- 14 Jul 2011 01:48
#13755877
So "people who accumulate financial success" and "top three income quintiles" does not equal rich. People who "don't behave well" is not just a nicer way of saying 'uncivilized.' That's all news to me. You have quite a way with twisting words and playing pointless semantical games to cover up your actual position.
Because it's categorically untrue, as my evidence has shown. You're saying "if those poors (ethnics) just didn't blow their money on booze and weren't lazy then they wouldn't be poor" which is not only not true, but completely throws out socio-economic realities and racial inequalities for the sake of creating some imagined level playing field.
It is simply delusion to the highest caliber.
They obviously had money if they even rented one or the other, or if you attended college.
Let's not play the "Oppression Olympics" to try and prove anecdotally that social mobility is guaranteed for most even in the US.
I guarantee you will lose.
Maybe if you actually provided any statistics you could say this, but you didn't, and my actual statistics show that what you say is not true! Wow, how about that.
All of the information I've posted about educational success and wealth inequality in "the West" shows very clearly how wrong your conception is.
Yes, because the continuing US embargo of Cuba or Myanmar plays no role in their impoverishment (plus Myanmar privatized and became a dictatorial market economy in 1988 showing how little you actually know what you're talking about). And democratic, fast-growing, "mixed-economy" Cambodia is doing okay despite constant exploitation by multinationals. Surely a defeat for "stone Collectivists." I'm not going to argue in favor of North Korea, Juche is a shit idea by all metrics, even Marxist ones, so you can have that one.
If you think the problems in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa exist due to "behavioural problems" in those societies, then I don't know what to tell you, because that conception of national development is astoundingly ignorant of reality... and again, comes down to "those savage Browns and Yellows, we must educate them in the proper ways of behaviour of the White Nations of the West."
I've said nothing about either rich or civilized,
So "people who accumulate financial success" and "top three income quintiles" does not equal rich. People who "don't behave well" is not just a nicer way of saying 'uncivilized.' That's all news to me. You have quite a way with twisting words and playing pointless semantical games to cover up your actual position.
but in Western societies poverty can be avoided through avoiding bad decisions and destructive behavior. Why you seem to find this difficult to grasp escapes me, it really does.
Because it's categorically untrue, as my evidence has shown. You're saying "if those poors (ethnics) just didn't blow their money on booze and weren't lazy then they wouldn't be poor" which is not only not true, but completely throws out socio-economic realities and racial inequalities for the sake of creating some imagined level playing field.
It is simply delusion to the highest caliber.
I had no money. Neither did my parents. When I left home in the autumn after I completed high school, my parents had never owned a house or even a car.
They obviously had money if they even rented one or the other, or if you attended college.
Let's not play the "Oppression Olympics" to try and prove anecdotally that social mobility is guaranteed for most even in the US.
I guarantee you will lose.
Actually, statistically speaking, in the West today, this is not the case.
Maybe if you actually provided any statistics you could say this, but you didn't, and my actual statistics show that what you say is not true! Wow, how about that.
All of the information I've posted about educational success and wealth inequality in "the West" shows very clearly how wrong your conception is.
I will admit the situation is dire in countries run by stone Collectivists (Cuba, North Korea, Myanmar, Cambodia, etc.), countries torn by tribal strife (Somalia and most of sub-Saharan Africa) and those Muslim nations where only boys are "educated" and even then only in Madrassahs. So if those are the countries you had in mind you won't get much argument from me.
Yes, because the continuing US embargo of Cuba or Myanmar plays no role in their impoverishment (plus Myanmar privatized and became a dictatorial market economy in 1988 showing how little you actually know what you're talking about). And democratic, fast-growing, "mixed-economy" Cambodia is doing okay despite constant exploitation by multinationals. Surely a defeat for "stone Collectivists." I'm not going to argue in favor of North Korea, Juche is a shit idea by all metrics, even Marxist ones, so you can have that one.
If you think the problems in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa exist due to "behavioural problems" in those societies, then I don't know what to tell you, because that conception of national development is astoundingly ignorant of reality... and again, comes down to "those savage Browns and Yellows, we must educate them in the proper ways of behaviour of the White Nations of the West."