So Dissapointing...

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 10:36:14 PM UTC+10, dcaster@krl.org wrote:

On Saturday, August 15, 2020 at 11:44:36 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 3:25:55 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Friday, August 14, 2020 at 11:40:20 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 15, 2020 at 7:14:32 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 12:43:48 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 12:29:01 AM UTC+10, edward...@gmail..com wrote:
On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 7:07:37 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 25, 2020 at 12:16:52 AM UTC+10, edward...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 2:03:48 PM UTC-7, Ricketty C wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 1:39:59 PM UTC-4, edward....@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

The US makes a great song and dance about freedom - James Arthur does it here regularly - but in practice if you haven\'t got an income above $538,926 per year to get yourself into the top 1% of the income distribution, you haven\'t got a lot of freedom, and the the people who have incomes above that have got a lot freedom to make your life difficult .

Horse Pucky. No freedom if one makes $ 538,926 per year , but freedom if one makes one penny more.

That\'s not remotely what I was saying, and only a half-wit like Dan would be silly enough to read it that way.
It is a direct quote of your post. It may not be what you meant to say , but it is exactly what you did say.

Only an idiot would post an amount with 6 digits in reference to how much freedom a person has.

The threshold does seem to be at around the point where you income is higher than that of 99% of the rest of the population, and that threshold can be quantified to six digits in any given year. It sets the context.

If you\'ve got a higher income that you are in the range where you can influence the the rest of the society in ways that suit you. rather then them. Obviously if you have a lot more money, you have a lot more influence.

Only an idiot would read the precise income that defined the boundary as a precise definition of where the effect of having a high income kicked in.

Only an idiot would WRITE the precise income that defined the boundary as a precise definition of where the effect of having a high income kicked in..

I didn\'t. I said that once you had crossed that boundary you had got into a territory where you had more freedom.

One can be precise about where the top 1% of the income distribution starts. Nobody with any grasp of reality would imagine that there would be a dramatic change in the social environment as you crossed that threshold, and spelling out that it would not constitute a sharp threshold would have been decidedly patronisng. Of course, you had to be told.

Anybody with any grasp of reality would be aware that disposable income - rather than actual income - is what matters to everybody except statisticians, who are fixated on what they can measure easily. Actual income tracks disposable income closely enough to be a useful proxy, but having enough disposable income to have appreciable freedom of action does depend heavily on the cost of the action you want to take to assert your freedom.

A single cent is rarely going to be crucial. What\'s more likely to be crucial is having neighbours and acquaintances who set an example by spending money to assert their freedom. Few people are all that innovative, but most of us are good at copying other peole\'s behaviour.

I really should have snipped this - you clearly didn\'t read it before posting your response - but the fact that you didn\'t bother to read it before you reacted does emphasise that you don\'t think before you post. I\'m getting to think that you don\'t think at all - it\'s all knee-jerk reflex with you.

I am just pointing out that you clearly didn\'t think before posting.

That\'s what you did. I can be accused of not writing something much longer and more tedious to spell exactly exactly what I was implying for the benefit of the occasional half-wit like you, but all you are pointing out is that you are a literal-minded twit who doesn\'t bother thinking about implications..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, August 17, 2020 at 12:15:25 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:

On Sunday, 16 August 2020 13:36:14 UTC+1, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, August 15, 2020 at 11:44:36 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 3:25:55 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Friday, August 14, 2020 at 11:40:20 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 15, 2020 at 7:14:32 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 12:43:48 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

<snip>

I am just pointing out that you clearly didn\'t think before posting.

He never listens to his bs being pointed out. Nothing new.

NT does think that any post that disagrees with any of his silly ideas is bs. He should have got used to be exposed to informed criticism by now, but prefers to imagine that he\'s always right and is merely being picked on by people who are envious of his intellectual pre-eminence.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney