From America's Flop to America's Blowout -- and we couldn't be happier

|
(131)
New Zealand's Emirates team smokes the American Oracle team, yet again, on Sept. 12. Races could wrap up Sunday.

New Zealand’s sailing team could win the America’s Cup this weekend after taking a 6-0 lead over the American team sponsored by Oracle and its billionaire CEO Larry Ellison, who made this elite sailing race even more prohibitively expensive than usual. And we at the Guardian couldn’t be happier for the Kiwis. Go New Zealand!

For years, we’ve been covering this sad spectacle, from the overhyped initial attendance and economic projections to the waterfront land grab and real estate swindle that Ellison and company tried to perpetrate on San Francisco to sticking city taxpayers with a big bill that Ellison should have footed himself to the episodes of cheating that caused international judges to dock Ellison’s team two points in the final (one of which is still yet to be assessed).

So we feel vindicated by this great act of karmic justice, to watch Ellison’s team not just losing badly, but being utterly blown out of the water by the straight-shooting team from Down Under, whose skipper has pledged to scale back future America’s Cups to make them cheaper and more accessible.

Frankly, watching the America’s Cup has been far less exciting than the speedy “NASCAR on water” that it was hyped as by organizers. This “sport” makes baseball seem riveting and fast-paced. But we’re thrilled to watch the grand finale, if only for the snicker.  

 

Comments

see Steven get all into a lather about the result as if it were some great political battle he's just won. Not that anyone would take advice on sports from anyone at SFBG anyway. But in the end Ellison will still be a multi-billionaire, the spectators will still have enjoyed it, the city will probably have lost money on it (but who cares?) and Steven will still be bitter and angry and envious.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 13, 2013 @ 4:50 pm

but don't really care that much either way.

It is entertaining to see the progressive self appointed elite have fits over the whole episode. Small minds need to take their victories where they can I suppose.

Posted by Matlock on Sep. 13, 2013 @ 6:02 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 8:47 am

It's amazing that he's so proud of his bitterness and envy. What a sad case.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 13, 2013 @ 8:57 pm

He actually sounds pretty happy. And if envy is a desire to have what someone else has, I don't detect any hint of envy. I don't think anyone at the Guardian wants to be a billionaire, they just want the rest of us to have a decent quality of life.

By contrast, you're the one who sounds bitter and envious, and it doesn't wear well on you. Why do you hate New Zealand?

Posted by Kiwi fan on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 10:28 am

It defines them. And defeats them. An unhealthy obsession with what others have undermines any attempt at objectivity and replaces it with hate.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 10:44 am

commenting here and with money, and are filled with hate.

So, by your definition, you are a leftist. By any objective measure, you are easily defeated in your "arguments."

Only a mammon worshipper could confuse a desire for justice for envy.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 11:16 am

And if he is as rich and successful as you claim, why would he be envious?

Posted by anon on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 11:27 am

are you just pretending to entertain us?

"No, envy permeates the politics of the left." Reading is fundamental.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 12:04 pm

doesn't feel envy, probably because he is successful although I sense that even if he wasn't, he'd have more respect and admiration for those who do succeed.

When the left can articulate their plea for "social justice" in terms other than that they are simply angry at themselves for failing then they will be on the road back to adequacy.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 1:07 pm

just that he confused a desire for justice for envy.

I honestly don't care about his feelings.

You have confirmed your poor reading comprehension skills once again. The rest of your comment is just psychobabble.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 2:15 pm

They focus on the gap between rich and poor, rather than the absolute state of the poor. And that comes across as pure envy.

You do not become poorer when Buffett adds another billion to his net worth, but if you focus only on the wealth gap, that is exactly what it looks like you are saying.

The left needs to stop obsessing about the wealthy and how to legally mug their money.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 2:40 pm

Here is good presentation which shows the very real negative impacts of wealth inequality in and of itself.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

And as I stated earlier, the wealth of the lower and middle classes are in fact -declining- as the wealth of the Buffets and the Gates of the world has skyrocketed. So even your basic thesis is wrong.

Here is an article which corroborates the health impacts of inequality, and that they affect even the wealthy themselves.

http://inequality.org/inequality-health/

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 3:51 pm

each other, and that can only lead to envy.

Focus instead on making your own situation better. It's a myth that you will be richer if the wealthy are less rich.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 4:35 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 5:02 pm

And envy is a negative emotion.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 7:56 pm

who denies that poor people exist in the United States. "The absolute state of the poor" is a fancy way of saying nothing.

In another thread, you or another troll concerned about the poor can't gloat enough about exploiting undocumented workers. Something like, "they work hard for little money, don't complain and I don't have to pay FICA for them."

More for you, less for them. That is the nature of the economic system we live under even if you ignore, deny, reject or argue against that reality.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 11:06 pm

What he was saying that if I become much richer, it doesn't make you any poorer, even if technically the statistical measure of inequality has increased.

Half of all Americans are members of the global one percent.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 8:41 am

By all statistical measures, which commenters have shared on this website repeatedly with the only reply being false slogans.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 8:59 am

the global one percent? The evidence cited earlier looks compelling.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 9:07 am

different countries, especially between the developed world and developing world, is meaningless without comparing the costs of living.

Thoughful, inquisitive people already know that European (and its offshoots) imperialism and colonialism has enriched itself at the expense of the rest of the world, damage that will take centuries to repair.

I know you believe in the class system (even if you deny it) because you defend vocifiously yours and other's attempts to improve your class standing.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 9:29 am

US, and they can vary enormously. $10 an hour isn't so great in Manhattan but could easily be enough to live off in rural Alabama.

The real point here is that even poorer Americans are wealthy by global standards, while half of us are one-percenters, globally. Class warfare in the Us is between the well off and the very well off.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 9:49 am
Posted by Guest on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 10:09 am

It's a common SFBG issue that America is very unequal.

So it's entirely consistent with progressive values to assert that national inequality matters as well as global inequality.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 10:21 am

Wealth disparity in-and-of-itself is bad for everyone, including the 1% (no matter -who- the 1% is).

This is made clear at:

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

and

http://inequality.org/inequality-health/

And the claim that 50% of Americans are global one percenters is patently ridiculous.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 10:20 am

based on consideration of incomes and wealth globally. Obviously there are billions of people in other continents who are far poorer than even a relatively low-paid American so the categorization is technically correct.

Poverty and famine are global issue and we are a wealthy nation.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 10:37 am
Posted by racer x on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 10:51 am

On site you posted, they have a calculator that clearly states:

"World Wealth Calculator

If you make $33,500 a year, you are among the richest 5% in the world.

There are 6.2 billion people less wealthy than you."

So your claim that 50% of the people in U.S. (who make around $34k a year or more) are in the global 1%, is clearly wrong, based on the very site you posted.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 11:24 am
Posted by anon on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 10:53 am

On that site, they have a calculator that clearly states:

"World Wealth Calculator

If you make $33,500 a year, you are among the richest 5% in the world.

There are 6.2 billion people less wealthy than you."

So your claim that 50% of the people in U.S. (who make around $34k a year) are in the global 1% is clearly wrong, based on the very site you posted.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 11:21 am

For instance, if you put in 80K a year (the average SF income) then you get that you are in the top 0.6% of the world - well within the top one percent.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 11:38 am

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

you think you are actually going to get out of the fact that you just made a complete horse's ass of yourself by suddenly switching from making claims about 50% of AMERICANS to making COMPLETELY different claims about the *AVERAGE* *SF* income?

you claimed that 50% of americans are in the global 1% and you were clearly completely full of fucking crap

EVEN by the web site that you posted yourSELF

what a laughable idiot you are

:)))))))))))))))))))

Posted by racer x on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 12:00 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 12:14 pm

the replies are now one character wide.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2013 @ 1:55 pm
Posted by Guest on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 12:30 pm

Guest first claimed that 50% of Americans are in the global 1%.

Then when the web site he posted himself revealed that 50% of Americans are in the top 5% not 1%, he gave the following rebuttal:

"No, Eric, you have to plug in your own number. For instance, if you put in 80K a year (the average SF income) then you get that you are in the top 0.6% of the world - well within the top one percent."

Since it is clear that the average San Francisco income has nothing whatsoever to do with the much lower income of 50% of all Americans, it looks like we have successfully put to bed the false claim that 50% of Americans are in the global 1%.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 12:11 pm

when the figures are looked at globally.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 12:18 pm

Incorrect again 'Guest'.

I make a measly $15k per year which (by that site's calculator) puts me in the global 14.7%.

Which shows that the calculator is useless for describing real wealth disparity.

As others have stated, you have to factor in the local cost of living for any given person in any given country and community, to get an accurate picture of disparity.

(Note: For those who are curious about how I can make it in SF on such a low income, I live via voluntary simplicity, and also have a rent controlled studio apartment.)

for an explanation of voluntary simplicity see:
http://simplicitycollective.com/start-here/what-is-voluntary-simplicity-2

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 12:38 pm

Noam Chomsky says that the concentration of wealth, and resulting income inequality, is so skewed that the slogan should be "the 99.9% versus the .01%."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9CHtm2qK2g

Posted by Guest on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 12:52 pm

Incorrect again 'Guest'.

I make a measly $15k per year which (by that site's calculator) puts me in the global 14.7%.

Which shows that the calculator is useless for describing real wealth disparity.

As others have stated, you have to factor in the local cost of living for any given person in any given country and community, to get an accurate picture of disparity.

(Note: For those who are curious about how I can make it in SF on such a low income, I live via voluntary simplicity, and also have a rent controlled studio apartment.)

for an explanation of voluntary simplicity see:
http://simplicitycollective.com/start-here/what-is-voluntary-simplicity-2

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 12:55 pm

for 15K a year.

Obviously the minimum wage is set too high.

You presumably work part-time.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 1:04 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 1:53 pm

only 15K a year.

Of course, that does rather color his pro-poor, anti-rich protestations since he stands to personally gain from redistribution of wealth.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 2:13 pm

by definition

I actually was offered a $100k+ per year spot with a venture capital firm a couple of years ago, and I turned it down.

So there is no personal gain motive in my pushing for redistributed wealth -except- for the fact that such redistribution would improve our -entire- society, and I -would- benefit from that.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 8:09 pm

definition.

I actually was offered a $100k+ per year spot with a venture capital firm a couple of years ago, and I turned it down.

So there is no personal gain motive in my pushing for redistributed wealth -except- for the fact that such redistribution would improve our -entire- society, and I -would- benefit from that.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 15, 2013 @ 8:13 pm

do those of you on the reactionary right understand that when you use this ridiculous 'liberal envy' argument you are using exactly the same absurd logic of the laughable theory that women are jealous of men because women don't have penises?

it is no surprise that rich idiot men think that what they've got in their bank accounts and portfolios is such a great and wonderful personal grand penis, that everyone must want it

it is no surprise that rich men getting off on dominating the world and accumulating a lot of useless wealth (much of which they use to gaudily amplify their masculinity) cartoonishly believe that everyone who is not rich envies them

Posted by racer x on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 1:13 pm

making a huge effort through education and labour to achieve wealth?

If you want people to stop lampooning liberals for their envy-induced class warfare then the simplest way to achieve that is to dump the politics of ency and start thinking instead.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 1:50 pm

with evidence? There is a big difference between wanting a decent life, avoiding poverty and its pitfalls and being motivated solely by seeking wealth.

A big difference. Americans may be more motivated because the bottom of our system is much lower than that of other developed economies.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 2:38 pm

most mercenary and materialistic places on the planet, with a pervasive respect for people and corporations that succeed. "The business of America is business", as the saying goes.

Even ultra-liberal SF is, along with the broader Bay Area, a mecca for financial striving and success, particularly for IT, biotech, finance, real estate, consultancy, law, healthcare and so on.

So anyone trying to turn America into some socialist nirvana probably has more work to do than any other place on the planet. Good luck with that.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 14, 2013 @ 2:55 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.