Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Anyone follow the miss-steps of North Korea?  (Read 7091 times)
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #40 on: June 16, 2010, 01:29:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stamper
I hope when and if it comes it doesn't convert to a free market economy where most of the population won't be any better off and only some will get rich. America eyes a take over of Cuba again. Most of the population will lose it's good education system and health system and suffer. A few will be become rich and the workers more impoverished. There has to be somewhere a balance between the rich and poor which will help the many and not the greedy few?

There's so much nonsense in this thread that I have to respond against my better judgment: this Gini chart is pretty telling; green countries have lowest income inequality, and are mostly "free market" economies with vastly better life expectancy, infant mortality rate, nutrition, infrastructure, literacy, poverty and happiness than the rest of the world. What else do you need? Mermaids?
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #41 on: June 16, 2010, 02:31:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Mermaids? Feppe, you can arrange that?

Rob C
Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2921


« Reply #42 on: June 17, 2010, 02:50:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic
I would be happy to... but then I read your next post and realized nobody could possibly elaborate any better than you:


On a side note, looks like you obtained your reading material at a Kim Philby's estate sale?

Perhaps you could post some of your insights in order to see where you are placed in this debate? Sniping and not making yourself a target doesn't make for a balanced post?
Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2921


« Reply #43 on: June 17, 2010, 02:57:45 AM »
ReplyReply

There's so much nonsense in this thread that I have to respond against my better judgment: this Gini chart is pretty telling; green countries have lowest income inequality, and are mostly "free market" economies with vastly better life expectancy, infant mortality rate, nutrition, infrastructure, literacy, poverty and happiness than the rest of the world. What else do you need? Mermaids?

Unquote

I looked at this chart and noticed that the two green countries Norway and Sweden have good track records for looking after their poorest. A lot better balance between rich and poor than many other countries. In short looking after them means that they are more productive and they contribute more instead of paying minimum wages and raising resentment.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2010, 03:01:14 AM by stamper » Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #44 on: June 17, 2010, 05:48:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stamper
I looked at this chart and noticed that the two green countries Norway and Sweden have good track records for looking after their poorest. A lot better balance between rich and poor than many other countries. In short looking after them means that they are more productive and they contribute more instead of paying minimum wages and raising resentment.

It comes at a very high price. I take it you have not lived in a Nordic country, which have a crippling tax burden, many argue unsustainable.

There's also higher minimum wage, so less work for those who need it most. Finally, structurally high unemployment means the poor are not more productive than elsewhere: people don't have to work but can still afford plenty of luxuries - all paid with taxes.
Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2921


« Reply #45 on: June 17, 2010, 08:46:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
It comes at a very high price. I take it you have not lived in a Nordic country, which have a crippling tax burden, many argue unsustainable.

There's also higher minimum wage, so less work for those who need it most. Finally, structurally high unemployment means the poor are not more productive than elsewhere: people don't have to work but can still afford plenty of luxuries - all paid with taxes.

It appears that you are arguing for a economy with low wages which means the rich profit more? The "normal" free market version of running a country. Fine if you are doing well, not so if you aren't. The usual argument is if you work hard then the benefits accrue There are plenty of people who work hard and receive little for the endeavours and plenty who do little and receive a good standard of life. In a nutshell nobody can become rich solely by their own efforts. They need others to work for them to make them rich. IMO society is a collective effort so a better distribution of wealth is needed? However this is straying far from the original post and I am surprised the moderator hasn't blocked it.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #46 on: June 17, 2010, 10:24:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stamper
It appears that you are arguing for a economy with low wages which means the rich profit more? The "normal" free market version of running a country. Fine if you are doing well, not so if you aren't. The usual argument is if you work hard then the benefits accrue There are plenty of people who work hard and receive little for the endeavours and plenty who do little and receive a good standard of life. In a nutshell nobody can become rich solely by their own efforts. They need others to work for them to make them rich. IMO society is a collective effort so a better distribution of wealth is needed? However this is straying far from the original post and I am surprised the moderator hasn't blocked it.


Stamper, he hasn't blocked it because he knows perfectly well that it will atrophy and die of its own accord.

Rob C

EDIT: this should help -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq4NhcfurgU
« Last Edit: June 17, 2010, 10:34:47 AM by Rob C » Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #47 on: June 17, 2010, 11:19:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stamper
It appears that you are arguing for a economy with low wages which means the rich profit more? The "normal" free market version of running a country.

[emphasis mine]

In no way I even implied something like that, nor do I advocate such an absurd notion. I don't know where you even get the misguided idea that this is the normal way to run a "free market" country.

Economy is not a zero-sum game, ie. if we have more wealthy people, everyone is better off, and nobody has to necessarily give anything away. It is in everybody's interest to reduce poverty, something which we (the world) have done an excellent job (PDF) with, despite what numerous pundits would like the populace to believe. There's still a lot to be done, of course.

Quote
The usual argument is if you work hard then the benefits accrue There are plenty of people who work hard and receive little for the endeavours and plenty who do little and receive a good standard of life.

The poor in western countries lead a lifestyle a king from 1800s would have literally killed for: no fear of famine, low infant mortality and good healthcare, not to mention air conditioning, refrigeration, TVs and cars and computers. Many modern "kings" like Warren Buffet made themselves, but in the past you were stuck with the destiny doled out at birth.

Quote
In a nutshell nobody can become rich solely by their own efforts. They need others to work for them to make them rich. IMO society is a collective effort so a better distribution of wealth is needed?

That's because not all men are created equal, nor do they produce equal amount and value of work - and by value I don't only mean monetary value. If there are no incentives for smart and/or industrious people to produce more and better quality work, it would stunt progress.

As I pointed out in my earlier post most western "free market" nations have much lower Gini than other countries, so income redistribution has already happened: almost all western nations are already punishing success with progressive income taxation.

In fairness, there are still some regressive taxes left, tax on food being the prime example (poor spend higher portion of their income on food, so even a flat VAT on food effectively becomes a regressive tax).
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #48 on: June 17, 2010, 11:28:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stamper
It appears that you are arguing for a economy with low wages which means the rich profit more? The "normal" free market version of running a country. Fine if you are doing well, not so if you aren't. The usual argument is if you work hard then the benefits accrue There are most of the people who work hard and receive little for the endeavours and a few who do little and receive a good standard of life. In a nutshell nobody can become rich solely by their own efforts. They need others to work for them to make them rich. IMO society is a collective effort so a better distribution of wealth is needed? However this is straying far from the original post and I am surprised the moderator hasn't blocked it.
Correct Stamper.
But sweating, hard work, sacrifice, has never been the way to become rich.
This is just the way to work FOR the ones who know the real rules of the game.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #49 on: June 17, 2010, 03:58:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Frankly, I think this is all bullshit. I have known quite a few very rich people personally and I can tell you this: they are not the same as each other; they are not all brilliant at life; they are not all wildly happy; they are not all intelligent; none I have known was in the arts of any description.

There is another factor at work that makes it tick for them - I suspect that they are as mystified about it as is the rest of us.

As for the power to self-destruct...

Rob C
« Last Edit: June 17, 2010, 03:59:59 PM by Rob C » Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #50 on: June 17, 2010, 04:57:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
But sweating, hard work, sacrifice, has never been the way to become rich.

This is exactly the kind of attitude which keeps (a certain subgroup of) poor people perpetually poor. Learned helplessness born from government handouts paid by the sweat and tears of hard-working classes further exacerbates the challenge.
Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2921


« Reply #51 on: June 18, 2010, 03:12:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote Feppe

Economy is not a zero-sum game, ie. if we have more wealthy people, everyone is better off, and nobody has to necessarily give anything away.

Unquote

Feppe. methinks that you are wearing rose tinted glasses. This notion was spouted by Margaret Thatcher and others 25 years ago, It was called the trickle down economy. It is now discredited. The belief that someone becomes rich then everyone else will follow is frankly ludicrous. The rich do everything in their power to avoid paying taxes which benefits the poorest. In Britain the gap between rich and poor is even wider. What sustains the poorest in society is a bigger burden of debt. If that debt was called in by the credit card companies then society would collapse tomorrow. Why should the working class of any country depend on the rich for a living? They can organize and run things for their own benefit and discard the rich. It is labour hiring capital rather than capital hiring labour. Feppe I assume that you are doing well out of the present system?
« Last Edit: June 18, 2010, 03:14:49 AM by stamper » Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #52 on: June 18, 2010, 03:59:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
This is exactly the kind of attitude which keeps (a certain subgroup of) poor people perpetually poor. Learned helplessness born from government handouts paid by the sweat and tears of hard-working classes further exacerbates the challenge.

What you point is absolutely right.
I was talking more about the very very little part of the population that leads the game's rule.

An observation.
Paris, Madrid, I observe exactly the same phenomenon.

Just go in the tube in the morning, rush hours then the same on the evening, sit and watch for awhile with no prejudice, as if you where watching a movie.
After a while, the ridiculous of this scenery appears clearly.

An enormous mass of people, an immense energy is putting into action every single day, and for the vast majority of people, life is spent from 6 in the morning to 8 or 9 in being used by the machinery to make it work properly.
There is absolutly no freedom here, neither free will. They have to eat, pay the mortagage they have been influenced to get (many are paying amongs 30, 40 years for little horrible flats, overpriced by the speculation), etc...They are programmed to act so and the choice, if margen exists, is very very narrow.

For the vast majority of the people in our rich countries, (arrownd a 90%), life is spent between the rush, the tube or the mortorway traffic jams (some hours in Madrid, every single day of their lifes...), then the all day at work in something that they mostly hate, then when they come home at night, they need to eat and they are too tired for romance anyway because they have to sleep and wake up again next day at 6...this will be done every single day till the system decide they have contributed enough to the overall prosperity and put them on a side, a sort of dead end road. (cheap cruise etc... as a recompense for being a good guy)
But what about the Inner prosperity? This is something that does not matter at all for the powers.
What matters really is that they can reproduce clones (and that the clone does not even know he is trapped, generally he feels it but as there is little escape so this truth is rejected). For that, manipulation is used and abused.

To make that non-sense bearable, the very very old roman's rule "bread and games", we have the football world-cup, the soup operas tv show etc...cheap distractions for cheap lifes. The places where these masses lives are also cheap, depressing, unhuman.
You can see that Paris is big machine, but the parisians are contribuiting to make it work, and get very very little benefits.

Yes we do not starve, we have many gadgets and distractions, but we have to understand that to maintain this level of prosperity we "enjoy" in the west, we have to maintain the rest of the planet in a state of bondage and rob the ressources that are not ours. The irony and pathetic is when you see these buses of red neck western tourist in Africa or Asia, visiting these exotic countries without understanding that the exploitater is visiting its victim. But most of the people in our countries, if they will not die for hunger are just dead inside. That is why they all fear death. There is no accomplishment, there is slavery. The difference between our economies and the poorest countries is that our slavery differs in nature but not in essence.

In our country we do not have to worry that much (BUT THAT IS STARTING TO CHANGE) about looking for the basics; food, water, home and health care. But halth of the population is in mental therapy. In the poor countries, our phychological problems have no room. There is no psychanalist for the masses in Africa.

Whatever the system involved, until it is based on profits and not on harmony and cooperation, the old french saying will remains true:

I participate
You participate
He/she participate
We participate
You participate
They benefit

The "they" is known as being approx 3% of the world population.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2010, 04:14:00 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad