would you take 50k over 100k a year? most would.

[kiryan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jake-whit ... 15603.html

Wow this is really sad.

In this study, people were given a choice, they could make $50k and be richer than their peers or they could make $100k and be poorer than their peers. 56% of people chose to make 50k. This study was conducted on middle class and below test subjects.

Think about what that means to happiness and satisfaction. What it means to equality and equity. If 56% of the population will never be happy unless they have someone else to oppress and look down on... when will Democrats stop trying to take more from everyone else? When is China, Africa and other 3rd world countries going to feel that they have enough? Some articles recently about China quote a philosophy that American's have too much good food. Will they be satisfied when they merely have enough good nutritious food when we eat better than they do?

I definitely put myself in that category that would at least think about choosing the 50k. I've changed several jobs because my peers made more than I did. I'm not lookign to be rich, but I'd like to make more than my peers. When my brother in law went from 30k to 55k, I mentally calculated his age and compared it to what I made at that age. I'm a little jealous that he and his wife have a higher combined income... despite the fact they waste their money eating out and I bought a house worth 3-4x theirs.

I remember having a philosophical discussing with a small bank VP about 5 years ago. He made 150k a year and we were discussing the choice to live in the big city or in a small town. Of being a big fish in a small pond or a bigger fish in the ocean. We both preferred to be a big fish in a small town which I thought was based on wanting to be comfortable personally... the biggest factor for me being a house that I could afford that was comfortable enough that I wouldn't want to move. His was more of being a center of attention (local politics, in the top 10 local humanitarians, etc..). Both of us are probably exercising the principle noted in the study. Ostensibly I claim comfort, but if I think about it at least some part of me wants a house bigger than what my peers had when I lived in the big city... even if my peers in the local community would have similar size houses.

What does this means about the middle class. I've always thought of the middle class as the group of people that derive their satisfaction in life out of being better than someone else, but not willing to put the effort into being rich. I've always thought that the Democrat principle of middle class middle class was disingenuous because of their supposed concern for the poor. Why shouldn't the middle class pay more taxes to help the poor? Why only the wealthy? I always assumed this had more to do with their attempt to protect their favored consitutency (unions) from losing any ground and through that campaign donations, but maybe its more of an attempt to maintain their happyiness. After all, union members are predominately Democrats.

[Sarvis]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jake-whitney/how-income-inequality-hel_b_815603.html

Wow this is really sad.

In this study, people were given a choice, they could make $50k and be richer than their peers or they could make $100k and be poorer than their peers. 56% of people chose to make 50k. This study was conducted on middle class and below test subjects.

Think about what that means to happiness and satisfaction. What it means to equality and equity. If 56% of the population will never be happy unless they have someone else to oppress and look down on... when will Democrats stop trying to take more from everyone else? When is China, Africa and other 3rd world countries going to feel that they have enough? Some articles recently about China quote a philosophy that American's have too much good food. Will they be satisfied when they merely have enough good nutritious food when we eat better than they do?

I definitely put myself in that category that would at least think about choosing the 50k. I've changed several jobs because my peers made more than I did. I'm not lookign to be rich, but I'd like to make more than my peers. When my brother in law went from 30k to 55k, I mentally calculated his age and compared it to what I made at that age. I'm a little jealous that he and his wife have a higher combined income... despite the fact they waste their money eating out and I bought a house worth 3-4x theirs.

I remember having a philosophical discussing with a small bank VP about 5 years ago. He made 150k a year and we were discussing the choice to live in the big city or in a small town. Of being a big fish in a small pond or a bigger fish in the ocean. We both preferred to be a big fish in a small town which I thought was based on wanting to be comfortable personally... the biggest factor for me being a house that I could afford that was comfortable enough that I wouldn't want to move. His was more of being a center of attention (local politics, in the top 10 local humanitarians, etc..). Both of us are probably exercising the principle noted in the study. Ostensibly I claim comfort, but if I think about it at least some part of me wants a house bigger than what my peers had when I lived in the big city... even if my peers in the local community would have similar size houses.

What does this means about the middle class. I've always thought of the middle class as the group of people that derive their satisfaction in life out of being better than someone else, but not willing to put the effort into being rich. I've always thought that the Democrat principle of middle class middle class was disingenuous because of their supposed concern for the poor. Why shouldn't the middle class pay more taxes to help the poor? Why only the wealthy? I always assumed this had more to do with their attempt to protect their favored consitutency (unions) from losing any ground and through that campaign donations, but maybe its more of an attempt to maintain their happyiness. After all, union members are predominately Democrats.

We preach greed and competition. You only know you're successful if you have more than others. There's no end to that unless you're Bill Gates, basically. Which is why so many wealthy people are actually pretty unhappy.

Personally, I want enough money to be able to do things I want to do. For instance keep my game library full, and travel. If I had what I want, I wouldn't care much about what you or anyone else has.

Actually, at this point time is becoming even more important. I'm actually considering trying to run a development company and making it a 4 day work week with lots of vacation time and more holidays off. Because, frankly, having time to enjoy the money you make is just as important as having it. I think that's where a lot of wealthy people make a mistake... working 16 hour days to get a few more dollars... when do you spend it?

[Ragorn]

So... while we're handing out money, are we also pretending that current prices will remain the same, and will not in any way change after everyone on earth starts making $200,000 a year? Because I'd sure as hell rather make twice as much as everyone else than half as much, in a real economy where inflation and buying power are market forces.

[kiryan]

Yes you could go that direction and argue which side is making the right decision... but either way, you have a 50/50 split... so its either smart vs dumb or social status vs wealth. Maybe Americans have a natural understanding of capitalism, supply and demand relative value and just intrinsically know that if they have more than others they are doing better... I don't think so.

I think its simpler to take it at face value, the 56% that chose 50k probably did not do so because of their anticipations to fluctuations in the economy and inflation etc... they did it because in one situation you have more than your identified peer group and in the other you have less than your peer group... the implication is that your status in your peer group is more important than your absolute wealth. The fact you are 10,000 x richer than an Chinaman in China matters to less than half of us.

[Kindi]

this graph shows world income inequality. the lines are "within-country" wealth, poorest on the left, richest on the right, and with up-down being amount of wealth. you'll note that the poorest 5% of americans are richer than the richest 5% of indians. and yet we feel like a poor nation in many ways. humans adjust to what they have... and always want more.

[Kifle]

this graph shows world income inequality. the lines are "within-country" wealth, poorest on the left, richest on the right, and with up-down being amount of wealth. you'll note that the poorest 5% of americans are richer than the richest 5% of indians. and yet we feel like a poor nation in many ways. humans adjust to what they have... and always want more.

True, but that graph doesn't take into account the cost of living either...

[Kindi]

you're right, economists are retarded, man i can't believe i thought they knew what was going on

[Ragorn]

Ha! So-called 'experts'! Just because someone goes to a fancy liberal university and spends two or three decades studying the same thing, that doesn't mean they know more than me. Particularly about a subject I've never thought about before!

[kiryan]

Kindi points out pretty much the point of the article.

Kifle your point is valid, but not many in 3rd world countries or even China are buying plasma TVs and widespread car ownership is largely an American luxury. The poorest in America have better living conditions than a least a couple billion of the world's population.

Ragorn, from a more direct source (a book or follow up study). The theory is called the Easterlin effect.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fUDQY6 ... ss&f=false

"With twice as high an income (at a price level that was assumed to be unchanged)..."

If your conjecture is that the 44% who picked the 50k income did so because of "intelligence" regarding economics, then they didn't believe what they were told which sounds pretty dumb to me in a hypothetical situation.

[Ragorn]

Based on the information from the OP, I'd have picked 50k. If we're assuming that prices remain unchanged, I'd pick 100k.

In other news: people are petty and competitive, news at 11.

[Kifle]

you're right, economists are retarded, man i can't believe i thought they knew what was going on

Never said that; however, I'm just stating that the graph, out of context, is misleading. Just because a psychiatrist recognizes that manic depression is a disease doesn't mean I can then say person X has that disease -- because a psychiatrist said it was a disease. Knowledge without context is utterly useless.

My point was, that even if our lowest makes more than middle class china, middle class china is still afforded the luxuries of our middle class due to cost of living. Raw dollar figures, when speaking in terms of money and buying power, are about as useful as a toothpick in a sword fight. So, while your graph is lovely and it has pretty lines, and I'm sure some genius of an economist (and I use the term genius lightly) made it, it doesn't nearly apply to the conversation outside of a raw dollar amount, which, at this point is smoke and mirrors.

I commend your sarcasm though.

[Kindi]

Raw dollar figures, when speaking in terms of money and buying power, are about as useful as a toothpick in a sword fight. So, while your graph is lovely and it has pretty lines, and I'm sure some genius of an economist (and I use the term genius lightly) made it, it doesn't nearly apply to the conversation outside of a raw dollar amount, which, at this point is smoke and mirrors.

yeah, the economists should have thought of that. stupid economists, making useless graphs that are nothing more than pretty lines!

so what if they used some crazy thing called purchasing power parity (PPP). ha, as if you can compare dollar figures between countries just by seeing what they can actually buy you! silly economists, they'll never learn

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... have-nots/

"The household income numbers are all converted into international dollars adjusted for equal purchasing power, since the cost of goods varies from country to country. In other words, the chart adjusts for the cost of living in different countries, so we are looking at consistent living standards worldwide."

[Kifle]

Raw dollar figures, when speaking in terms of money and buying power, are about as useful as a toothpick in a sword fight. So, while your graph is lovely and it has pretty lines, and I'm sure some genius of an economist (and I use the term genius lightly) made it, it doesn't nearly apply to the conversation outside of a raw dollar amount, which, at this point is smoke and mirrors.

yeah, the economists should have thought of that. stupid economists, making useless graphs that are nothing more than pretty lines!

so what if they used some crazy thing called purchasing power parity (PPP). ha, as if you can compare dollar figures between countries just by seeing what they can actually buy you! silly economists, they'll never learn

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... have-nots/

"The household income numbers are all converted into international dollars adjusted for equal purchasing power, since the cost of goods varies from country to country. In other words, the chart adjusts for the cost of living in different countries, so we are looking at consistent living standards worldwide."

I suppose I should be targeting idiotic posters who post graphs with no source who then expect other posters to divine the equations used to make those graphs. Your statement was "omg inequality of monies", whereas the common reader would be looking at it as though it were a straight income graph, as even Kiryan implicitly stated he did. Even good information can be ruined by the dumbest of regurgitators.

[Kindi]

it's as if i trusted the economists to actually know economics and therefore trusted that the graph was an accurate representation of truth without having to click-click-click to read up on all the detailed theory behind it. damn me and my naïveté :(

[kiryan]

I have a particular problem with your claim that the middle class in China can do the same things the middle class in Africa can that the middle class in America can. Thats simply not true.

The middle class in Africa can not afford cars while all but the poorest Americans can. The poor in America can have cell phones, but the poor in India barely eat. While there may be a relative position where the gap in X, say food quality, between the poor in america as compared to the middle class in america is the same as the gap between the poor and middle class in Indonesia may be true... it is by virtue of definition of "middle class" and "poor".

[Teflor Lyorian]

The middle class of America travels to India, China, and Africa to look down at their middle class.

[Kifle]

it's as if i trusted the economists to actually know economics and therefore trusted that the graph was an accurate representation of truth without having to click-click-click to read up on all the detailed theory behind it. damn me and my naïveté :(

No, it's more as if you assumed everyone knew the entirety of what the graph represented given your vague description. Anyway, I've had enough of unwarranted condescension. I guess somebody had to take over Teflor's job since he isn't an ass anymore. Wear the crown proudly, but you're going to have to try a bit harder to cover up your mistakes. You're just not convincing.

[Kifle]

The middle class of America travels to India, China, and Africa to look down at their middle class.

I saw a much larger majority of Chinese and Indian travelers while in New Zealand than I did Americans by far, and all of the Americans were backpackers.

[Teflor Lyorian]

The middle class of America travels to India, China, and Africa to look down at their middle class.

I saw a much larger majority of Chinese and Indian travelers while in New Zealand than I did Americans by far, and all of the Americans were backpackers.

The Chinese top 5% technically numbers more individual people than the American top 20%.

Also, possibly not directly related, but Americans don't really go to NZ.

[Kifle]

The middle class of America travels to India, China, and Africa to look down at their middle class.

I saw a much larger majority of Chinese and Indian travelers while in New Zealand than I did Americans by far, and all of the Americans were backpackers.

The Chinese top 5% technically numbers more individual people than the American top 20%.

Also, possibly not directly related, but Americans don't really go to NZ.

Point taken. But is travel really a part of our culture here in America -- outside of visiting relatives overseas? From my short time traveling, I've noticed, especially in the UK and other European countries, that a lot of people travel for a few months before they settle into a career/house/family. Again, this is anecdotal, so I'm asking as an honest question.

[Teflor Lyorian]

The middle class of America travels to India, China, and Africa to look down at their middle class.

I saw a much larger majority of Chinese and Indian travelers while in New Zealand than I did Americans by far, and all of the Americans were backpackers.

The Chinese top 5% technically numbers more individual people than the American top 20%.

Also, possibly not directly related, but Americans don't really go to NZ.

Point taken. But is travel really a part of our culture here in America -- outside of visiting relatives overseas? From my short time traveling, I've noticed, especially in the UK and other European countries, that a lot of people travel for a few months before they settle into a career/house/family. Again, this is anecdotal, so I'm asking as an honest question.

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-pape ... id=2923469
I think you're probably dead-on about the Europeans. The ones I know personally love the idea of traveling to foreign nations as much as Americans like to go to Disneyland. Someone big at the EU has essentially declared traveling vacations to be a human right, and suggested that the rich subsidize foreign travel for those who cannot afford it.

However, travel is a big part of our culture in the US, as evidenced by the number of campgrounds in each state, RV sales figures, and the sheer number of domestic flights. My guess is that the US is big enough, varied enough, and multicultural enough to satisfy the average wanderlust, while Europeans perhaps MUST go further to see something new.

[Kindi]

No, it's more as if you assumed everyone knew the entirety of what the graph represented given your vague description. Anyway, I've had enough of unwarranted condescension. I guess somebody had to take over Teflor's job since he isn't an ass anymore. Wear the crown proudly, but you're going to have to try a bit harder to cover up your mistakes. You're just not convincing.

the main reason i was condescending is that you came out with guns blazing in your first post without knowing about the graph. you assumed, took my vague description as all there was to say, and ran with it. it's really a statement about how ppl process the news in general... they don't question what they're seeing or hearing, they just form quick (yet somehow strong?) opinions and go on a rampage. it's a core problem.

instead of "pretty lines ... genius (lightly) ... smoke and mirrors", why didn't you say, "i'm not sure i get the point of the graph. are those numbers adjusted for cost of living?" questions can contribute a whole lot more than derogatory statements.

i process the news that way, and it's so, so very easy to point out that 99% of it is utterly useless. virtually every statement can be destroyed with a simple question like, "were they telling the truth when they said that?"

[Ashiwi]

However, travel is a big part of our culture in the US, as evidenced by the number of campgrounds in each state, RV sales figures, and the sheer number of domestic flights. My guess is that the US is big enough, varied enough, and multicultural enough to satisfy the average wanderlust, while Europeans perhaps MUST go further to see something new.

That's a pretty Americanized way of looking at it, isn't it? Kind of goes hand-in-hand with the belief that English is the only language that counts, so why should Americans be bothered to learn any other languages. Perhaps Europeans aren't looking for something "new" but are, instead, exploring thousands of years of history, along with an immersion into other cultures that cannot be achieved by hitting the themepark in the next town over. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but European civilizations have been around a pretty darned long time. Their modern society is packed with some amazing museums, they have themeparks of their own, they're astoundingly diverse culturally, and they have a pretty wide range of geography, as well. They don't have LESS than us. They just value the experience of world travel differently.

[Corth]

That's a pretty leftist way of looking at it, isn't it? Europeans are more cultured than us brutish Americans. They understand and value the more important things in life - like travel and the welfare state. We can't really hope to ever be as good as them, but we should try our best!

[Kindi]

i didn't see her saying their values were better, just different

[Kifle]

No, it's more as if you assumed everyone knew the entirety of what the graph represented given your vague description. Anyway, I've had enough of unwarranted condescension. I guess somebody had to take over Teflor's job since he isn't an ass anymore. Wear the crown proudly, but you're going to have to try a bit harder to cover up your mistakes. You're just not convincing.

the main reason i was condescending is that you came out with guns blazing in your first post without knowing about the graph. you assumed, took my vague description as all there was to say, and ran with it. it's really a statement about how ppl process the news in general... they don't question what they're seeing or hearing, they just form quick (yet somehow strong?) opinions and go on a rampage. it's a core problem.

instead of "pretty lines ... genius (lightly) ... smoke and mirrors", why didn't you say, "i'm not sure i get the point of the graph. are those numbers adjusted for cost of living?" questions can contribute a whole lot more than derogatory statements.

i process the news that way, and it's so, so very easy to point out that 99% of it is utterly useless. virtually every statement can be destroyed with a simple question like, "were they telling the truth when they said that?"

Lol, Lady, if you think the statement "True, but that graph doesn't take into account the cost of living either..." is "guns blazing" and "running with it", you have a low threshold, and probably need to check into getting help for that. And it's really a statement about how you probably get off on thinking you're smarter than people... You don't bother to question whether or not your description of the graph was entirely too vague to give any semblance of true contribution to the topic, you just form a quick (yet somehow strong?) opinion about the poster that questions something that obviously deserves questioning (because it was entirely vague). It's a core problem.

Instead of "you're right, economists are retarded, man i can't believe i thought they knew what was going on", why didn't you say, "Oh, no, the graph also takes into account buying power through an equation that equalizes purchasing power per dollar." Clarifying an unclear point can contribute a whole lot more than unwarranted condescension.

I process posts like that from users on this board, because I know most of them are rarely speaking from an expert standpoint; and it's so, so very easy to point out that 99% (see I can make up numbers too, or am I to just assume you're a statistician who has studied the usefulness of news. Do I just assume you have contacted experts or forgot to link expert testimony on this number?) Virtually every statement can be destroyed with a simple question like, "Does this poster even know wtf he/she is talking about? Did they take economics 101 and think they understood what they were linking?"

Lastly, I find it highly amusing that you advocate critical thinking, yet accuse me of not being critical in some way but becoming inflammatory because I'm not being critical about the news (in this case the regurgitation of news/info) when I was being critical about the news/info? Also, here are the facts. You are not an economics expert, and, if you are, you've never given any indication that that is the case. Second, you posted a graph with absolutely no background info -- just a vague statement. Third, you write like a teenager that stopped paying attention in English class at the age of 7. So, tell me why I should automatically just assume you know what you are talking about? You've given yourself no credibility at any point in this conversation -- at all. Your writing gives no indication of intelligence; your knowledge is suspect; your citing leaves something to be desired. Again, tell me why I should have assumed any of what you wanted me to?

Here's a last bit of sagely advice. Forum posts, just like a resume, give the reader indications as to how smart you are and whether or not you are competent. The people that read these things don't know your education, background, talents, etc.; so, it is necessary that you give some type of cues as to whether or not you have these qualities. I was not with you when you may or may not have gotten your PhD, so don't assume I know you have one. So, without these indications, all I had/have to work with are those that you've given me and I've listed. When I was a child, I was told to clarify my position when I write. If I've left something to be questioned, it was my fault, and I should attempt to clarify if given the opportunity. You should probably think about doing that next time, because, again, you are in no position to be condescending towards me -- even on your best day.

[Teflor Lyorian]

However, travel is a big part of our culture in the US, as evidenced by the number of campgrounds in each state, RV sales figures, and the sheer number of domestic flights. My guess is that the US is big enough, varied enough, and multicultural enough to satisfy the average wanderlust, while Europeans perhaps MUST go further to see something new.

That's a pretty Americanized way of looking at it, isn't it? Kind of goes hand-in-hand with the belief that English is the only language that counts, so why should Americans be bothered to learn any other languages. Perhaps Europeans aren't looking for something "new" but are, instead, exploring thousands of years of history, along with an immersion into other cultures that cannot be achieved by hitting the themepark in the next town over. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but European civilizations have been around a pretty darned long time. Their modern society is packed with some amazing museums, they have themeparks of their own, they're astoundingly diverse culturally, and they have a pretty wide range of geography, as well. They don't have LESS than us. They just value the experience of world travel differently.

Considering the number of Europeans that visit the United States multiple times, I would say it's not just an Amercanized way of looking at it, but a European one as well.

[Kifle]

However, travel is a big part of our culture in the US, as evidenced by the number of campgrounds in each state, RV sales figures, and the sheer number of domestic flights. My guess is that the US is big enough, varied enough, and multicultural enough to satisfy the average wanderlust, while Europeans perhaps MUST go further to see something new.

That's a pretty Americanized way of looking at it, isn't it? Kind of goes hand-in-hand with the belief that English is the only language that counts, so why should Americans be bothered to learn any other languages. Perhaps Europeans aren't looking for something "new" but are, instead, exploring thousands of years of history, along with an immersion into other cultures that cannot be achieved by hitting the themepark in the next town over. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but European civilizations have been around a pretty darned long time. Their modern society is packed with some amazing museums, they have themeparks of their own, they're astoundingly diverse culturally, and they have a pretty wide range of geography, as well. They don't have LESS than us. They just value the experience of world travel differently.

Ash, I actually think he made a good point here. I think you make a valid point as well that American travel is contained to the familiar while European travel is more exploratory -- culturally; however, the US is very diverse in landscape as opposed to someplace like the UK. The only thing America is lacking is rain forest, that I can think of off hand. Also, America is diverse culturally, but this is where I would depart from Teflor in that the American cultural differences are smaller due to the cultures being whitewashed and Americanized. Sure, we have chinatowns, areas of dense Mexican populations, but visiting these areas are not even close to visiting China or Mexico. I think travel, in and of itself, is being satisfied in America; however, European travel is different; so, the statement he was commenting on was accurately replied to, even though there is missing information, such as what you described and I've outlined here.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Admittedly, I was trying to find a friendly and safe place to visit where Arabic would have been spoken commonly on the street. Dearborn, Mi would have been the closest I could find in the US.

Perhaps things aren't so bad in Israel.

[Kindi]

you are in no position to be condescending towards me -- even on your best day.

i'm sorry i made you look stupid, so that now you have to make it all about me so you can build yourself back up again. now that i've apologized, i hope we can move on like the other ppl in the thread

[Kifle]

you are in no position to be condescending towards me -- even on your best day.

i'm sorry i made you look stupid, so that now you have to make it all about me so you can build yourself back up again. now that i've apologized, i hope we can move on like the other ppl in the thread

Of course you did. Again, not even on your best day, Lady. Also, thank you for ignoring the rest of my post. The fact that you couldn't intelligently respond to any of it further proves my point. And just to solidify our new friendship, I would like to offer you a Gift. No thanks will be necessary.

[kiryan]

I would love to join the kifle kindi debate but that would make it kiryan kindi kifle and that is just not right because our initials would be KKK

I would say that Europeans value travel to foreign countries more than the US. I would add to the debate by noting that European countries are relatively small in size and population. Going to another country in Europe is very much like going to another state in the USA without the language and cultural diversity.

Also, traveling to another country in Europe is relatively cheap easy and fast; emphasis on fast. When I was in London, it was a 2 hour boat ride to Ireland and a 2 hour tunnel ride to Paris. If the louvre was 2 hours away I'd probably make a trip at least once. Instead, I'll settle for a 6 hour drive to Mt. Rushmore or a 2 hour drive to Yellowstone national park (bigger than some countries) or a 4 hour flight down to new orleans if I want to experience a different culture.

[Ashiwi]

Corth, I didn't say anything like that in my post. I'm not sure why you read it that way, but that's your perspective and I'm okay with that.

The trips I have in my bucket list don't have anything to do with picking random spots to see something "new", but have been chosen for very specific reasons. New Orleans for the cemetaries and food, Mexico for Incan/Aztec ruins, a tour of early European cathedrals, the Blue Hole in Belize, ancient Grecian architecture and Hellenistic works of art, the Louvre, etc, etc, etc. Europeans that come to America aren't coming out of sheer randomness because the US has so much more than they could ever find anywhere else. We have plenty to offer, but so does the rest of the world.

Carl, I fully agree that we have a wide array of topography here in the states, and if we're traveling simply for the view we can find just about anything here. We won't, however, find the White Cliffs of Dover, the Great Wall of China, or Mt. Everest. Everybody travels for a different reason, and it's silly to assume everybody in Europe does it because their home country has so little to offer.

[Teflor Lyorian]

It's totally true. Ashiwi didn't even get totally trashed in Mexico.

[Teflor Lyorian]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/02/04/am ... estically/

Felt this was relevant to the discussion. I actually disagree with quite a few things said in the article, but some of the facts were interesting.