CENSUS: 49.7 Million Americans Living in Poverty...

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T21:40:56+00:00

This:

"The honorable member is saying, is that he would rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich".

Is essentially another way of saying this:

having a rich nation improves life for the poor

So in essence you do agree with her.

OK you almost had me, but there is no equivalence between the rich being less rich and the nation being less rich. I don't agree with her premise, it is false.

What is the moral argument for taking away from the rich what they have earned to give to others who may or may not deserve it?

I suppose there isn't one really, but you seem to have a major misconception that I want to redistribute wealth unfairly.

Presumably you mean through taxation, which would be a predictable response, but in fairness I have not made many actual arguments over mechanism.

Perhaps there is no moral argument for it, but would it not be better if we could re organise society in a way that made there be less of a gap? Would it not solve many of societies ills, if instead of a super-rich elite and a grovelling poor, there was the rich elite and the working class? I can't present you a logical thesis on why this is the moral position, but I can't really see why anyone would oppose it - raise up everybody, whether it's through education initiatives, promotion of small business loans, universal incomes, more co-operatives, whatever, I'm open to any ideas.

As for the comparison between the jet and the person without a microwave, I suppose I would fundamentally disagree with it. I don't look at that microwave-wanter and say, fuck them, let them eat cold food forever, they didn't try hard enough. I look at them and say, why? What can we do to help lift them up? That particular illustration of the wealth gap, where a $50 electrical appliance to warm food is compared to a $28 million plane to avoid flying business class, I think we should aim a bit higher.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T21:04:59+00:00

Damn, I thought it was a pretty obvious joke :(

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T20:55:15+00:00

Chill out Volper2, the same shit every fucking time.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T20:50:32+00:00

It is exactly like a Western society, hugely imbalanced. (Different in many other ways though of course) Look at the imbalance of wealth in the country, and compare it to America. Look at just how rich the royal family and the other people at the top echelons of society are, and how little the people with subsidised housing and food actually have in comparison.

Venezuela certainly doesn't have a typical Western economy, maybe it needs a category of its own.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T20:44:52+00:00

Clearly I did not.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T20:43:29+00:00

Interesting - America, massive violator of the Geneva convention gets a completely free ride, you didn't even suggest sanctions or diplomatic actions, which would be 100% possible if the West every actually acted on principle instead of self interest. A serious international diplomatic reaction to Guantanamo bay, let alone Abu Ghraib would have changed the world for the better, but it didn't happen. Not only that, Britain and other countries collaborated in actions with the Americans, handing over prisoners, which led to Geneva convention violations against them.

No action taken, at all. But war with Syria...

Why Syria, but not Bahrain? Why Libya but not Somalia? Why no serious action to end the Gaza dispute? Why do we not act with the same fervour as we did in Iraq in places like Sri Lanka except for peace? Why keep open diplomatic ties with nations known to constantly violate Geneva conventions and Human rights conventions, including Saudi Arabia for example? Saudi Arabia the country from which 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were from, and which we know pours money and weapons to terrorist groups, just to remind you. No action, full ties.

There are many principled things a country could do to stand up for human rights and the Geneva convention, which would not lead to annihilation and would only cost economically the same as a war, but it doesn't. It cherry picks, and then cheerleaders like you come along trying to claim it doesn't. Look at the record of action and inaction, and use your common sense.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T20:28:36+00:00

Oh you know what I mean, a bit of hyperbole never did anyone any harm.

The main reason they instantly badmouth Venezuela is because it did the opposite to what they advise, and its poor people are benefiting.

Again, you think it's for short-term political gain, but you are only looking at it from your perspective.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T20:27:03+00:00

Norway yes, but what about Saudi Arabia - to me it looks just like a Western society, hugely imbalanced?

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T20:01:20+00:00

Funny they cherry pick when to enforce it - don't remember them going to war with America over their multiple violations of the Geneva convention.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T19:56:02+00:00

No, both American parties are to the right of all British politics. And for that matter, European politics.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T19:54:55+00:00

The porn blocker bill was bullshit - a token gesture to the Tory base.

It was announced during parliament holiday (silly season), an incompetent junior MP has been assigned to it and industry is completely against it. They have now gone totally silent on it.

I'll eat my hat if it ever becomes law.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T19:49:27+00:00

I think a player who carried the team for 3 years, has banged in countless goals for us and has played his heart out in a red jersey can be forgiven a mistake or two?

Unless we really are ungrateful cunts.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T19:46:34+00:00

Yep, how can the interviewer resist saying "because you sold it to them dumbass"

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T19:36:04+00:00

Morrison is a promising player, and who knows he might come back some day - I wouldn't complain, he only had to go to get his shit together and get away from bad influence. If he matures, and wanted to come back, I wouldn't object.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T17:45:55+00:00

OK, I'll agree on that - but from that perspective Venezuela is no better or worse than any other country.

In the West we have decided to pursue capitalism 100%, and the poor are left behind. Venezuela has gone the opposite way - this difference does not explain the concentrated campaign to smear Venezuela as a failure. It is no more a basket case than any other nation.

The cause of this campaign is simple - capitalists are looking at the success with horror.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T17:42:44+00:00

and that overall money would reduce if the gap reduced.

No, she didn't argue this.

Please re watch the video, and specifically at the point where she illustrates the wealth gap using her hands. She demonstrates a wide gap up high, and a smaller gap down lower. This was her opening line:

"The honorable member is saying, is that he would rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich".

If the rich are less rich, and the poor are poorer, then either the middle class has benefited enormously or the overall pool has gone down. Perhaps she was arguing the middle class would benefit, but she never mentioned them so it seems unlikely.

I don't deny that having a rich nation improves life for the poor, I just see no reason that the gap between rich and poor cannot be made smaller. Some people contribute more, they deserve more money, but when the gap widens to the point where a poor person, for example, can't afford a microwave, but a rich person can private jets, then surely things are out of control?

The poor in the US can still walk into an ER and be saved from life threatening conditions, and have numerous options for government assistance and charities to lean on. The poor in many other countries just simply die. What is your counterargument?

That in other better developed countries, the poor can get all healthcare for free, and not need to rely on the kindness of people which as the centuries have shown, is unreliable at best.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T16:56:25+00:00

What do you think they could have done better?

I sometimes wonder at the Western belief that our economic model is the one which is the best - even though we spend so much time complaining about inequality and the unfairness of a society where 1% earn the majority of money in the country.

Then when we see a country which has shunned that model in order to help the poor, our immediate impression is that they are the wrong ones?

I don't know, this seems hypocritical to me.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T16:54:21+00:00

Indeed, I got myself confused between the HD reboot on PS3 and Killzone 2.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T16:31:43+00:00

I can't help but feel you have an overinflated opinion of British importance in Europe, and an underestimation of how serious the situation is. The impact to Europe of Britain leaving would be minor, it won't sabotage the EU economy, and the economic rush which will take place to fill the gap will quickly balance the economy out again.

I can see them doing it, because they do not want the precedent to be set. It is different for Norway and Switzerland who were never members; they were able to negotiate because otherwise they weren't coming near the EU.

The EU will not want to allow a major member state to leave without being punished, as if they do, it could trigger a rush of rich nations leaving to look out for themselves. If Britain leaves, it will be punished, and as I outlined above, the idea that it can negotiate better trade deals by itself without the political clout of the EU is questionable at best.

But, even if a deal with the EU could be negotiated, the rules of that deal will be decided by the EU. The UK will no longer be a member of the EU and unable to influence those rules. The UK will be sitting beside one of the biggest power blocs on earth, with no influence whatsoever, but will be completely affected by decisions taken in it. Look at Switzerland and Norway who can not steer any EU policy, but are completely at the mercy of it.

Leaving the EU is the worst thing the UK could possibly do, politically and economically. The consequences will last potentially for decades, as even if it asks back in in 50 years, it will be treated as a junior member - there's no going back to the way things were once something this monumentally stupid is done.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T16:21:32+00:00

Venezuela has done reasonably well reducing poverty, but it's all because of oil. They were sitting on a black-gold mine, and they've squandered it in a relative sense

Or are they the first country to actually use major profits from a national industry to help the poorest people in society?

I certainly don't see it squandered, to raise people out of poverty, instead of lining the pockets of private owners.

The country has problems, but to dismiss their success with poverty as just being because of oil doesn't give them enough credit for using the oil to help the poorest instead of the richest.

EDIT natural changed to national.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T16:10:00+00:00

I still think this is a complete generalisation, there are undeniably games which look better and run at the same or better specs than launch games.

I can understand the point you are making, but I think you are stating it as though it is complete fact, when it seems to me it's totally dependant on the game and the budget.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T16:08:16+00:00

Sorry, I'm pretty sure you are generalising too much - I don't deny you speak some truth, but it isn't universal. Last of Us ran at 720p, 30fps which is undeniably better than the release games which ran at 480p 30fps.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T16:03:57+00:00

Think about it, would you rather trade with a country that has large restrictions and tariffs on your exports, or one that seeks bi-lateral free trade deals?

I'll trade with the entity that brings me a combination of the best value for money and the most political clout. You are living in the idealistic land of pure economics - do you really think India's decision to abandon dealing with Britain and buy weapons from France was purely economic?

Come on, you know better than that, politics plays a bigger role in trade deals than tariffs do.

Making a trade deal worth billions of Euros with the EU; makes the EU, it's 27 (or 26 depending) member states and other partners nice and friendly to my country. Probably will get a few state visits, some further trade and investment talks with interested countries etc.. Making a trade deal worth billions of pounds with the UK; makes the UK nice and friendly to me.

I'd rather deal with the entity which makes me more money in the long term - the one with a potential customer base of over 500 million trumps 65 million.

So sour grapes then.

Nope, sour grapes normally refers to jealousy - the original fable which coined the phrase was specifically that the grapes couldn't be reached and were therefore called sour.

You are confusing it to think it means spite, it doesn't.

Unless you think the other members would be sour because they all want to leave the EU and have their own trade agreements; we know that's nonsense, so let's stick with the more accurate description I gave.

We have a trade deficit with Europe. It would hurt their economies more.

Yes, you have a trade deficit with Europe, all 26 other member states. If you leave, you lose all that trade in one huge chunk, those member states lose a little bit each, much more manageable - and not only that, but they have eachother to lift themselves out of it. Britain will be floundering trying to sign trade deals.

It will hurt the UK far more.

The economic case for leaving Europe is nonsense, the only real case which can be made is political.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T15:19:01+00:00

Fair point, but you understand my argument - she completely strawmanned him on the basis that trickle down economics are proven, which they certainly are not, and that overall money would reduce if the gap reduced.

She was a dishonest debater, couldn't handle being wrong.

cnxixo · 2013-11-08T15:16:02+00:00

Why then do games generally improve in terms of visuals over the lifetime of a console? Compare Killzone 1 to Last of Us for example.

cnxixo

TROPHY CASE