Who are the Fools and who are the Suckers

Two wrongs do not make a right.

A national (Australian population: 24 Million) dis-advantage can still be an international advantage (world population = 7.4 Billion).

Causes for Australian disadvantage
http://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/834-Rising-inequality-in-Australia.pdf

 

? What two wrongs?

You are joking aren't you?

In Australia, an Aboriginal youth can be put into jail simply because they had the "privilege" of being born Aboriginal.

"In Western Australia, the situation is significantly worse than the national picture. Between July 2013 and June 2014, Indigenous young people were on average 53 times more likely" to be in detention, according to the Amnesty report.​

A generation lost if Indigenous youth incarceration rate continues: Amnesty

In the Northern Territory, Aboriginal people make up almost 90 per cent of the prison population. In juvenile justice it’s 96 per cent. But it doesn’t have the worst record. Western Australia jails its Indigenous population at the highest rate on earth. The incarceration rate of black males in WA is more than eight times greater than it was at the height of Apartheid in South Africa (this from a state that last week announced it would be closing more than 100 remote Aboriginal communities, to deafening silence from the Australian population).
​

NT Juvenile Prison Abuse: The Most Shocking Part Is That Anyone Is Actually Shocked - New Matilda

Combine those imprisonment rates with the high rate of Aboriginal deaths in custody and you highlight the very real, life threatening, risks that Aboriginals face simply from being Aboriginal.

The article you quoted made this claim which you are somehow now trying to defend:

I wouldn't say that being born an Aboriginal Australian gives any Aboriginal an enormous advantage over most other people in the world. I am genuinely surprised you would try to defend such a claim.

 

Aborginal Australians suffer a disadvantage based on racial discrimination, and are in no way representative of Australia when it comes to advantages that non-aborginal Australians (implied by the author from the contextual narrative) enjoy as compared to rest of the world.

Rather disingenuous to suggest that a marginalized minority of country should be used for international comparison. Apples with apples.

 

I think he just overlooked Aboriginal Australians, like many do, smugly making the observation that Everyone born in Australia starts with an enormous advantage over most other people in the world. This statement is true of privileged Australians, but what about all the other Australians who are not privileged? Then if you are comparing privileged Australians to "most other people in the world", do you also exclude underprivileged of other countries around the world? i.e. comparing apples with apples? I really think this weakens his argument.

Only if we are comparing non-marginalised Australians with non-marginalised people from other countries. The problem is that if we exclude marginalised minorities from around the world, we are not really comparing "everyone born in Australia" with "most other people in the world". This is why I find the claim problematic. I'm not sure the author was very careful when applying the concepts outlined in the book to the Australian context.

 

Without a doubt

 

Only if you exclude certain Australians as discussed above.

 

@Skilled_Migrant maybe the author of the article was just a bit careless with his language or maybe he is genuinely ignorant, I don't know. Still, I think this makes the case more effectively:

The acknowledgment of good fortune is the key to unlocking Frank’ solution to our increasingly economically and socially separated society. Failure to acknowledge luck has made successful people more reluctant to pay the taxes necessary to make the investments required to maintain a good environment. A better environment (the complex infrastructure of government-run initiatives, assets and services that underpin society) can sustain the luck of future generations and also improve living standards of even society’s most successful members.

Some of the most successful in our society tend to resist paying higher taxes and have used their political influence to do so. The resulting government spending cuts fall upon the least influential and this reduces our societal investment in the future. Since most of the income gains of the last four decades have accrued to those atop the earnings ladder, most of the missing government revenue would or should have come from the wealthiest.

Accepting this thesis suggests that taxes upon the wealthy must rise because “long-run historical narrative bends towards the truth”.

The reasons for resistance of higher taxation are most understandably that higher taxes would lower standards of living – but also probably because successful people underestimate the role of luck in generating their success. If all the wealthy were taxed more, the demand for the goods they most desire would fall… and so would the prices, and so standards of living could be maintained although the aggregate cost would be higher.

Frank is concerned about our wastefulness and tendency to spend ever-increasing sums on luxuries. Costs of weddings have tripled and the average new house is 50% larger. Yet the social outcomes are demonstrably no better, whilst median incomes have not grown. We all have an innate desire to maintain our positions in society and spend what we think is appropriate, but greater expenditure has not led to greater happiness.

We seem to be on an ever-upward spiral of expenditure since the richest show no signs of pulling back and this behaviour trickles down to have far from benign impacts upon the lives of those who are not at the top of the economic pile. Middle-income families have to work harder to achieve their basic goals and financial stress is evident everywhere.

Our tax systems don’t urge restraint on the uppermost strata of expenditure – and it is this expenditure that launches the spending cascades that are so painful to less fortunate members of society.

So what is the solution? Frank urges a progressive consumption tax that encourages saving and investment. He argues that this would reduce the share of national income (wastefully) consumed and increase the share invested. Luxury goods would still be available to all but the tax raised from their consumption could be well invested and used to increase the future income of society.

Some will argue that resulting revenues would be wasted by government inefficiency, but perhaps that’s no worse than expenditure driven by a societal positioning arms-race in personal expenditure. The latter will not make people happier whilst the former might.
​

Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy by Robert H Frank · Sandaire

These concepts are easy to translate to Australia where it has been reported that the average Australian wedding costs $65,482 (1) or reports of first home buyers in Sydney paying $900,000 (2). The solution of a progressive consumption tax is superficially attractive, although implementation could prove problematic. The argument is that a progressive consumption tax encourages saving and investment. Although in Australia, we wouldn't want that investment to be in property, right?

(1) No Cookies | Herald Sun
(2) Buyers of $900,000 homes 'should get grant' | Review Property

 

Not sure there's anythung to be achieved by nitpicking. It is a travesty that there is such a gulf between indigenous aussies and everyone else but you're talking about under 3% of the population which is in no way representative of the privileges the average aussie enjoys as a whole.

Arguably as well as significant % of the indigenous population are in fact more privileged than huge amounts of the population worldwide by the simple fact of the available and accessible resources, infrastructure and support net work provided in this country. In just India alone there are nearly 800m people who live without access to a safe and private toilet. Note I'm not saying their own, simply access to one. Think about that stat, it's genuinely hard to get my head around 800m let alone that many not having access to a toilet in a country with some. Of.the brightest minds and richest people (individially) in the world.

Globally, 2.4b people or 30% of the entire planets population lacks access to a toilet.

660m lack access to safe water. The question of privilege in this country when compared globally is pretty easy to work out.

1/3 of schools globally lack access to safe water. Schools. Where the future generation goes to get educated and hopefully pull their country, families, communities up out of poverty. Where your kid could go to school for that purpose and get really Ill from drinking water

Here we have the ability to ban certain food items in the odd chance there is a minute % of the students allergic to it. We have to work on getting our increasingly fat kids to be healthier because they have access to just about everything and lack.the ability to stop from over indulging.


Even with the indigenous population, if they're in a city or major rural town, as unquestionably sad as many of their living conditions are, they still have access to health, education, housing etc. Sure it may or may not be enough,.im.not getting into that debate here but the very fact that access is available and in many cases readily so automatically means enjoying privileges billions around the world do not.

We have it so.good.in.this country, long may it continueasy

 

This is true. I was simply discussing an article posted to support a particular point of view. In the article a comment jumped out at me as being incredibly ignorant. I completely agree that average aussie enjoys a very high level of privilege as a whole. It's a pity more Australians don't recognise that.

We really do. I just don't want to forget those Australians who don't, as the author of the original article appears to have conveniently done.

 

Your example of the 25 year old is a perfect illustration of what the author seems to be referring to (haven't read it in full).

Now, im not in any way claiming our system is perfect and that there are no issues of inequality that need addressing but let's look at this person vs hundreds of millions or billions of people around the world.

A) grew up in govt provided housing to support low/no income single parent household - not possible for that huge group we're comparing to

B) access to good and free education to a certain level then access to university thag although not Free, is available to not just the rich like in america. The fact that someone who clearlygrew up as poorly as they did monetarily wise and in comparison to average Australian has the qualifications they do shows the safety nets and support for many. Again, vastly superior opportunities in comparison.

C).as an adult, being provided public houses. Guess what, billions do not have that opportunity

D) unemployed so would be getting dole.or similar. Once again billions do not have that opportunity.

It really is crystal clear that by virtue of being in this country we enjoy more opportunities and privileges than most of the wold.


Again, I'm not in any way saying we should not have all this in place in austalia, I think it's great we do and support it.

 

I agree this is an extraordinary level of privilege compared to billions from around the world. And I don't resent the assistance the person was given either. I want people in Australia to have access to those opportunities. I read the comments a bit further and the person was offered a job, which is a good outcome. It just illustrates that someone born in the wrong suburb has to work a lot harder than others to get the good outcome. Still, it's great the opportunities were available in the first place. This example just goes to illustrate Robert Frank's original point:

The family we are born into (and even birth order), the opportunities available in our neighborhood, the schools we attend, and whether or not we have positive adult mentors—all of which are beyond our individual control—also play an important role.
​

What Drives Success, Hard Work or Luck?

We are truly privileged in Australia and we should be grateful that we are, but at the same time not forget those Australians who are not so privileged.

 

In any case, Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy by Robert H. Frank argues for significant tax increases for the very wealthy based on a "progressive consumption tax" (1). His reasoning is that seeing ourselves as self-made leads us to be less generous and public-spirited. "Happily, though, when people are prompted to reflect on their good fortune, they become much more willing to contribute to the common good" (2). On this basis he argues for successful people to accept the role that luck played in their success and accept they therefore need to pay more tax. The problem is this argument is self defeating.

That we tend to overestimate our own responsibility for our successes is not to say that we shouldn’t take pride in them. Pride is a powerful motivator; moreover, a tendency to overlook luck’s importance may be perversely adaptive, as it encourages us to persevere in the face of obstacles (2).​

Essentially, Frank is arguing we need to get the wealthy to recognise the role luck has played in their success to raise more tax for public good. But the problem is this:

"the paradox inherent in denying luck's importance..[is that] it might thus discourage the very efforts that are so often critical for success." (3)​

This is problematic. Get people to recognise that luck is important and they are less likely to succeed. Therefore less success translates to less wealth, which translates to less tax with which to do public good. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

(1) What Drives Success, Hard Work or Luck?
(2) Why Luck Matters—Much More Than You Think
(3) Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy

 

Absolutely I agree with you but disparity privilege within australia, which is what you're discussing, and privilege here vs most of the world, which is what the part in the article you disagreed with was saying, are 2 different discussions entirely.

I agree with what was said there and what you're saying too.

 

Bump, perhaps its time for this one..... easy to lose your head when markets are booming.........

 

Bump,any updates?..

 

Before the GFC afew years ago I could see drama coming and decided to brush up on some history mainly the 70s recession.
It was a long double dip recession that caused lots of chaos, but what triggered my research was that in the 70s the banks were almost all broke. Many closed.
I could see the banks being insolvent that even a minor hiccup would leverage into financial chaos.
The most interesting research was the convos with older investors >70yo that have done quiet well.
It seemed they were almost oblivious to all the financial ruin that was happening.
I asked them what was it like when the banks went broke? The answered "Didn't make much difference I still had to pay interest".
Was it hard living through the 70s recession? they said "Don't remember being harder than any other time"
And the big question How did you go making money in the 70s?
One of them thoughtfully answered "Well if I really think about it, we (referring to a group of people we both knew) made our money in the 70s. We were all working hard (they were all self employed btw), we were making money, trying not to spend much and buying whenever we could. The values went up a bit in the 80s but we made our money buying cheap in the 70s"

It's all about cycles and buying well.
"Time in the market" is what you're told by the person earning a commission.

 

Short term (3 year) price movements in most asset classes are determined by suckers.

In the long term, the fundamental drive value. Look at Amazon’s share price. It went from $100 to $10 as suckers got margin called in 2008. It’s now $2000 and even I use it in Aust