Yes that was unintentional copy & paste.

The group doesn't stand in vacuum. You can't observe this group separately from the adjecent ones, because it isn't a group formed by specific separable criteria, it's part of an income continuum.

And when you go ahead and take those into consideration, it becomes a flow problem: how can the bottom part of a middle group just "disappear"? Why isn't it filled up by the group below it (i.e. the formerly lower class), as it should in a "good economy"?

I'll be happy to elaborate if you ask a more specific question, but "I don't understand" and reiteraring your own point is very vague for me to go on. I can't understand it for you, I can only try to explain.

Let's assume that for a moment; where, specifically, did that 1 mio go? Is it safe to assume they "moved" from low/mid to high?

Why did the low/mid shrink in the first place? Was there nobody below to "fill up"? Why didn't they?

What just happened is a chasm was created, right in the middle of what used to be called "middle class". Essentially, this just means that thenpr

Let's assume that for a moment; where, specifically, did that 1 mio go? Is it safe to assume they "moved" from low/mid to high?

Why did the low/mid shrink in the first place? Was there nobody below to "fill up"? Why didn't they?

What just happened is a chasm was ceated, right where "middle class" used to be -- i.e. obliteraing intermediate levels of wealth. (The fact that there's now a larger "upper middle class", as opposed to "lower upper class", is just semantics).

No, it's the same principle as above, just with slightly different numbers.

You see, "middle" is not some clean category, like "pineapple" or "red". It's whatever remains between the very poor and very, very rich. When latter rise, but former don't fall, it's always a polarisation of "middle class", regardless of someone else might choose to frame it. And that is always a tell of bad economy.

US arms industry for one. Wars "cost money" - what exactly do you think that means, where does "money" specifically go?

Wars aren't (necessarily) waged for the economic value of the countries that are being invaded. They are waged, quite generally, for the wealth flow they generate.

Iran and Venezela aren't good examples in the sense that they got robbed, they're goos examples in the sense that there was no good (political) reason to start a war with them, rather some some covert "get even richer" scheme.

Of course you can.

First, there's still plenty of people with stupid money to spend. It's not the majority of people, but it's the majority of money.

Second, the rich folks can still get even richer, simply by taking money from one another when there's noone else but one another to take it from. We call that "war". Of course it's not them, it's us who'd die in that war. (But who cares, right, it's not like we're good for anything else (...with nothing, not even our buying power, left to contribute?...)

What happened in Iran and Venezuela is pretty much how it's done. And not over yet by a very, very long stretch.

"Upper ranks of middle class grow" together with "lower ranks of middle class shrink" is pretty much the same is "middle class is disappearing".

Which is the epitome of a REALLY BAD economy, grounded in strong wealth inequality, not a good one.

It's not that clear cut.

Yes, the precedence doesn't have a strong a binding character as in yhe US, but treating everyone equally is a basic principle of law that goes back millennia, to thw verge beginning, long before there was even EU or America.

Therefore decisions in European courts, in particular higher ones, tend to have a "strongly suggestive" character. If lower courts go against the grain, the decisions get reversed.im revision courts at higher levels.

FTFY.

I agree with your words, but I'm not sure we mean the same thing. To be clear, corporate America didn't get hung up on the free as in "beer" part. It got up on the philosophical implications of free as in "speech". No more lock-ins, no more EULA that can restrict use of the software you paid for, no more "you're going tonuse what we decide is beat for you and you're going to like it", no more forced upgrades to versions that bring barely anything to the table besides new licensing costs and new bugs etc.

Nope. That was just by accident.

If it had been to mean hat it said on the tin, there wouldn't have been any necessity to introduce the term in the first place, as Free Software haf already been around fpr 15-ish years at that point.

I was around and... uhm... awakened, for lack of a better term, when ESR and the like introduced "OpenSource" to produce more corporate appeal.

There was 0 reason to do that solely to describe GPL'ed software, and every reason to avoid philosophical concepts like "freedom" when talking corporate-y, specifically because, back then as today, it was implicitly understood and accepted that "freedom" makes for bad business.

It means what it always has. It never meant the same as "free software", not now, not 25 years ago. It always meant " as much of 'free' as we need to in order to make corporate software development cheaper, while keeping as many options open as was can to close it up and charge for access down the line".

It just wasn't always this obvious (to some).

Well, apparently it's rich now, so you figure... :-D

So... does this mean that if "shit happens" while you're in possession of a rental van you're off scott free, not responsible?

Or that if "shit happens" after you've signed the rental contract and paid, but before pickup, it's tough titties "no van and no money for you"?

Did you ever rent a van?

You put your monkey in a bank, and the bank gets robbed - shit happens, your money is gone?

Have you ever been to a bank?

No, "shit" doesn't 'happen" when you earn money making yourself responsible for 150.000 people being able to drive their car. You either uphold your part of the deal or you're responsible for damages. Everything else is an invitation for abuse.

This isn't the point.

The point is that a fwir justice system should deliver the punishment exactly as established, not give off "I altered the deal, pray I don't alter it any further".

The original deal was: you don't drink, you get to drive your car. Not "maybe", not "if nothing comes im between."

If you think that's too soft on crime, we can also discuss "you never get to drive a car again".

In any case stick to the f-ing deal. Being a criminal doesn't make you vogelfrei.

Droves of peole telling you how this isn't worse than the alternative in 3... 2... 1...