?" over these concepts, then something is wrong. > the numbers clearly show that the top is going up while the bottom is going down... percentage-wise! Yes, looking at proportional amounts is exactly what I told you to do, and it's consistent with the numbers I quoted from the article showing an uptick for the 1%. I just don't know why you're acting like it's a surprise. > there's no way [percentage records] can be "regularity broken", ad infinitum Oh, I see, you've just imagined-up a dumb thing nobody said. I explicitly referred to the headline, and headline is in dollars, not percentages. Incidentally, you're also wrong: There are infinitely-many opportunities to exceed a real-number by infinitely small amounts. (As you go from ~17% to 100%.) > the conclusion is the opposite of your "nothing interesting to see here". *looks down at notepad* Is the "conclusion" inside the room with us now? Can you point to it's exact-words, so that the rest of us can see it?

bigbadfeline 10mo ago
Oh no, you were so right... or so you've convinced yourself. > Can you point to it's exact-words, so that the rest of us can see it? >>It's defines a "record" that will get regularly broken by default even when nothing interesting changes. > There are infinitely-many opportunities to exceed a real-number by infinitely small amounts. All of them existing only in the abstract and none of them applicable to changes of real data. What quantum theory did you study? Looking at what you wrote, any further discussions are pointless. Have a nice day/night/etc.
- Terr_ 10mo ago
  A drama in three parts. 1. Article: "The neon sign is lit, which shows the convenience store is open." 2. Terr: "No, the neon sign is always on, even when the convenience store is closed. Instead, you should go look through those windows, see the cashier inside? 3. BigBadFeline : "OMG why are you saying the store is closed? It's open! You're crazy."