Wealthy America?!?

[j2k4]

Boy, Biggles, when you bring up L.A.-

The entire ball-of-wax in microcosm.

There are areas in L.A. where a skunk would have a risky go; then you have Hollywood, whose denizens pay lip-service to the misfortunes of the poor while denying them access to beaches and otherwise trying to insulate themselves from the problem.

Cynicism and hypocrisy.

I'd better stop, or I'll get started...

I should note here that life is not fair, will never be fair, and it is impossible to mitigate this through legislation.

We can work towards fairness of opportunity, but we are helpless to effect a fairness of result.

In the end, it depends on the individual, whose reliablity is often suspect.

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

WASP.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@31 March 2004 - 10:58
Boy, Biggles, when you bring up L.A.-

The entire ball-of-wax in microcosm.

There are areas in L.A. where a skunk would have a risky go; then you have Hollywood, whose denizens pay lip-service to the misfortunes of the poor while denying them access to beaches and otherwise trying to insulate themselves from the problem.

Cynicism and hypocrisy.

I'd better stop, or I'll get started...

Oh go on.....even when i don't agree i do enjoy it when you actually start to rant

you did hit on a big point about the diffences in LA that most of the world misses because they just see the glitter....it's like that on a less showbiz scale all over the US.
We are capitalists so we need to have poverty to sustain the rich. It seems wrong but just look at how even the poorest person will stand up in pride when the president calls the US the "greatest nation on earth"

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

Originally posted by vidcc@31 March 2004 - 14:06
just look at how even the poorest person will stand up in pride when the president calls the US the "greatest nation on earth"

Damn right we are!

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@31 March 2004 - 13:06
We are capitalists so we need to have poverty to sustain the rich.

What?!!??

Economics is not a Zero-sum proposition, vidcc.

Wealth is created and expanded; it is not finite.

The wealthy are not always wealthy at the expense of, or detriment to, those not so fortunate.

Where did you ever get such an idea?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by FuNkY CaPrIcOrN@31 March 2004 - 13:05
Fucking WASP.

Did I miss something?

I did add an edit to my post, but gee whiz, FC...

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

Originally posted by j2k4+31 March 2004 - 14:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 31 March 2004 - 14:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FuNkY CaPrIcOrN@31 March 2004 - 13:05
Fucking WASP.

Did I miss something?

I did add an edit to my post, but gee whiz, FC... [/b][/quote]
Sorry.

[Biggles]

I have always thought the "white" in WASP was redundant, but there you go.


I think one key factor of Capitalism is that it has an internal contradiction. Each business tries to make their product as cost effectively as possible and consequently wants to pay staff as little as possible. On the other hand they want their market to be as affluent as possible so they can sell their product to as many people as possible.

The ideal, therefore, is for all ones competitors to pay high domestic salaries and for ones own company to have outsourced to a village in Tibet. Thus the market will be cash rich and ones product will be the most cost competitive (if perhaps smelling somewhat of Yak).

The upshot of this is that a Capitalist economy is always in a state of flux. The poor are not "needed" as such they are merely a by-product of changing priorities. Hence the once prosperous steel towns which are now just shadows of their former glory etc.,

Communism is much slower to change and consequently is more stable for those at the bottom of the tree. It is also slower to react to market demand and innovation and consequently tends to be a tad dull. This perhaps explains the enduring attachment in China, where living in "interesting times" is considered a curse.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4+31 March 2004 - 11:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 31 March 2004 - 11:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@31 March 2004 - 13:06
We are capitalists so we need to have poverty to sustain the rich.

What?&#33;&#33;??

Economics is not a Zero-sum proposition, vidcc.

Wealth is created and expanded; it is not finite.

The wealthy are not always wealthy at the expense of, or detriment to, those not so fortunate.

Where did you ever get such an idea? [/b][/quote]
capitalism is a complex thing...all i did was simplify it...a basic definition (but not absolute) man exploits man
It&#39;s not an issue about complexeties in my post. Capitalism needs exploitation or it would be more a socialism (i don&#39;t like saying comunism as the way it was run wasn&#39;t really how the ideal should have been).
i am a capitalist myself but i am aslo a humanitarian.

Going to take my kids to the park so i will look in later

[Rat Faced]

I think the definition of "poor" needs to be looked at.

In the UK, its 60% of the average wage...

This means that you can be "poor" and still have a relatively healthy income, as the "average wage" is slanted by a relatively few number of people getting ridiculously high salaries....

I wish to god i was on the "Average Wage"....as do most people i know