Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
The leftist lie of poverty
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16113
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
Back to your OP, it is worth noting that because one family can manage it, doesn't mean they all can. Of course, the best budgeters will come out on top.
If all else is equal, they SHOULD be able to. By that I mean they may need education on how to do it, but the answer isn't giving them money. They don't NEED it. They need to learn why their choices matter.

It makes me wonder if people were educated on spending if they would accept their government being irresponsible with money.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 758
Location: EU

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
juniper wrote:
Back to your OP, it is worth noting that because one family can manage it, doesn't mean they all can. Of course, the best budgeters will come out on top.
If all else is equal, they SHOULD be able to. By that I mean they may need education on how to do it, but the answer isn't giving them money. They don't NEED it. They need to learn why their choices matter.

It makes me wonder if people were educated on spending if they would accept their government being irresponsible with money.


But how does that follow? Possibly the BEST planning family (or very very good planning family) can do it. But, you can't expect most families to be as good as the best planners. Furthermore, especially in your country, you can get hit with unpredictable costs.

But anyway, my point is if you expect the average to be as good as the best or near best, that simply isn't going to happen (almost by definition).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
Spread all the wealth of the planet around equally, then wait one year.

The same people that are poor today will be poor in a year (with a few exceptions).

And the exceptions would be poor again within 3 to 5 years. :lol:
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
But, you can't expect most families to be as good as the best planners. Furthermore, especially in your country, you can get hit with unpredictable costs.

Pfffttt... in Europe, instead you get ravaged by Başıbozuk, bombed by Luftwaffe, or assimilated by Spetsnaz, any of which is a bit more of a disruption to your educational plans.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.


Last edited by Bones McCracker on Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/


Now I understand why the GOP thinks the rich shouldn't be taxed more. The poor things.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Prenj wrote:
http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/


Now I understand why the GOP thinks the rich shouldn't be taxed more. The poor things.

The GOP agreed to tax the rich more, if the Democrats would make proportional cuts in government spending. Democrats agreed, but then Obama squashed that, because he wants to use the divisiveness to his political advantage, blaming it all on Republicans, in an unlikely gamble to get control of both houses of Congress again, so he can inflict two more years of fiscal ass-rape on America, like he did in 2009-2010.

He wants statues of himself made, so he has to create a situation where he must take extraordinary action, in effect marshaling a short of revolution. This is why he constantly blathers about "going around Congress" or "getting around the Constitution". He wants to be remembered as a revolutionary, instead of what he is: a bullshitting cross between Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, Louis Farrakhan and Don King.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
Prenj wrote:
http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/


Now I understand why the GOP thinks the rich shouldn't be taxed more. The poor things.

The GOP agreed to tax the rich more, if the Democrats would make proportional cuts in government spending. Democrats agreed, but then Obama squashed that, because he wants to use the divisiveness to his political advantage, blaming it all on Republicans, in an unlikely gamble to get control of both houses of Congress again, so he can inflict two more years of fiscal ass-rape on America, like he did in 2009-2010.

He wants statues of himself made, so he has to create a situation where he must take extraordinary action, in effect marshaling a short of revolution. This is why he constantly blathers about "going around Congress" or "getting around the Constitution". He wants to be remembered as a revolutionary, instead of what he is: a bullshitting cross between Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, Louis Farrakhan and Don King.


The wealth distribution in the US is bad, and GOP defending their position on the highest branch in the proverbial economical tree is judged depending on which branch you currently sit on, but I do agree that Obama is not the guy making it better. He just says he is.

The ultimate mindfuck is when you accept the fact that regardless if democrats or republicans win, the transfer of wealth to the 1% is still going to continue, since those people have so much money and power that politicians do their bidding, in fact that is the main reason why they are politicians in first place.

Which means, whichever way you vote, you are fucked. Assuming we don't have anyone from 1% on these forums.


Last edited by Prenj on Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Direct reallocation of wealth is not the answer. That's like giving kids the answers to tests and claiming they have been educated. Public education, health care, and other enablers of success are good. A basic, minimum-level safety net for temporary use in periods of misfortune are good. Taking care of the truly incapable (the disabled, the elderly, etc.) is good. However, systematically paying a large percentage of the population to be non-productive, non-value-adding leeches on the neck of society is NOT a good idea at all.

Measuring the distribution of wealth as some kind of social performance metric, which is apparently popular in Europe (or at least a popular Socialist propaganda tool), is also not a good idea at all, because it encourages the easy "solution": the direct reallocation of wealth, which does not solve anything, and only creates permanently entrenched learned helplessness. Paying people to be poor is not the answer to anything.

More important to the poor are things like the availability of jobs, and the opportunity to become capable of performing them. Those are the kinds of things that should be measured. Otherwise, you just end up patting yourself on the back for having a nice, even distribution of wealth while half your people are unemployed and your country as a whole is relatively poor and unable to take care of itself among the competing community of nations.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.


Last edited by Bones McCracker on Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
Direct reallocation of wealth is not the answer. That's like giving kids the answers to tests and claiming they have been educated. Public education, health care, and other enablers of success are good. A basic, minimum-level safety net for temporary use in periods of misfortune are good. Taking care of the truly incapable is good. However, systematically paying a large percentage of the population to be non-productive, non-value-adding leeches on the neck of society is NOT a good idea.


I agree with you. But you gotta think in 3d, I was also raised as higher-middle-class kid (whatever that meant in former yugoslavia), and the upbringing is about working your way up and all that, but at the same time, one has to fight the paradigm which impoverishes your own "class", and that is the transfer of wealth to 1%. Just because one opposes that politics, it doesn't mean that the abyss of welfare system is waiting for you.

How about free quality education, not in a sense to lower ALL education to the least common denominator, but to actually pump tax money into education? Whats tax money for if not for services in a society? It's certainly not for political lobbyism nor transfer of wealth from public funds into the hands of stock holders of Halliburton and alike, via made-up bullshit wars.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was adding more as you replied. See above.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
I was adding more as you replied. See above.


I'm basically agreeing with you, I'm sick of european-style socialism because it is counter-productive in evolutionary terms (too much taxation/regulation). I just think that the GAME nowadays is beyond the socialism-capitalism schism, it's played on another level, and is filtered down as the old schism thing, just to keep populace busy and voting, instead of shooting at politicians on the streets.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is too much idealism/extremism, too much populist demagoguery, and not enough honesty of communication and sincerity of effort.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
There is too much idealism/extremism, too much populist demagoguery, and not enough honesty of communication and sincerity of effort.


Well, honesty and sincerity of effort is something that WE would like very much, since it would be in our percieved interest. I just happen to think that the "Stanford Prison Experiment" that we have going on with bigwigs becoming bigwigs actually bought into the idea that Kissinger was proposing and truly deem themselves superior and more worthy, and hence feel entitled to transfer of wealth and bullshiting everybody else.
I don't think they think it is in their interest to be transparent nor try to fix things.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 758
Location: EU

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
juniper wrote:
But, you can't expect most families to be as good as the best planners. Furthermore, especially in your country, you can get hit with unpredictable costs.

Pfffttt... in Europe, instead you get ravaged by Başıbozuk, bombed by Luftwaffe, or assimilated by Spetsnaz, any of which is a bit more of a disruption to your educational plans.


luftwaffe bombing has lower probability (since they have very little in the way of armed forces) than going bankrupt in the US due to medical bills.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
There is too much idealism/extremism, too much populist demagoguery, and not enough honesty of communication and sincerity of effort.


Well, honesty and sincerity of effort is something that WE would like very much, since it would be in our percieved interest. I just happen to think that the "Stanford Prison Experiment" that we have going on with bigwigs becoming bigwigs actually bought into the idea that Kissinger was proposing and truly deem themselves superior and more worthy, and hence feel entitled to transfer of wealth and bullshiting everybody else.
I don't think they think it is in their interest to be transparent nor try to fix things.

You have to see both sides. Neither do the so-called "working" class perceive it to be in their best interests to be turned loose to fend for themselves with nothing more than whatever they gained from the educational and training opportunities they have been provided. They want their god-damned handouts, because they are "entitled" to them.

Anybody who sees one side but not the other is deceiving themself.

I say this in the context of my earlier statement (for anybody who just jumped in and feels like knee-jerking):
Quote:
Direct reallocation of wealth is not the answer. That's like giving kids the answers to tests and claiming they have been educated. Public education, health care, and other enablers of success are good. A basic, minimum-level safety net for temporary use in periods of misfortune are good. Taking care of the truly incapable (the disabled, the elderly, etc.) is good. However, systematically paying a large percentage of the population to be non-productive, non-value-adding leeches on the neck of society is NOT a good idea at all.

Measuring the distribution of wealth as some kind of social performance metric, which is apparently popular in Europe (or at least a popular Socialist propaganda tool), is also not a good idea at all, because it encourages the easy "solution": the direct reallocation of wealth, which does not solve anything, and only creates permanently entrenched learned helplessness. Paying people to be poor is not the answer to anything.

More important to the poor are things like the availability of jobs, and the opportunity to become capable of performing them. Those are the kinds of things that should be measured. Otherwise, you just end up patting yourself on the back for having a nice, even distribution of wealth while half your people are unemployed and your country as a whole is relatively poor and unable to take care of itself among the competing community of nations.

_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16113
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
But how does that follow? Possibly the BEST planning family (or very very good planning family) can do it. But, you can't expect most families to be as good as the best planners. Furthermore, especially in your country, you can get hit with unpredictable costs.

But anyway, my point is if you expect the average to be as good as the best or near best, that simply isn't going to happen (almost by definition).
I disagree that it is limited to only the best. Certainly above average, or we most likely wouldn't be discussing it. But your response leads me to believe you perceive the problem differently, or don't believe it is possible to educate people out of their caste. People incapable of living / functioning on their own are edge cases.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 758
Location: EU

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
juniper wrote:
But how does that follow? Possibly the BEST planning family (or very very good planning family) can do it. But, you can't expect most families to be as good as the best planners. Furthermore, especially in your country, you can get hit with unpredictable costs.

But anyway, my point is if you expect the average to be as good as the best or near best, that simply isn't going to happen (almost by definition).
I disagree that it is limited to only the best. Certainly above average, or we most likely wouldn't be discussing it. But your response leads me to believe you perceive the problem differently, or don't believe it is possible to educate people out of their caste. People incapable of living / functioning on their own are edge cases.


I was addressing the OP (your post). I am not suggesting that education isn't good. Of course it is. and a family of four on 14,000 is pretty damn good (they must live in some country town. if you get a two bed in london you are paying at least 1000 pounds a month, and that is far out. You might get nailed on transport in).

But, when you say the "leftist lie of poverty", you seem to be claiming that this efficiency is broadly applicable. I don't think it is. However, teaching budgeting isn't a bad idea.

after reading the article, some of it is DEFINITELY not repeatable. They got a good deal on a foreclosure. That requires both smarts and luck.

but budgeting is a good idea. We don't do it because our input comfortably exceeds our output, but it is a good idea nonetheless. However, $14000 is not what we spend. We spend about that much on childcare alone (10,000 pounds per year. fuck you london, that's for one child).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16113
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Budgeting is not the solution, changing priorities is also a requirement. NO, you don't NEED pay-TV. NO, you don't NEED a cell phone. NO, you don't NEED to own your own house. NO, you don't NEED to patronize restaurants. NO, you don't NEED a car disproportionate to your income. In fact, not only no, but it shouldn't even be an option. Live within your means. Which as I previously mentioned includes the obvious, NO, you don't NEED to live in London.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So your answer to people living hand to mouth to make ends meet is: NO.

The trouble is people might be able to afford a pizza, or a DVD, or a few beers one week and then the next week their living expenses unexpectedly rise. Maybe it's because the home their elderly relative is in has hiked their prices, maybe it's the gap on their insurance when a car gets torched. Oh well, at least you can point the finger at why they are having financial troubles. :P
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 758
Location: EU

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Budgeting is not the solution, changing priorities is also a requirement. NO, you don't NEED pay-TV. NO, you don't NEED a cell phone. NO, you don't NEED to own your own house. NO, you don't NEED to patronize restaurants. NO, you don't NEED a car disproportionate to your income. In fact, not only no, but it shouldn't even be an option. Live within your means. Which as I previously mentioned includes the obvious, NO, you don't NEED to live in London.


you don't want to corner yourself though. Things like cell phones and cars can be necessary for employment. But the other things you mention are optional.

London is where the jobs are!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bigun
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 1974

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
That statement is entirely consistent with what my views always are. You're the extremist; a knee-jerking left-wing authoritarian collectivist moonbat Pied-Piper-following Maoist lemming witch-finder in the Ministry of Truth echo chamber.


This nearly qualifies to make it into my signature.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bigun
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 1974

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
pjp wrote:
Budgeting is not the solution, changing priorities is also a requirement. NO, you don't NEED pay-TV. NO, you don't NEED a cell phone. NO, you don't NEED to own your own house. NO, you don't NEED to patronize restaurants. NO, you don't NEED a car disproportionate to your income. In fact, not only no, but it shouldn't even be an option. Live within your means. Which as I previously mentioned includes the obvious, NO, you don't NEED to live in London.


you don't want to corner yourself though. Things like cell phones and cars can be necessary for employment. But the other things you mention are optional.

London is where the jobs are!


Depends on the job and skill set.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cell phones can cost peanuts if you choose the cheapest options. They're not any kind of luxury item; they're essential for a lot of people for work, as has been mentioned.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 758
Location: EU

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
Cell phones can cost peanuts if you choose the cheapest options. They're not any kind of luxury item; they're essential for a lot of people for work, as has been mentioned.


in developing nations, there is a stat of some number of cell phones = + some GDP. In Britain they are dirt cheap, and because of their usefulness, I wouldn't call them luxuries. Neither a car (though, I myself don't have a driver's licence).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cell phones have a very important role to play in development.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum