You are really clutching at straws. Comparing the per capita GDP (a mean, not a median!) in one socialist-ish country with the poverty line in a much more expensive capitalist-ish country to determine that the latter's population are better off?
Lets address this RIGHT now. 80% of people in the US made more than $20,000 in 2006. Thats 80% of the US has double what the average cuban has. 10% of the US made more than $10,000-- thats 90% of the US that is better off than Cuba. 5% made 5,000-9,000-- thats about the average in Cuba (per capita GDP @ 9000). and 5% were poorer.
So basically, with socialism, 5, MAYBE 10% of people are better off. 90% of people are just poorer, and worse off. Their life expectancy is actually WORSE than ours (very very slightly), so in the end, the argument is that 90% of people should go without so that 10% of people can have-- nevermind the fact that this is INCOME, and doesnt include all the charity giving that 90% of the population is able to do to help the 5%. Keep in mind that those with low income can go to places like salvation army, which can exist because of a wealthy population; or go to homeless shelters, and soup kitchens, which again exist because there is a population that has more than enough money and can set some aside.
Economically, what you suggest makes no sense. It would cut the economy down to 20%, going purely by GDP-per-capita. Individually, it would "impoverish" (by current US standards) 90% of the population. And honestly, I think it would make life worse for even our poorest 5%, who, because of the wealth of our nation, are able to enjoy such amenities as plumbing, TV, municipal wifi (inner city poor dont necessarily lack TV or computer), etc, as well
I would also point out, that the statistics I was able to pull up showed that 70% of the US was white (2000 Poll), and 75% of the lowest 20% income bracket was white-- that is, that it isnt some grossly disproportionate thing where blacks are impoverished more than whites; and if anything, unless the statistics changed grossly in a few years, that whites fall into the poverty bracket more than blacks (proportional to population).
Its very simple. Socialism will bring everyone down to the same level, and can provide some of this basic stuff very well, but in general the quality of life tanks. Capitalism provides a booming economy, which means that for those who do fall through the cracks, there are still incredible benefits to living in that society. I am personally acquainted with what poverty looks like, and as painful as it is I recognize that the individuals affected are way way way better off here than in China, or Cuba.
But not every man is straw and not every dichotomy is false.
No, but this one is-- your exact words:
Go on, you know you want to say it: black people are predisposed to criminal behaviour. Either that or the system's biased against blacks.
And once again, I maintain that it is NOT one or the other. I dont think "black people" are predisposed to criminal behavior, and I think it makes little sense to try to make so broad and vague a statement as "the system's biased against blacks". The system where? Which system? The DC system? What about in cities where the majority of the police force is black? Is that system also "biased against blacks"?
If you want the simple cause, it is this. Cities have high concentrations of poor folks, who are black. When you are in that situation, it can be difficult to get out (bad education, high crime, etc). When you are poor, and live in the city, you are more likely to commit crimes, statistically; whereas folks living in, say, Mountain View Ca are less likely to be involved with gangs. It could just as easily be hispanics in 50 years as it might be any other class, race, or nationality that is suffering from poor education and situations.
That doesnt mean the system is "trying" to hold them down, just that having no money, poor upbringing, and poor education tends to be a cycle that grows on itself. And before you try to assert that here, then, is the reason capitalism is terrible, I will note that not ONLY do we live longer (granted, by a small margin) than folks in your precious Cuba, but our poorest inner-city dwelling oppressed minority has a higher quality of life and annual income, on average, than folks in Cuba-- seeing as their national per-capita GDP is under $10k, and our poverty line is around $11k. Or perhaps youd like to compare us to the rice-paddy farmers of China, Im sure theyre super happy to be out from under the oppressive thumb of capitalism?
Every.Single.TimeCommunism is tried, it ends in poverty, mass murders (Cambodia and USSR), human rights violations (China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba), oppression (all of the above), and a general lack of freedom (ie, the inability to own things in a pure communist system, the necessity of "strict enforcement" for it to work, etc).
So fair enough to say that "we've never done it right"; but our capitalist system has managed to go 200-something years without committing gross human rights and personal freedoms violations (a-la any of the above listed-- and spare me your hyperbole about the patriot act, its nothing like Cambodia or China), whereas all of the times communism has been attempted in the last 100 years it has ended, in a word, "badly".
Forgive me if I fail to be impressed by any of the examples of it that have gone before, and forgive me if I am less than impressed by its driving principle, that people can be made to work for the greater good absent any incentive to do so.
Theyre also dirt poor, with a per-capita GDP under 20% of ours. There are also lots of othercompelling features there. (I liked this bit: "In 2010, Cubans were allowed to build their own houses. According to Raul Castro, they will be able to improve their houses with this new permission, but the government will not endorse these new houses or improvements." How nice of the government, sounds like a paradise)
Again, if its really so much better, go ahead and move there.
Or that perhaps there is yet another factor that causes it, like population location, or education (related to location), or parenting (related to education)? Do you think its possible, for example, that african americans do not make up the majority in Arizona prisons? Or in Maine prisons? Do you think there might be a reason for that?
Youve just committed yet another age-old favorite-- the false dichotomy. Keep going, and you may hit all of the fallacies.
"Rest of the world" population-wise. Ie, middle-east (you know, where people are protesting because of their quality of life), east asia (N Korea, China), southeast Asia (india), Africa.
USSR from the backwards, agrarian economy it was before his policies, to heavy industry world leader that could sustain sufficient output to defeat Germany in WW2. It's definite progress.
...if your definition of progress means going from a government that WONT murder you in the name of modernizing, to one that will, then yes, I suppose so.
That's funny, I know lots of people like that in the US today.
Anecdotal evidence FTW! I could just as easily respond with hundreds of people I know from different backgrounds and different parts of the country and world; Ive not heard anyone complaining about capitalism or espousing socialism, pretty much ever. The folks Ive heard complain about hours dont generally have complaints about their life; they could very easily work less hours, and lower their standard of living, but even if they didnt work at ALL their standard of living would vastly exceed 95% of the rest of the world's.
So you're saying that the purpose of capitalism is to make things better 200 years from now? Was that its purpose 200 years ago? You sound exactly like the preacher: suffer today and you will find glory in the afterlife. Except you're not even offering glory for me, but for... the children I don't have?
One can look at any country where Communism sprung up and how within a few short years they became gigantic slums, and then look at countries where capitalism has been in place (AFAIK, most of the world in the last several hundred years), and see how they have progressively improved; take your pick which you prefer. In the last hundred years in capitalist countries, we have had incredible advances in standards of living; in the last hundred years in socialist countries, you see downturns, in the most notable examples of a rather radical kind (China, USSR, North Korea, Cuba).
So really, take your pick which you want to live in. If you think the economic system is bad, you really should move elsewhere because no amount of voting is going to change it, and most of the other people dont WANT your kind of economic system.
"Living longer" has diminishing returns, you know. And many times "working fewer hours" is an option that many people have; they choose to work longer to improve their standard of living (which, I might point out, is so ridiculously high in capitalist countries compared to the rest of the world that your statement is borderline comedy).
Im no EE, but Im almost positive you could fix that little snag by converting from AC to DC, and then back again on the proper frequency; Im sure there is a much better way to do it, but that comes to mind quickly.
Sure, youre free to block their cookies, so long as they choose to allow you to do so. They could quite easily refuse to let you access any content if you refuse to set cookies.
Youre right its not a contract, but its THEIR content.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn republicans....
Knew I should have voted Dem.
"what happened to...and the truth will set you free"?
Aside from the fact that thats taken out of context, and in its original context had no bearing on this situation?
That quote isnt referring to honesty (that is, the act of telling the truth), but to knowing the truth.
You are really clutching at straws. Comparing the per capita GDP (a mean, not a median!) in one socialist-ish country with the poverty line in a much more expensive capitalist-ish country to determine that the latter's population are better off?
Lets address this RIGHT now.
80% of people in the US made more than $20,000 in 2006. Thats 80% of the US has double what the average cuban has. 10% of the US made more than $10,000-- thats 90% of the US that is better off than Cuba. 5% made 5,000-9,000-- thats about the average in Cuba (per capita GDP @ 9000). and 5% were poorer.
So basically, with socialism, 5, MAYBE 10% of people are better off. 90% of people are just poorer, and worse off. Their life expectancy is actually WORSE than ours (very very slightly), so in the end, the argument is that 90% of people should go without so that 10% of people can have-- nevermind the fact that this is INCOME, and doesnt include all the charity giving that 90% of the population is able to do to help the 5%. Keep in mind that those with low income can go to places like salvation army, which can exist because of a wealthy population; or go to homeless shelters, and soup kitchens, which again exist because there is a population that has more than enough money and can set some aside.
Economically, what you suggest makes no sense. It would cut the economy down to 20%, going purely by GDP-per-capita. Individually, it would "impoverish" (by current US standards) 90% of the population. And honestly, I think it would make life worse for even our poorest 5%, who, because of the wealth of our nation, are able to enjoy such amenities as plumbing, TV, municipal wifi (inner city poor dont necessarily lack TV or computer), etc, as well
I would also point out, that the statistics I was able to pull up showed that 70% of the US was white (2000 Poll), and 75% of the lowest 20% income bracket was white-- that is, that it isnt some grossly disproportionate thing where blacks are impoverished more than whites; and if anything, unless the statistics changed grossly in a few years, that whites fall into the poverty bracket more than blacks (proportional to population).
Its very simple. Socialism will bring everyone down to the same level, and can provide some of this basic stuff very well, but in general the quality of life tanks. Capitalism provides a booming economy, which means that for those who do fall through the cracks, there are still incredible benefits to living in that society. I am personally acquainted with what poverty looks like, and as painful as it is I recognize that the individuals affected are way way way better off here than in China, or Cuba.
Samsung galaxy.
Or, you know, stop whining and get a blackberry.
But not every man is straw and not every dichotomy is false.
No, but this one is-- your exact words:
Go on, you know you want to say it: black people are predisposed to criminal behaviour.
Either that or the system's biased against blacks.
And once again, I maintain that it is NOT one or the other. I dont think "black people" are predisposed to criminal behavior, and I think it makes little sense to try to make so broad and vague a statement as "the system's biased against blacks". The system where? Which system? The DC system? What about in cities where the majority of the police force is black? Is that system also "biased against blacks"?
If you want the simple cause, it is this. Cities have high concentrations of poor folks, who are black. When you are in that situation, it can be difficult to get out (bad education, high crime, etc). When you are poor, and live in the city, you are more likely to commit crimes, statistically; whereas folks living in, say, Mountain View Ca are less likely to be involved with gangs. It could just as easily be hispanics in 50 years as it might be any other class, race, or nationality that is suffering from poor education and situations.
That doesnt mean the system is "trying" to hold them down, just that having no money, poor upbringing, and poor education tends to be a cycle that grows on itself. And before you try to assert that here, then, is the reason capitalism is terrible, I will note that not ONLY do we live longer (granted, by a small margin) than folks in your precious Cuba, but our poorest inner-city dwelling oppressed minority has a higher quality of life and annual income, on average, than folks in Cuba-- seeing as their national per-capita GDP is under $10k, and our poverty line is around $11k. Or perhaps youd like to compare us to the rice-paddy farmers of China, Im sure theyre super happy to be out from under the oppressive thumb of capitalism?
Every. Single. Time Communism is tried, it ends in poverty, mass murders (Cambodia and USSR), human rights violations (China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba), oppression (all of the above), and a general lack of freedom (ie, the inability to own things in a pure communist system, the necessity of "strict enforcement" for it to work, etc).
So fair enough to say that "we've never done it right"; but our capitalist system has managed to go 200-something years without committing gross human rights and personal freedoms violations (a-la any of the above listed-- and spare me your hyperbole about the patriot act, its nothing like Cambodia or China), whereas all of the times communism has been attempted in the last 100 years it has ended, in a word, "badly".
Forgive me if I fail to be impressed by any of the examples of it that have gone before, and forgive me if I am less than impressed by its driving principle, that people can be made to work for the greater good absent any incentive to do so.
Theyre also dirt poor, with a per-capita GDP under 20% of ours. There are also lots of other compelling features there.
(I liked this bit: "In 2010, Cubans were allowed to build their own houses. According to Raul Castro, they will be able to improve their houses with this new permission, but the government will not endorse these new houses or improvements." How nice of the government, sounds like a paradise)
Again, if its really so much better, go ahead and move there.
Yes, well, they werent committing wholesale mass murders, and youll be hard pressed to convince me that that state of affairs represents "progress".
No, its possible that there is a correlation, caused by a 3rd factor you did not consider.
For instance, is it possible that (as the accusation goes against "the man") that caucasians tend to be wealthier than african-americans?
Or that perhaps there is yet another factor that causes it, like population location, or education (related to location), or parenting (related to education)? Do you think its possible, for example, that african americans do not make up the majority in Arizona prisons? Or in Maine prisons? Do you think there might be a reason for that?
Youve just committed yet another age-old favorite-- the false dichotomy. Keep going, and you may hit all of the fallacies.
What do you call it when you advocate the killing of civilian legislators in cold blood?
"Rest of the world" population-wise. Ie, middle-east (you know, where people are protesting because of their quality of life), east asia (N Korea, China), southeast Asia (india), Africa.
Of course, a glance at US prison statistics and US prison ownership confirms that the US still engaged in race-based enslavement.
You have just committed that age-old favorite, assuming causation.
USSR from the backwards, agrarian economy it was before his policies, to heavy industry world leader that could sustain sufficient output to defeat Germany in WW2. It's definite progress.
...if your definition of progress means going from a government that WONT murder you in the name of modernizing, to one that will, then yes, I suppose so.
Thats real classy, because you differ with some folks on policy means they should be killed.
That's funny, I know lots of people like that in the US today.
Anecdotal evidence FTW! I could just as easily respond with hundreds of people I know from different backgrounds and different parts of the country and world; Ive not heard anyone complaining about capitalism or espousing socialism, pretty much ever. The folks Ive heard complain about hours dont generally have complaints about their life; they could very easily work less hours, and lower their standard of living, but even if they didnt work at ALL their standard of living would vastly exceed 95% of the rest of the world's.
So you're saying that the purpose of capitalism is to make things better 200 years from now? Was that its purpose 200 years ago? You sound exactly like the preacher: suffer today and you will find glory in the afterlife. Except you're not even offering glory for me, but for... the children I don't have?
One can look at any country where Communism sprung up and how within a few short years they became gigantic slums, and then look at countries where capitalism has been in place (AFAIK, most of the world in the last several hundred years), and see how they have progressively improved; take your pick which you prefer. In the last hundred years in capitalist countries, we have had incredible advances in standards of living; in the last hundred years in socialist countries, you see downturns, in the most notable examples of a rather radical kind (China, USSR, North Korea, Cuba).
So really, take your pick which you want to live in. If you think the economic system is bad, you really should move elsewhere because no amount of voting is going to change it, and most of the other people dont WANT your kind of economic system.
If you feel capitalism is such a failure, go live in a communist country.
Whats that, theyre all ghettos? Yea, theres a reason for that.
"Living longer" has diminishing returns, you know. And many times "working fewer hours" is an option that many people have; they choose to work longer to improve their standard of living (which, I might point out, is so ridiculously high in capitalist countries compared to the rest of the world that your statement is borderline comedy).
Im no EE, but Im almost positive you could fix that little snag by converting from AC to DC, and then back again on the proper frequency; Im sure there is a much better way to do it, but that comes to mind quickly.
Werent they ridiculing Anonymous' hacks as feeble a month ago?
Moores observation was about transistor count, not mHz, corecount, speed, wattage, flops, bogomips, or anything else.
It has hyperthreading goodness and mmm have you ever had eggs fried on your processor?
Where would you propose they put such an option?
Sure, youre free to block their cookies, so long as they choose to allow you to do so. They could quite easily refuse to let you access any content if you refuse to set cookies.
Youre right its not a contract, but its THEIR content.
You could pull up the Chrome wrench --> Under the hood --> Clear browser data and click the "Adobe flash player storage settings" link.
Lets you manage flash cookies to your heart's content. Boy, that was difficult.