Senator Bernie Sanders exposes elite shadow government.

Run_to_da_hills

He would want to watch his mouth.

JFK got silenced for less. :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ8p-K7X99I

Daithi 1

I give him 6 months max.

Channel Zero

Good video. He's dead right. Wish there were more politicians like him.

Some of what he's talking about is a policy called Starve the Beast.
It's been a well known strategy for years, and thousands of progressive politicians, economists and journalists have spoken out about it exactly like Bernie did. So i doubt he's going to get bumped off for 'exposing' something that's been common knowledge for 3 decades.

And who advocates for and aims to put into practice these pernicious policies?
The Republicans and the Tea Party.

hooradiation

Daithi 1 wrote: »

I give him 6 months max.

Well, old people do have a habit of dying, and he is 70 (and will be turning 71 quite shortly).
Clearly he's been shot with the Illuminati brand "eventual death ray".


But Channel Zero is correct about "starve the beast" (the beast in this case, being the federal government) policy being one put forward by advocates of small government. And I believe Sanders is the first and possibly only current self-identifying socialist in the US Senate.

Honestly, this isn't really that surprising, unless you strip it of all context and add your own.
Anyone want to guess what's happening here?

Sonics2k

So he exposed how the U.S. Govt is quite corrupt and only the rich and get richer, while the poor get poorer.

How is this new? Or even a conspiracy?

Corkfeen

Sonics2k wrote: »

So he exposed how the U.S. Govt is quite corrupt and only the rich and get richer, while the poor get poorer.

How is this new? Or even a conspiracy?

Apparently a ton of economists will be killed off if this is classified as whistleblowing on the illuminati. :pac:

Sonics2k

Well, fair goes to the guy for actually standing up and saying.... um... exactly what many others have been saying for years now.

All he's basically done is said 'Hey guys, this is capitalism in progress, you can see the exact same thing happening across Europe and the world."

shedweller

Sonics2k wrote: »

So he exposed how the U.S. Govt is quite corrupt and only the rich and get richer, while the poor get poorer.

How is this new? Or even a conspiracy?

But if the masses say and do nothing about it then it might as well be a conspiracy. The rich will continue to get richer etc.
Now if we all did something about it......

Monty Burnz

Channel Zero wrote: »

And who advocates for and aims to put into practice these pernicious policies?
The Republicans and the Tea Party.

This may put you in bad odour with a regular poster who gets most of his opinions from the far-right religious/CT wing of the Tea Party.

Monty Burnz

shedweller wrote: »

But if the masses say and do nothing about it then it might as well be a conspiracy. The rich will continue to get richer etc.
Now if we all did something about it......

Point of information: the poor have also been getting richer. A lot richer.

alphabeat

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Point of information: the poor have also been getting richer. A lot richer.

wrong , the poor and middle classes have been made richer temoparily to facilitate gettting them into huge debt ,
via propery , easy credit , massive consumerism

ie making them in balance poorer-
to make the rich richer

with evryone else under financial slavery, and out of work

Monty Burnz

alphabeat wrote: »

wrong , the poor and middle classes have been made richer temoparily to facilitate gettting them into huge debt ,
via propery , easy credit , massive consumerism

ie making them in balance poorer-
to make the rich richer

with evryone else under financial slavery, and out of work

Ok, so if I go back 20 years in most of the world, will I find poor people richer than today or poorer? (answer: richer)

If I go back 100 years, will they be richer or poorer? (answer: richer)

If I go back 500 years, will they be richer or poorer? (answer: richer)

Perhaps you see where this is going? Or perhaps you are going to argue that working only 8 hour days 5 days a week (if at all) and having running water, electricity, Sky Tv, flat screen TVs, Playstations, the internet, foreign holidays, free education, a free health service and so on and so on - that these things represent poor people being poorer than they were 50 etc. years ago?

Channel Zero

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This may put you in bad odour with a regular poster

I hope not.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Point of information: the poor have also been getting richer. A lot richer.

Depends on where we're talking about obviously. The thread seems to be about the States in recent years, so in that case the statement is not accurate.

Leaving aside 500 year intervals, I would also question your worldwide contention for 20 years. Especially if you're also saying they've been getting "a lot richer".

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ok, so if I go back 20 years in most of the world, will I find poor people richer than today or poorer? (answer: richer)

If I go back 100 years, will they be richer or poorer? (answer: richer)

If I go back 500 years, will they be richer or poorer? (answer: richer)

Perhaps you see where this is going? Or perhaps you are going to argue that working only 8 hour days 5 days a week (if at all) and having running water, electricity, Sky Tv, flat screen TVs, Playstations, the internet, foreign holidays, free education, a free health service and so on and so on - that these things represent poor people being poorer than they were 50 etc. years ago?

Can you please also state the amount of debt that people accumulated as well ..... you know just to keep it in perspective

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

Can you please also state the amount of debt that people accumulated as well ..... you know just to keep it in perspective

You seem to be confusing an abstract concept (debt) with genuine improvements in lifestyle. It reminds me of how a teacher explained to me as a child that it was alright if priests lived in big houses and had big cars, because they didn't own them - they only had the use of them for as long as they lived.

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You seem to be confusing an abstract concept (debt) with genuine improvements in lifestyle. It reminds me of how a teacher explained to me as a child that it was alright if priests lived in big houses and had big cars, because they didn't own them - they only had the use of them for as long as they lived.

Nope not confusing anything ... just asked a simple question .. is that so difficult to answer ?

How much was the priest paying back monthly ?? and by failing to pay would he be kicked out of the church ... some got away with rape and still kept their jobs !! .. stop making these stupid comparisons

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

Nope not confusing anything ... just asked a simple question .. is that so difficult to answer ?

It's not difficult to answer, it seems you are just not able to understand. People have more debt than they used to, because previously they had no access to debt - only wealthy people did.

weisses wrote: »

How much was the priest paying back monthly ?? and by failing to pay would he be kicked out of the church ... some got away with rape and still kept their jobs !! .. stop making these stupid comparisons

The priest's monthly payment was the work he did in the parish, same as people today service their debts from their work. A comparison flies over your level of comprehension is not a stupid comparison.

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's not difficult to answer, it seems you are just not able to understand. People have more debt than they used to, because previously they had no access to debt - only wealthy people did.

Not an answer to my question ... but keep trying

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The priest's monthly payment was the work he did in the parish, same as people today service their debts from their work. A comparison flies over your level of comprehension is not a stupid comparison.

So were in your little analysis is the priest in debt ?

Maybe you understand it better explained this way

What is the percentage of people that get to do the Job they choose .. Live in a Big house ... Drive a big Car without going into debt ?? And have a Job for life

Channel Zero

The OP it's fair to say is talking about the last 3 decades in the States. About the inequalities that have developed there. So referencing the fact that people have gotten richer in the past 100 or 500 years has got nothing to do with what we're discussing in fairness.

It's assigning credit where it's not due. Here's another little analogy for you Monty:
If a football manager was asked to give a progress report to the owner of the club after 3 seasons in charge. Where the club didn't really improve at all and actually finished more or less in the same position as the seasons before. The club owner is not impressed so asks the manager for his explaination.
If the manager was to say something like.. "Well, the club has improved measurably in the last 50 years though. It has really come on since then hasn't it? I mean look at all those trophies we won in the '70's. That's progress right there. And if we go back to a hundred years ago, well, there's no comparison. We're in much better shape! We didn't even have a proper football ground back then, let alone any trophies. So, please bear all this in mind when you're considering my position."

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

Not an answer to my question ... but keep trying

You asked me how much debt people have accumulated. Do you want a figure for everyone? :rolleyes: Why don't you tell me what assets people have accumulated?

weisses wrote: »

So were in your little analysis is the priest in debt ?

He's not in debt. That's the f*cking point.

weisses wrote: »

Maybe you understand it better explained this way

What is the percentage of people that get to do the Job they choose .. Live in a Big house ... Drive a big Car without going into debt ?? And have a Job for life

What has that got to do with anything? You are claiming that the poor are getting poorer than they were. I am claiming they are getting richer. Now you want a chat about career choices?

What career choices did the poor have 50 years ago? What percentage of poor people had cars 50 years ago?

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You asked me how much debt people have accumulated. Do you want a figure for everyone? :rolleyes: Why don't you tell me what assets people have accumulated?

No don't turn this around ... you said everyone was getting richer .. You failed however in counting in the debt people are having .. making the getting richer assumption non valid

Monty Burnz wrote: »

He's not in debt. That's the f*cking point.

calm down Monty .. its just a little discussion

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What has that got to do with anything? You are claiming that the poor are getting poorer than they were.

Where did i claim that ?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I am claiming they are getting richer. Now you want a chat about career choices?

Did you consider the debt the new poor people are having

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What career choices did the poor have 50 years ago?

couldn't anwser that

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What percentage of poor people had cars 50 years ago?

Less then now ... But what percentage of "poor" people own their car today

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

No don't turn this around ... you said everyone was getting richer .. You failed however in counting in the debt people are having .. making the getting richer assumption non valid

I genuinely have run out of ideas as to how to explain this to you. Debt used to be the preserve of the rich, allowing them to invest in productive assets or property or whatever. Poor people had no access to debt, so they could only live in property rented to them by the rich, or work in industries controlled by the rich.

Now that poor people (in wealthy countries) have access to debt, they can buy their own property or start their own businesses. Do you accept/understand this?

(Of course, a side discussion is 'how do you define who is poor?' - but it's quite telling that a couple of hundred years ago, 99% of people were dirt poor. 50 years ago, say 30% of people were dirt poor (like my grandparents). Today, nobody is dirt poor in this country.)

weisses wrote: »

Where did i claim that ?

You are not claiming that the poor are getting poorer? Fair enough so.

weisses wrote: »

Less then now ... But what percentage of "poor" people own their car today

More than did in the 50s.

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I genuinely have run out of ideas as to how to explain this to you. Debt used to be the preserve of the rich, allowing them to invest in productive assets or property or whatever. Poor people had no access to debt, so they could only live in property rented to them by the rich, or work in industries controlled by the rich.

Now that poor people (in wealthy countries) have access to debt, they can buy their own property or start their own businesses. Do you accept/understand this?

(Of course, a side discussion is 'how do you define who is poor?' - but it's quite telling that a couple of hundred years ago, 99% of people were dirt poor. 50 years ago, say 30% of people were dirt poor (like my grandparents). Today, nobody is dirt poor in this country.)

You are not claiming that the poor are getting poorer? Fair enough so.

More than did in the 50s.

My point (problem) is that people are called richer today then back when our grandparents grew up and agreed .. we have more to spend but at what cost!?

People took loans for the house plus a loan with the cu for the deposit ... people are taking loans for everything these days

ad the end of the day you own nothing .. you only accumulated debt creating a false believe of "being rich"

I of course agree with you that Being poor today is in no comparison as in being poor 100 years ago

The fact however that people have access to more consumer goods is only possible by creating debts for themselves encouraged by the lending institutions, and that facility wasn't there 50 years ago ... so that's why i believe people are not richer these days then in the past.

What brings us back to the OP ... Our own behavior (encouraged by the industry) makes us modern slaves to serve the few wealthy on this planet

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

The fact however that people have access to more consumer goods is only possible by creating debts for themselves encouraged by the lending institutions, and that facility wasn't there 50 years ago ... so that's why i believe people are not richer these days then in the past.

But the net result - like the priest I mentioned earlier - is that for our whole lives, we have access to washing machines, televisions, computers, houses, foreign holidays etc. etc. - so we are richer. And when we die, we can pass on the house etc. (although presumably not the holidays...) to our children. Which is better - working a lifetime without all of those things (like we did in the past) or working a lifetime with all of those things?

weisses wrote: »

What brings us back to the OP ... Our own behavior (encouraged by the industry) makes us modern slaves to serve the few wealthy on this planet

And as I tried to point out, access to credit has allowed the average person to narrow the gap between themselves and the rich and granted them a level of independence to create new wealth for themselves that simply didn't exist even in the relatively recent past.

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But the net result - like the priest I mentioned earlier - is that for our whole lives, we have access to washing machines, televisions, computers, houses, foreign holidays etc. etc. - so we are richer. And when we die, we can pass on the house etc. (although presumably not the holidays...) to our children. Which is better - working a lifetime without all of those things (like we did in the past) or working a lifetime with all of those things?

That is flawed reasoning imo i was trying to point out is that the Priest can acquire that without going into debt

If you can do all of the above without taking out a loan ... fine by me

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And as I tried to point out, access to credit has allowed the average person to narrow the gap between themselves and the rich and granted them a level of independence to create new wealth for themselves that simply didn't exist even in the relatively recent past.

No i believe that "narrowing the gap" is something delusional .. You cant get closer to the rich by taking out loans what actually makes you poorer in the process

Independence is created when you are able to do all that without getting into debt ... buying a house is a binding factor not something that gives you independence (false independence yes)

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

That is flawed reasoning imo i was trying to point out is that the Priest can acquire that without going into debt

If you can do all of the above without taking out a loan ... fine by me

How do you propose it is possible without getting into debt? And would you rather have all of those things and have to work to pay the debt back, or would you prefer to have none of them and have to work just as hard (or harder) without them, as we did in the past?

weisses wrote: »

No i believe that "narrowing the gap" is something delusional .. You cant get closer to the rich by taking out loans what actually makes you poorer in the process

Independence is created when you are able to do all that without getting into debt ... buying a house is a binding factor not something that gives you independence (false independence yes)

How is that possible without debt? Theft?

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

How do you propose it is possible without getting into debt? And would you rather have all of those things and have to work to pay the debt back, or would you prefer to have none of them and have to work just as hard (or harder) without them, as we did in the past?

How is that possible without debt? Theft?

you can't do it without going into debt ... That's why I don't get the claim that we are getting richer

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

you can't do it without going into debt ... That's why I don't get the claim that we are getting richer

So you think that today we are like the poor priest who took a vow of poverty, but has the use of a nice house, a nice car and a housekeeper for as long as he lives? He's poor like those living in the huts with no cars or housekeepers because, technically, he doesn't own them.

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So you think that today we are like the poor priest who took a vow of poverty, but has the use of a nice house, a nice car and a housekeeper for as long as he lives? He's poor like those living in the huts with no cars or housekeepers because, technically, he doesn't own them.

I think we're of worse in some cases

And if you think that by building up huge personal debt I making us richer .. Fine by me

I forgot about the housekeeper ... Lucky feckers

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

I think we're of worse in some cases

Well if you think we are worse off than our ancestors, I really don't know what to say to you but seeing as you can't travel back in time, perhaps you could travel to somewhere where living conditions are similar to what we used to endure. I saw property poverty for the first time in Peru. I was pretty shocked.

weisses wrote: »

And if you think that by building up huge personal debt I making us richer .. Fine by me

Debt is just a construct. Look at the facts of how people live.

weisses wrote: »

I forgot about the housekeeper ... Lucky feckers

Cup of tea, Father?

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well if you think we are worse off than our ancestors, I really don't know what to say to you but seeing as you can't travel back in time, perhaps you could travel to somewhere where living conditions are similar to what we used to endure. I saw property poverty for the first time in Peru. I was pretty shocked.

I said some cases .. you make it look like i said were worse off all the time

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Debt is just a construct. Look at the facts of how people live.

By definition .. you cant get into debt and be richer that is just impossible

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Cup of tea, Father?

Yeah those poor priests .. my arse

Torakx

Channel Zero wrote: »

The OP it's fair to say is talking about the last 3 decades in the States. About the inequalities that have developed there. So referencing the fact that people have gotten richer in the past 100 or 500 years has got nothing to do with what we're discussing in fairness.

It's assigning credit where it's not due. Here's another little analogy for you Monty:
If a football manager was asked to give a progress report to the owner of the club after 3 seasons in charge. Where the club didn't really improve at all and actually finished more or less in the same position as the seasons before. The club owner is not impressed so asks the manager for his explaination.
If the manager was to say something like.. "Well, the club has improved measurably in the last 50 years though. It has really come on since then hasn't it? I mean look at all those trophies we won in the '70's. That's progress right there. And if we go back to a hundred years ago, well, there's no comparison. We're in much better shape! We didn't even have a proper football ground back then, let alone any trophies. So, please bear all this in mind when you're considering my position."

I think this is a good point.

Also that aside.
With time humans have learned to farm, create massive industries and products for us to consume.
But the price humans have paid is losing a massive portion of resources to a small few.
Those resources the majority only learn they needed when it is running out or being held hostage.

In my opinion its more likely humans would last longer if they didnt progress past the iron age.
Sure things got better in some respects.
But then again there are billions of people dying from overeating.And another big number representing people dying of starvation.This is apparantly countered by encouraging people to pro create while at the same time attempting to shorten the average lifetime of a human.
You can make more money on batteries if they dont last as long.Production production production..keeep that sh!t going!

Still have wars worldwide.Massive killing fields.innocents getting caught up in it.Mass graves.
We live cushy lives in the west by exploiting people in other places and even exploitng our own people here aswell.

Anyway with all symantics aside, the video has the numbers and the numbers dont lie.
Its quite clear where we are heading.
Watch a few Mangas maybe, they are probably quite accurate regarding corperations rulling a slave class.

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Point of information: the poor have also been getting richer. A lot richer.

so are the 'poor' rich now? (answer is no)

but thankfully we can tell them that they are a lot richer ... compared to something or other.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ok, so if I go back 20 years in most of the world, will I find poor people richer than today or poorer? (answer: richer)

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

so are the 'poor' rich now? (answer is no)

Are the poor better off than they were? Better off than any time in human history?

Yes.

davoxx wrote: »

but thankfully we can tell them that they are a lot richer ... compared to something or other.

Yes, thankfully we can. That's real progress.

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are the poor better off than they were? Better off than any time in human history?

Yes.

something to back that up?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes, thankfully we can. That's real progress.

funny you also said the quote below

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ok, so if I go back 20 years in most of the world, will I find poor people richer than today or poorer? (answer: richer)

so if the poor are richer in the past (if you went back 20 years) than today ... what does that make poor people today?

maybe the logic works for you, but i'm not buying your argument .. or your understanding of progress ...

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

something to back that up?

Look out the window. As recently as 1845, most of the population here were subsistence farmers scratching out a miserable existence even when they weren't dropping dead due to hunger. As recently as 50 years ago, the notion of even the unemployed having food, education, houses and even foreign holidays paid for by the state would have been astonishing.

Do you dispute this at all?

davoxx wrote: »

funny you also said the quote below

so if the poor are richer in the past (if you went back 20 years) than today ... what does that make poor people today?

maybe the logic works for you, but i'm not buying your argument .. or your understanding of progress ...

The 'poorest' in Ireland are certainly better off today than they were 20 years ago. The point was that 20 years is a blip in historical terms - a history which has seen the wealth of the poor increase spectacularly.

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Look out the window.

i did, and all i can see is the wind rustling the branches of a dead leafless tree ... but i get what you are say, you have nothing to back it up.

so the 'poor' are still poor and your point is?

are you missing that wealth is relative?

maybe an example will help?
if in year x, alice has one apple, while everyone else only has two and in year y, alice has 2 apples when everyone else has 20, is alice better off now that she was before?

in simplistic thinking, yes as she now has two apples and should never complain, least one of her apples be taken away.

in realistic terms, no as the relative gain is not proportionate to the gains experienced by others ...

so if by your logic the poor are better of now than ever, the rich are exponentially better of now that every as the pay less tax and horde more money and don't even work and still get government bail outs while they screw up the misgovernment with no chance of repercussions ...

do you dispute that?

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

i did, and all i can see is the wind rustling the branches of a dead leafless tree ... but i get what you are say, you have nothing to back it up.

so the 'poor' are still poor and your point is?

are you missing that wealth is relative?

AHHHHHH! So you acknowledge that the poor people are richer than they have ever been in human history? It's just that the rich people are also richer, and that's a bad thing? How unfair. Bring back communism - it's sure to work this time.

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

AHHHHHH! So you acknowledge that the poor people are richer than they have ever been in human history?

ahhhh so you admit that you are deliberately ignoring relative comparisons for the sake of pushing your incorrect 'point'.
fine you are 'right', poor people are richer than poor people in the past regardless of time except for 20 years ago all because you said so. fact!!!
glad you back that up with 'facts'

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's just that the rich people are also richer, and that's a bad thing?

you fail to understand the concept relative of wealth ... but don't let that stop strawmen being erected.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

How unfair. Bring back communism - it's sure to work this time.

figures from some one who thinks capitalism is fair, maybe we should bring back the poor prison, that will make the poor better of again :rolleyes:

tell me what do you call it when everyone in the society pays back a failed private business debt? capitalism right? sharing the pain sounds exactly like capitalism :rolleyes:

but facts aside, i notice you did not dispute my point.

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

ahhhh so you admit that you are deliberately ignoring relative comparisons for the sake of pushing your incorrect 'point'.
fine you are 'right', poor people are richer than poor people in the past regardless of time except for 20 years ago all because you said so. fact!!!
glad you back that up with 'facts'

Look at GDP per capita for the last 1000 years. Then tell me how those facts are lies.

davoxx wrote: »

you fail to understand the concept relative of wealth ... but don't let that stop strawmen being erected.

I understand relative wealth very well thanks. But isn't that like saying that Mars is closer to the sun (relative to the earth) than my house is to my office (relative to to the train station)? If I promised to double your wealth while tripling Bill Gates' wealth, would you turn me down because you are poorer?

davoxx wrote: »

figures from some one who thinks capitalism is fair, maybe we should bring back the poor prison, that will make the poor better of again :rolleyes:

Indeed, bring back communism. It was so successful in making everyone poor before, and continues to do a great job in North Korea. Although I think they are having another famine this year - odd, that.

davoxx wrote: »

tell me what do you call it when everyone in the society pays back a failed private business debt? capitalism right? sharing the pain sounds exactly like capitalism :rolleyes:

Um no, that's not capitalism - that's socialism for companies. But you are in favour of socialism, remember? (by the way, I could accuse you of straw manning here but I don't think I need to)

davoxx wrote: »

but facts aside, i notice you did not dispute my point.

Your point that relative poverty has increased? I do dispute that too. But we'd have to agree the size of the relative gap between starving in a ditch versus living like a king, waited on hand and foot (as with an Irish peasant and an Irish landlord in the 1840s) and living a life of leisure with a full belly and roof over your head versus living a life of leisure with a full belly, loads of toys and fancier holidays (someone on the dole today versus a billionaire today).

And that depends ultimately on the value you put on leisure time.

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Indeed, bring back communism. It was so successful in making everyone poor before, and continues to do a great job in North Korea. Although I think they are having another famine this year - odd, that.

no you are right capitalism is way better, no capitalist country has every experienced a famine, ever :eek:
(wiki research appropriate here)

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I understand relative wealth very well thanks.

if you say so ... seems to disagree with your pointless statement that the poor are now richer than before, maybe things are cheaper than before, maybe inflation needs to be included? you seem to disregard all these ...

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But isn't that like saying that Mars is closer to the sun (relative to the earth) than my house is to my office (relative to to the train station)?

yeah that made sense? you totally understand the concept of relative comparison ...
i'd correct your comparison, but you wouldn't believe me anyway ...

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If I promised to double your wealth while tripling Bill Gates' wealth, would you turn me down because you are poorer?

it's obviously you don't understand "relative wealth" at all, otherwise if i offered to double your wealth while increasing the wealth of everyone else by 100 fold, i'm sure you'll have an objection, funny that though ... :eek:

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Your point that relative poverty has increased? I do dispute that too.

of course you would, but that would be relative to the amount of money you made from capitalism affecting the facts ...

i thought you were placing me in the communism camp, but now it's socialism?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But you are in favour of socialism, remember?

if you said so, am i only in favour of socialism for companies? but then again you must be against healthcare for the elderly and handicapped ... :rolleyes:

Monty Burnz wrote: »

(by the way, I could accuse you of straw manning here but I don't think I need to)

because you'd be wrong, you can always accuse me of anything you want, but in this case, you'd be wrong again.


let us know when they get capitalism right, i mean they've only been working on it for like ever ...

how's china doing by the way

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

how's china doing by the way

In material terms or human rights terms? For the last 20 years, or the last 200 hundred years? By the way, are the poor getting poorer in China? Check out the GINI index for wealth distribution there, you'll find the answer (according to your terms) is 'yes'.

Anyway, we can go back and forth like this indefinitely. Your position (correct me if I'm wrong) is that relatively, poor people are poorer than they were throughout history. My position is that absolutely, they are far, far richer than they have ever been throughout history, and I feel that the relative wealth question is also open to dispute - is the gap in quality of life between an unemployed person in Ireland today and Denis O'Brien greater than the gap in quality of life between a subsistence farmer in Connacht and the Duke of Leinster? I'd say the gap is smaller. It's not fun being unemployed, but at least you can get an education, use the internet, watch TV, take up hobbies, go on foreign holidays and you don't live in fear of starvation.

Have you ever been to a third world country?

davoxx

davoxx wrote: »

how's china doing by the way

Monty Burnz wrote: »

In material terms or human rights terms? For the last 20 years, or the last 200 hundred years? By the way, are the poor getting poorer in China? Check out the GINI index for wealth distribution there, you'll find the answer (according to your terms) is 'yes'.

dunno, thought my question was a clear one, you remember when you threw in north korea's famine to mock communism rather than dealing with the fact that the poor are poorer now while the rich are richer all in the idealist land of capitalism.

but good show with the mentioning human rights, lucky china is not the only country that violates human rights, but lets ignore the capitalist ones, since they invalidate your 'point'.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Anyway, we can go back and forth like this indefinitely.

just like their are people who argue that self regulation works 100% of the time, but say you still need government regulation, just not too much, but enough, even though they say you don't actually need it since capitalism is all about making things better by itself ...

the difference is that just saying something is better because its all we have does not make it better than the alternatives ...

this might explain better why some people will argue a point without understanding it or even wanting to learn about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0344qRfAOtA

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Your position (correct me if I'm wrong) is that relatively, poor people are poorer than they were throughout history.

since wealth is a relative comparison, and the wealth gap has increased substantially, the poor are poorer than before, and relatively worse off.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

My position is that absolutely, they are far, far richer than they have ever been throughout history, and I feel that the relative wealth question is also open to dispute - is the gap in quality of life between an unemployed person in Ireland today and Denis O'Brien greater than the gap in quality of life between a subsistence farmer in Connacht and the Duke of Leinster? I'd say the gap is smaller. It's not fun being unemployed, but at least you can get an education, use the internet, watch TV, take up hobbies, go on foreign holidays and you don't live in fear of starvation.

well factually 4 years ago before the levies and taxes in ireland, the poor were better off.
but your simplistic thinking is flawed. you're deliberately ignoring buying power, inflation, reduction of cost via technology, supply and demand ...

and how can you take a position when you think the wealth question is open to dispute? what has quality of life got to do with relative wealth? are you saying that some one on 100k a year free time is worth less than some one on 20k therefore when you add all time together the add up to 100k? are you saying that the rich don't get education?
you are muddling your point.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Have you ever been to a third world country?

Other than northern ireland or spain? not sure what your point is, but i'm sure it is irreverent.

you mentioned starvation, visit greece and ask them how they are doing ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161651/Starving-Greeks-food-thousands-politicians-finally-form-coalition-government--long-last.html

but seriously, i do not believe that you understand relative comparisons. your statement about the distance relative to the earth and train station illustrates this.

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

well factually 4 years ago before the levies and taxes in ireland, the poor were better off.

Can you please outline the new taxes and levies that the unemployed are paying in the last 4 years?

The point regarding whether you have visited a third world country is that it is clear that you have no understanding of what 'poverty' is other than as a numbers game.

And finally, your persistent droning on about relative poverty demonstrates how bankrupt your argument is - by definition, someone will always be relatively poor. Denis O'Brien is poor relative to Warren Buffet - and yet I doubt he cries himself to sleep at night.

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can you please outline the new taxes and levies that the unemployed are paying in the last 4 years?

seriously? i asked you to back something up and you said "look out the window", and here you've never heard about water charges, insurance levies, property taxes?
you need to comeback when you have facts and understand them, more importantly where did i specifically mention 'unemployed' people? i know that poor people must be unemployed to you, based on your vast understanding of numbers.

okay, i'm wasting my time here.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The point regarding whether you have visited a third world country is that it is clear that you have no understanding of what 'poverty' is other than as a numbers game.

see it was irrelevant, but also wrong ... another well raised point :rolleyes: ...
let me guess you were with the starving kids of africa, they were all crying, but when you pointed out how they were richer than ever before and no longer slaves, they all cheered and stopped crying ...

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And finally, your persistent droning on about relative poverty demonstrates how bankrupt your argument is - by definition, someone will always be relatively poor. Denis O'Brien is poor relative to Warren Buffet - and yet I doubt he cries himself to sleep at night.

tee hee bankrupt and we're talking about money!!

yeah okay you are right the poor people in the third world countries are rich, relative to the numeric sun to the train station ...

and point of information, the fact that your baffling claim that the poor are richer than ever based on a pure numeric value is, well ridiculous ... but i understand your point of value of free time, mine is obviously worth more than yours, hence you can spend forever talking about rich poor people who go on holidays and should be thankful that they are not on the farm ... but for me, i've wasted enough time and hence something of monetary value on your worthless point.

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

seriously? i asked you to back something up and you said "look out the window", and here you've never heard about water charges, insurance levies, property taxes?
you need to comeback when you have facts and understand them, more importantly where did i specifically mention 'unemployed' people? i know that poor people must be unemployed to you, based on your vast understanding of numbers.

okay, i'm wasting my time here.

You understand that the unemployed get exemptions from these things, right? In fact, you've scored a bit of an OG here - the well off have to pay the USC, the household charge, the second property charge and various levies - while the unemployed don't have to pay anything. Well, anything that you have named.

davoxx wrote: »

see it was irrelevant, but also wrong ... another well raised point :rolleyes: ...
let me guess you were with the starving kids of africa, they were all crying, but when you pointed out how they were richer than ever before and no longer slaves, they all cheered and stopped crying ...

As I said, it's just very clear that you have no understanding of poverty. I suggest that you do visit some genuinely poor place - I assure you, when you come back you won't be bleating about how you can't afford the latest iPod or whatever it is Dennis O'Brien has that you feel you need.

davoxx wrote: »

tee hee bankrupt and we're talking about money!!

yeah okay you are right the poor people in the third world countries are rich, relative to the numeric sun to the train station ...

Oh, so now we are changing to the poor in the third world? I thought it was pretty clear I was referring to the poor in Ireland?

I guess it makes sense to continue shifting the goalposts as each of your arguments is shot down...

davoxx wrote: »

and point of information, the fact that your baffling claim that the poor are richer than ever based on a pure numeric value is, well ridiculous ...

No, I'm arguing they are better off than ever based on their lifestyles. You are the one obsessed with the numbers - hence your insistence on 'relative poverty'.

davoxx wrote: »

but i understand your point of value of free time, mine is obviously worth more than yours, hence you can spend forever talking about rich poor people who go on holidays and should be thankful that they are not on the farm ... but for me, i've wasted enough time and hence something of monetary value on your worthless point.

And out comes the white flag...

Off you go - I don't want to distract you from your fundraising drive for JP McManus, who is poor relative to Carlos Slim...

Torakx

I believe nowadays you cannot own your own land.A few years ago when researching the whole freeman thing i found some info basicallyl saying you do not get a deed when you buy property.That is held by a government org.
you get a copy of the deed or another type of form showing "ownership".
apparently land owners in Ireland are just holding the land for the gov who actually owns it legally.

Now wether thats because the whole country belongs to the republic and your not allowed own any part of it i dont know.
But im also wondering is ths an example of things that have changed,regarding the arguement gong on about people beign more well of in gneral.
I do agree it is the case in some circumstances.
Not sure how many homeless people there were back in 1840's and if there were land owners who held actual deeds to their land or just held them in the queens name.

I just know that back then people would put up a fight and take up arms when the system was becoming a joke.
But now it seems that isnt going to happen because of said progress.
The power shift and social conditionng is nearly too great for any civil uprising,which is an easy price to pay if your amongst the ruling class.

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And out comes the white flag...

yeah it's your victory, i had no idea that unemployed people are the only poor people and the poor people must also be unemployed people ... or that when you say poor people and mention third world countries that you obviously meant ireland ...

here i was thinking that unemployed people were people who were not employed, you know people without jobs, i'll log into Wikipedia to fix the meaning of the word just for you so that next time when i say "poor people can not afford food" you can say "yeah but they all get the unemployment benefit" and that way you'll be right in your relative absolute compared to the past view ...

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Off you go - I don't want to distract you from your fundraising drive for JP McManus, who is poor relative to Carlos Slim...

all i'll say to that is the quote below

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But isn't that like saying that Mars is closer to the sun (relative to the earth) than my house is to my office (relative to to the train station)?

and enjoy your repossessing the food of the starving children, after all they are richer today than they were yesterday ...

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are the poor better off than they were? Better off than any time in human history?

Yes.

Yes, thankfully we can. That's real progress.

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

yeah it's your victory, i had no idea that unemployed people are the only poor people and the poor people must also be unemployed people ... or that when you say poor people and mention third world countries that you obviously meant ireland ...

here i was thinking that unemployed people were people who were not employed, you know people without jobs, i'll log into Wikipedia to fix the meaning of the word just for you so that next time when i say "poor people can not afford food" you can say "yeah but they all get the unemployment benefit" and that way you'll be right in your relative absolute compared to the past view ...

This is all very strange. It reminds me of an octopus trying to muddy the water with ink as it beats a retreat.

davoxx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This is all very strange. It reminds me of an octopus trying to muddy the water with ink as it beats a retreat.

that's okay, i'm sure it also reminds you of poor people being the same as unemployed people relative to a train station ... but when you said octopus you thought tiger and by ink you meant 'leaving a wounded rabbit to wheeze it's last breath' right?

don't let it get to you that you find it strange, you've created your opportunity to retreat, you should not stick around ... otherwise you'll have to explain that when you said poor people you meant rich people since they will be poor in the future and are less well off than they will be

it's easy to avoid points you can't back and ignore when proven wrong, so i'll leave you do what you are best at ... just don't expect me to send a tank to squish a squirrel ...

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

that's okay, i'm sure it also reminds you of poor people being the same as unemployed people relative to a train station ... but when you said octopus you thought tiger and by ink you meant 'leaving a wounded rabbit to wheeze it's last breath' right?

don't let it get to you that you find it strange, you've created your opportunity to retreat, you should not stick around ... otherwise you'll have to explain that when you said poor people you meant rich people since they will be poor in the future and are less well off than they will be

it's easy to avoid points you can't back and ignore when proven wrong, so i'll leave you do what you are best at ... just don't expect me to send a tank to squish a squirrel ...

All gibberish.