Peace! My comment wasn't directed at you, but rather at certain folks responding to you. Your temperature gauge model is verybapt....if moves into the red, you would do well to pull the car over before you do serious damage to your economic engine. Fan? Thermostat?Radiator? Head gasket? The temp. gauge doesn't discriminate, you need a mechanic, a chip reader or both. A more sophisticated diagnostic model.

The Gini-C seems to me particularly weak in the vicinity of 0 and 1.... I think you would be hard pressed to find any major economy near those extremes in the last 10,000 years....not communism, not Rome, not feudalism. Trolls inevitably drive the Gini discussion towards 0 or 1, where objective verification of theory is dicey for lack of data.

Like the Laffer curve, I view the Gini a useful discussion tool for bulding scenarios, but not sophisticated enough to forecast the outcomes of economic/social/ political policies with any confidence.

I like models that make predictions bounded by definable margins of error. I've been stealing them from economists for decades! :)

I think of money as a handy yardstick by which wealth is commonly measured (which definition helps immensely for purposes of Economic analysis), but if you wish to think of money as BEING wealth, I can easily comprehend how that could be the case, and truth be known, your definition is FAR more common than mine, perhaps even to the point of near universality.

Hmm. Not buying that one. It isn't a perfect, nor a complete gauge, however it is very useful as a signal.

The temperature gauge on your dashboard only measures your engine temperature in one place, and the temperature of your engine varies greatly across the whole, but if your engine is overhearing it is useful to know.

However if you want a more detailed look into inequality, try Branko Milanovic's "The Haves and the Have-nots".

Also read Charles Murray's (yes, that Charles Murray - the Bell curve guy) "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010".

I focus on the Gini coefficient because it is a simple signal that tells a key story - is America working for most Americans.

Now I sit here after 20 yrs of retirement looking at my $300k which only equates to 1 1/2 of my neighbors middle-class 1600- 1800 sq ft houses, wondering why my gov't robbed me of a pleasant retirement.

I dunno, it looks like I'm not the only one who equates wealth and money.

In fact, I'd hazard a guess that if you are just about anybody if somebody else was wealthy we'd check their net worth in dollars.

Nowhere have I EVER stated, or even implied, that you are "stupid" nor that I am "so intelligent".

i.e. I [CRS] am intelligent and you're stupid.

Q.E.D.

I forgot to mention the Saint Petersburg Paradox. people consistently behave as if they discount the value of increasing wealth. This should certainly be considered in any discussion of economic equality.

Also, it would be better for me to have said "you can fit any monotonically increasing function to your data." My bad.

It's a very general model. It doesn't make any deep predictions, it spits out a number and calls it an equality index. You can fit your data to any monotonically increasing function you like. A bent stick function will do. Two rather different functions can give the same index...does it make sense that two different countries with differing economies are equally equal? How do you operationally make sense of that?

You can fit the model to income data, or you can fit it to accumulated wealth. The results will almost always be different. You can fit model to attributes associated with wealth, like education level, or tombstone size. It seems equality is multidimensional. Napkins are two dimensional. Trolls seem to have one less dimension than napkins.

I share the personal opinion that many if not most CEO's are outrageously overpaid (I REALLY get worked up over the ones who get "golden parachutes" after their companies go under), and that lots of workers are underpaid, but I don't have any good solutions. It's basically a case of supply and demand - managerial talent appears to be scarce, and labor skills are evidently abundant.

I've always said that any worker who feels he is being underpaid has the obligation to offer his time and talent to other employers. Also, everybody is entitled to go into business for himself and earn some of those big profits, but that's about all I can offer.

"It never occurs to Dems/Libs that because of the fundamental inescapable truth that it's impossible to achieve income equality by raising the productivity of the less-productuive/unproductive, the only other option for income equality is to reduce the productivity of the more productive, by eliminating incentive!

Who would be dumb enough to advocate for that??"

And it never occurs to Republicans/Conservatives that income inequality actually has very little to do with either the productivity of the very poor or the very rich.

For instance, the ratio of CEO to worker pay in the U.S. is currently 303 to 1. In 1965 it was 20 to 1. Even in Germany it is on;y 147 to 1, only half that of the U.S.

Restrictions on stock buybacks began to be greatly eased starting in the early 1980s under Republican tax policies.

Between 2003 and 2012, the 449 companies in the S&P 500 used 54% of their earnings ($2.4 trillion) to buy back their own stock. An additional 37% was paid to stockholders as dividends. Together, these were 91% of profits.

This left little for investment in productive capabilities or higher income for employees, shifting more income to capital rather than labor. Executive compensation arrangements, which are heavily based on stock options, stock awards and bonuses for meeting earnings per share (EPS) targets (EPS increases as the number of outstanding shares decreases) became the be all and end all of the focus of corporate managers.

Stockholders in effect began to appropriate what once belonged to middle-class wage earners. Since the vast majority of stocks are owned by higher income households, this contributes to income inequality.

The purpose of the modern U.S. corporation became to reward large investors and top executives with income that once was spent on expansion, research, training and employees.

Nowhere have I EVER stated, or even implied, that you are "stupid" nor that I am "so intelligent". Nor have I ever said the Gini is "too low", nor for that matter, ever offered my opinion on where I think it should be, nor that taxes are "always bad". Ease of with the hypersensitivity, and manufactured imaginary insults.

"If Elon Musk has all the wealth (Meaning that nobody else produces anything whatsoever with which to trade for Musk's cars) then Musk will indeed be stuck with all his Teslas. Not sure what you mean by saying "that would be bad". It sends the message that you can't get beyond equating wealth with money. Money has zero intrinsic value, its only value is when it represents real wealth (physical output) and can be used as a medium of exchange for other real wealth (physical output).

[57] That (the fact that 70% of the economy is consumer spending) simply represents the other fact of life that food, shelter, clothing and the like are the primary needs for sustaining human life, all the fun stuff being secondary. It in no ways proves or even hints that it is better for the economy than investment. That is simply non sequitur reasoning.

Since 70% of our economy is driven by consumer spending, I didn't think it needed pointed out.

If we added 10% to Elon Musk's tax rate do you think he'd:

1. Stop raising money and investing in new ideas?
2. Decide to stop or decrease working?
3. Notice?

Also, how many iPhones does Elon Musk need?

Let's play some slippery slope games to use extremes to highlight a point:

1. If everybody gets the same (Gini=0.0) regardless of input, ability or effort, nobody will be willing to work harder. That would be bad, because no Elon Musks and Steve Jobs.

2. If Elon Musk has all the wealth (Gini=1.0) then there will be nobody to build or buy his Teslas. That would be bad.

Somewhere in between is a perfect balance. If you could try to explain why you think the current Gini is too low, and what level you want to aim for, it would help.

Telling me you think I'm stupid because you are so intelligent is a bit like tweeting that you are a very stable genius - sort of shooting yourself in the foot.

What facts and/or models are you using to think that the Gini is too low? Are you leaning solely on ideology (taxes are always bad, no government is the only good government, etc.) or do you actually have a nirvana you predict will increase the economy and make everybody better off?

Funny, I would have said it is thou who is doing the "zero sum" thinking. When I explain that the highly productive get rich NOT by stealing some of your piece of pie and my piece of pie, but rather be ENLARGING the pie, is that not the opposite of "zero sum" thinking??

I fully understand the Liberal idea that confiscating the wealth of the Jobs's and the Bezos's and re-distributing it to the less productive would result in stimulating the economy by boosting demand. It is not without some logic, but it's predicated on the erroneous assumption that the outrageous incomes of the highly productive wind up stashed in their mattresses, and that is an invalid assumption. Who says that spending that money on consumables rather than on investment is a net gain for the economy?

I'll restate that I believe that a lower Gini will improve the economy (i.e. more iPhones) because more people will be able to afford to participate without having to go into debt. If the economy grows 20% over five years because we spread the wealth, and Steve Job's estate gets 10% wealthier, he is better off than if the economy is stagnant and he is 0% wealthier.

It isn't about who gets a percentage of the pie, it is the size of the pie and the size of the slice. You are in zero sum game thinking (which is an error of right wing arguments at the moment that is so disappointing, it used to be the left wing's flaw).

OK, BOTTOM bottom line, So let's 'put the Gini back in the bottle'!!!

Had to quit and go to sleep last night, but I wasn't quite thru with my 'Gini' lecture.

Folks who worship at the Gini 'equality altar' have a strong proclivity to draw erroneous conclusions about what is really going on in the world. You guys see the Steve Jobs's and the Jeff Bezos's of the world (the very people who cause Gini numbers to explode) as greedy villains, who are enriching themselves by stealing from the shares of the 'national pie' that rightly belong to their fellow Americans . . . NOT TRUE!!!

Those kinds of people are NOT getting rich by stealing your share and my share of the 'national pie', they are getting (filthy) rich by ENLARGING the 'national pie'.

Don't let low Ginis lead to to the erroneous conclusion that the highly productive people are the bad guys within society. I realize that your concept of Gini Utopia is where there is an abundance of Jobs's and Bezos's (highly productive folks), who are willing to share the fruits of their labors equally with everybody, but that is not how the real world works.

You guys ALL have two or more 'i-devices" (phones, pads, or whatever), your spouses and your kids all have two or more each, you send every dollar you make (except maybe for fast food) to Amazon, and then you shout "GREEDY BASTARDS" at Jobs and Bezos, and you see no contradiction there!

Bottom line, we should not let the high Ginis of the world lead us to conclude that we would be better off without the highly-productive people.

Re your [40], and "Not having heard anything from me about where greed stops."

The Gini coefficient is much misunderstood, and leads to many of the mis-comprehensions of Economics common to Lefties.

Imagine for theoretical purposes, a given population of people where not a single person produces a single thing for some given timeframe. That population would within that time frame, have a Gini coefficient of 0 (a Liberal's dream come true, perfect equality!).

At that point, those folks realize they're all going to soon die unless they begin to produce something to eat, so they all go to work planting potatoes. Some turn out to be skillful at potato growing, some not so skillful, so the Gini coefficient promptly explodes.

It quickly becomes obvious that Gini can serve equally well as a measure of poverty/misery as a measure of prosperity, and low Ginis are NOT always preferable to high Ginis, right?

At one point in 2008 I had less money in my account than I had put in, but I stuck with it as the same guy said to me "what part of buy low and sell high do you not understand?". (He added "you're a bloody fool if you get out of the markets when they are at their low point.")

My standard speech is: "Ignore the dang statement; you've lost nothing. You own the same number of shares you owned yesterday, and right now you're basically buying them at 2 for the price of 1... so you're NOT getting out; you should be going all in."

It sometimes takes repeating multiple times because people I know seem to all panic during a crash/correction, but as you know, it's really not as complicated as people seem determined to make it.

They are all trying to emulate SCOTTeVest on the same marks ...

https://www.politicalorphans.com/scottevest-fox-news-and-a-dunning-kruger-nightmare/

Too funny.

My buddy had a line-of-credit waiting for the crash and scooped up a pile of S&P500 funds in 2009.

BTW he is puttering about with S&P500 futures at the moment - he has some options game he is playing that allows him to put his principle in a long term bond instrument and use the cash it throws off to replicate the same amount in the S&P500 so he can only lose the 5% the options cost him, but has unlimited upside.

He tried to explain it to me, but I told him I'd stick to the simple things. He retired at 50 BTW.

In 2000 a wise man told me "you can't beat the markets, and don't trust anybody who tells you they can. Put any money you won't need for more than 10 years in a S&P500 index fund with the lowest fees you can find and forget about it no matter what"

I did.

At one point in 2008 I had less money in my account than I had put in, but I stuck with it as the same guy said to me "what part of buy low and sell high do you not understand?". (He added "you're a bloody fool if you get out of the markets when they are at their low point.")

Your "nominal 5 - 6% return is one helluva return in this day and age. I'm rarely to never able to do that well, especially when you factor in inevitable losses of principal, such as the 1000 Sh of Citbank I bought in the 40's just prior to the housing bubble bursting and wound up selling at $4/sh

I'll take the amount I've paid in to SS as one lump sum right now and not take a future dime from the government. However that isn't likely.

I'm not too worried about the "quality" of the immigrants - this is a perennial story in America - look at the way the Irish were perceived, and they were still lynching Italians in 1927! The "catholic" immigration wave was meant to destroy America, but instead we got pizza and St. Paddy's Day parades. The current wave of immigration is no darker skinned than the Southern European wave that triggered earlier concerns about people who didn't have the right culture and would destroy America.

We are facing a pension crisis in this country - too many promises have been made that don't look sustainable. The cops in my area have been given promises that our city can't afford. At some point in time we will have to decide to pay an ex-cop on a golf course, or an active cop on the beat. I predict if crime rates rise because we can't afford enough active cops, some sort of chiseling will occur (probably COLA related). Unfair, but then, as I tell one of my kids who is in the public sector, don't rely on the pension promises you are getting - save for yourself as well.

I track everything in two mirrored spreadsheets - one nominal and the other inflation adjusted. My investments have outperformed inflation by about 7% over the last two decades - that will drop as I get more conservative as I get closer to retirement, however a nominal long term return rate of 5-6% and an inflation adjusted rate of 3-4% is not ridiculous.

Also, houses tend to beat inflation by about productivity growth, so are basically a vehicle for indexing the U.S. economy, after inflation.

Our current 2% inflation is historically low. In my opinion there are sound reasons to have 2-5% inflation, as it means that large investments (e.g. a mortgage) tend to get smaller in real terms over time, encouraging spending and investment.

Since inflation is part of just about every country's economy, and as been for the last 100+ years in one form or another, it is just part of the uncertainty of the future we have to live with.

This is why we invest in long term, inflation mitigating instruments. I hope to be retired for 20 years. I don't expect to earn any more income, so I'm going to have to make the money I retire with last. If I want to draw $25K per year from my savings, I know that the $25K I will need in the first year needs to be in cash equivalents. However the $25K (plus inflation) I need in 20 years time should be in long term instruments that typically outpace inflation. So that $25K is only $10K sitting in a small cap index fund right now. Between time, the headwinds of inflation, and the tailwinds of returns, the odds are in my favor that the $10K will grow to $40K (=$25K plus 20 years of inflation) over 20 years.

The mistake I see so many people make when they retire is to move all their savings into "safe" instruments that get eaten away by inflation. The 60/40 stock/bond balance is pretty good for any plan over 5-10 years, and gives you a chance of being protected from inflation.

The chart in [21] doesn't include savings rates. I don't disagree that savings rates are historically low - I just like to see that you have actually looked at real data, e.g.:

https://media.ycharts.com/charts/749458190f94d530d0ffc4c3e918e2b4.png

I have no idea what will trigger the next recession, I just know that I'd be very surprised if we had 25 more years without one.

We usually get a recession every 6-8 years, so I anticipate multiple downturns in my long term plans.

Well we need to have a decision as to what the Gini coefficient should be - do we keep hammering away until we get to 1.0, or do we look at where it makes most sense from a balance of greed, economic activity, and compassion? I'd say we are leaning heavily towards pure greed at the expense of the economy (i.e. our economy could be growing faster if we distributed the wealth differently, and we could lower misery at the same time).

I've not heard anything from you wrt where greed stops. Do you want Gini = 1.0? If not where?

[34] Of COURSE I know that - nobody's that dumb (to advocate for total equality of income), but your side advocates vociferously for a major reduction of INEQUALITY, by means of transfer from hi earners to lo earners, so the difference is only one of DEGREE, and not of PRINCIPLE, right?

[35] Presume you're talking a consumer credit ("credit card") default, and I suppose a really bad one COULD "result in recession", but such is not even slightly comparable to the mortgage default recession. Not any kind of existential threat to the banking system, just a dip in the level of the usurious profits banks make on credit card debt.

[36] 1. That conclusion (low savings rates/low net worth balances) comes from the chart in the "Ritholz.com" link YOU GAVE ME in your [21], for gawdsake!

[37] I'm SO HAPPY that you and your friends are diligent savers and investors, it's a blessing for the economy, but that doesn't make it smart.

The truth of that is the last 60 yrs of inflation! In my working career (early 60's thru late 80's), I worked two jobs, raised 4 kids, lived modestly (poor-man's cars, no expensive toys, no ocean cruises) paid cash for everything I ever bought so as to never pay interest, and socked away $300k, which in those years would have bought 4 houses of the type of houses in the subdivisions I've always lived in.

Now I sit here after 20 yrs of retirement looking at my $300k which only equates to 1 1/2 of my neighbors middle-class 1600- 1800 sq ft houses, wondering why my gov't robbed me of a pleasant retirement.

When your own gov't, in the form of its central bank (aka the "FED") advocates PUBLICLY for a 2% compounded annual inflation rate, it doesn't take a math genius to figure out that what you save today wont buy shit in 30 yrs.

[38] You're absolutely correct about the U.S. headed for where Japan now is barring mass immigration. And it's actually substantially worse than the numbers themselves indicate, because in spite of sounding racist, it's undeniably true that the quality of immigrants is even more important than the quantity.

When the ratio of workers to retirees drops too low, you'll inevitably witness a generational revolt, when the young refuse to support the retirees in the manner to which they want to live, and you can't blame 'em!

I've got the solution. Retired folks should be entitled to only whatever SS contributions their own kids are paying in. My kids currently pay more SS than my wife and I receive, so I'll get a big raise. How about you and your rich buddies?

That was at least a semi-legit argument when people all had large families and there were 25 -30 workers paying into SS for every retired person taking out, but those days are gone forever. These days there are something like 3 or 4 workers for each retiree, and rapidly headed for only 2 workers per retiree.

Most surveys show that people are less inclined to trust social security, e.g.:

https://www.nationwide.com/about-us/091917-nf-social-security.jsp

One of the reasons that I'm all for increasing immigration is because of the number of workers to retirees - you need only look to Japan to see what happens when the number of workers to retirees drops.

Time & Cash:

You claim that people spend, or overspend, because inflation is going to eat away at any savings so what is the point?

This is so obviously wrong that I'm going to assume you are just parroting some libertarian whining.

My friends and I are prodigious savers - granted we can afford to be, but we also know people in our income brackets who have Teslas instead of 10-year-old Hondas and boats they have bought on line of credit loans.

Most of my friends are wealthy but you'd never know it from meeting them - you'd probably think we are down-on-our-heels. We haven't made much more money than our neighbors, but we save up to buy a (cheap) car with cash and go to the $2 beer happy hour every week for our "pub night".

We all strongly believe in saving and investing and are living proof that the following statement is wrong:

Saving money (i.e. foregoing current consumption in favor of later consumption) is penalized by our government's proclivity to reduce the purchasing power of savings over time by means of cheapening the currency (currency inflation). That's MAJOR disincentive to save.

Some proof points might be useful - where do you get your facts from concerning:

1. savings rates?
2. this statement: Also, there's a modern mindset that "We don't NEED to save for retirement, 'cause the gov't will take care of us.?

Or are you just another "feelie" who trusts their gut and "common sense" over verifiable reality?

It ends in a recession.

I've tried replying several times but my replies have been caught in the nanny filter.

Basically:

1. I'm not advocating equality - and you know it.
2. We are at excessive levels of inequality and it is ripping our country apart, and the current administration's policies are designed to increase inequality, not mitigate it

Let's just hope that lessons have been learned in the wake of the last financial crisis and that foolish steps won't be taken that might help precipitate another one or make the next one more difficult to mitigate.

Of course, but which one do you think neil anticipates, (or you anticipate)?

Re "People currently having more low/negative net worth compared to previous times."

It goes without saying that it's somewhat easier to save some money with a high income than it is with a low income, however our society is replete with stories of people who blew through huge fortunes (Willie Nelson comes to mind) and still went broke.

Bottom line is, people today (more than previous generations) are FAR more prone to spend everything they earn (and more), or just don't see the need to save, and there are legitimate reasons for that.

Saving money (i.e. foregoing current consumption in favor of later consumption) is penalized by our government's proclivity to reduce the purchasing power of savings over time by means of cheapening the currency (currency inflation). That's MAJOR disincentive to save.

Also, there's a modern mindset that "We don't NEED to save for retirement, 'cause the gov't will take care of us."

That was at least a semi-legit argument when people all had large families and there were 25 -30 workers paying into SS for every retired person taking out, but those days are gone forever. These days there are something like 3 or 4 workers for each retiree, and rapidly headed for only 2 workers per retiree.

Re "We know this story (saving less and running up credit card bills again) and it doesn't end well."

So how DOES it end??? (Surely you're not saying another mortgage-default financial crisis, right?)

I don't have access to Fox anchors (as previously stated), but I recall reading during the Roger Ailes sexual abuse episode, that he insisted they have great legs and display as much of them as possible as often as possible. And I've always said about great (female) legs, If you got 'em, flaunt 'em!

Re "Income Inequality" [21} We (Americans, but actually everybody) have NEVER had 'Talent Equality' never had 'Skill Equality', never had 'Ambition Equality', never had 'Contribution to Societal Welfare' equality, how can you expect or even justify, Income equality???

It never occurs to Dems/Libs that because of the fundamental inescapable truth that it's impossible to achieve income equality by raising the productivity of the less-productuive/unproductive, the only other option for income equality is to reduce the productivity of the more productive, by eliminating incentive!

Who would be dumb enough to advocate for that??

The Gov. Brown one? If so, yes - excellent as usual.

Sorry - my bad.

I'm taking my wife to see "The Post" today, but I've got an hour or so.

Our median net worth has not recovered from the 2008 crisis, and the number of households with zero or negative non-home net worth is over 30% for the first time in recent history.

http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/inequality-e1515191667633.png

Basically we are starting to feel good about the economy and opening our wallets. But since incomes have been flat for most earners under $150K we are saving less and running up credit card bills again.

We know this story, and it doesn't end well.

Neil, you are absolutely correct. You did not claim that. I claimed that! :)

Why so sensitive? Are you up for a discussion today or not?

We need to focus on the bigger picture issues.

I'm failing to see how I claimed that 45 was America's biggest problem.

For the record, I think that America's biggest problem is that we are being torn apart economically as a nation and that as more and more people are facing economic pressures our cohesion as a society is falling apart. Couple that with increasing pace of cultural change that leaves many people feeling that their country changed in ways that they don't like, and that they are called bigoted if they long for their, partially imagined, good old days.

Thus we have a nasty little zit appearing on the shining face of Mother America in the form of President #45 - he is a symptom not the disease.

I'm hoping he goes off script and starts meandering through the gripes and grudges floating around inside his head.

And, he couldn't possibly survive his first year in office, let alone his first term, eh?

I'm afraid that Trump is not America's biggest problem.

We need to focus on the bigger picture issues.

I'm hoping he goes off script and starts meandering through the gripes and grudges floating around inside his head.

I don't think it will be some new story that will set him off, I think it will be some story about e.g. Kelly really running things, or this new book that is coming out, or Stormy Daniels being quoted as saying that old "tighty whiteys" needs to use ED drugs and making some comparison about his hand size and his manhood.

He really gets going when he feels insecure.

While it may be true that Trump can be manipulated, it hasn't exactly yielded a desired outcome as of yet.

I think we should ask why.

The sadder situation is his role as gaslighter-in-chief with the news media and his obstinate base being his targets.

And, did you know that millions of Americans believe that God made Trump president?

This is what we are up against and we aren't exactly winning. :(

I have. I went to Hooters once, as a beard for my friend who wanted to see inside of one. The girls are cute, the prices high, and the food mediocre in my one experience.

They did wear shorts, which is why Ladd said "Hooters waitresses in skirts" (i.e. instead of shorts) because short, brightly colored dresses seem to be the uniform for Fox anchors.

You are "politically backwards" because you like being seen that way.

Your act is that you are the old-time, independent, "gee sucks", can-do American who acts "simple" but is really the only person that can see things as they are "cos you don't go overthinking things" and all of the rest of us, over time, are going to be an awe of your old-time-gritty-tell-it-like-it-is insights. (Hint: we aren't - like you, we are all stuck in our own artificial characters.)

We all have our roles - remember, the person we lie to most is ourselves. Try not insulting everybody as you play out yours though - the trolling is unnecessary and spoils your "old-cowboy-hold-the-door-open-for-ladies good manners" side role I'll bet you think you put on as well.

Ain't never seed a Hooters waitress, but seem to recall from the photos I have seen, they're clad in short shorts, not short skirts.

Actually, for that matter, also never seen a Fox News. I get my TV from an old fashioned roof-top antenna, and in this part of the country, Fox only comes by cable.

No wonder I'm so politically backward!

After CW, Chris Ladd is my favorite political blogger.

They are all trying to emulate SCOTTeVest on the same marks ...

https://www.politicalorphans.com/scottevest-fox-news-and-a-dunning-kruger-nightmare/

Do you suppose that there are any enlightened investigative reporters actively working to uncover what it is with regard to Russia that President Trump feels the desperate need to hide?

Or is the news media too busy being gaslighted by the gaslighter-in-chief and being itself complicit in the gaslighting of America to be concerned about the big picture?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d7/Three_Flags.jpg

Neither was the most readable of Sci Fi authors, but IMHO they both score high on deep ideas.

That would be Greenville SC. A nice town.

No facts that prove such a claim....

Bon voyage, everbody...

"Be.... excellent to each other"
-Ted, BILL & TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE