Discussion in 'The Barracks' started by A-58, May 2, 2018.
I felt a bit sorry for old Marx there with all those butchers that used his ideas to kill and oppress millions.
You can get very carried away in the realm of ideas when you forget what happens when philosophies take a hold in the wild.
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.
Yeah, there's always that comes along to fonk up the works.
Many have argued that the reason for the failure of communism is due to socialist nations not practicing “pure” communism. Marxists continue to claim that the perfect version of socialism will work.
I happen to think this is the best quote to emerge from Trump since he took office." The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented but that socialism has been faithfully implemented".
I know, I know.................off to the Barracks with you.
I don't think that "pure communism" would ever work in real life, except for those in power. A brain surgeon making the same as a guy digging ditches or riding on the back of a garbage truck, really? Where's the incentive? Capitalism all the way baby!
Every form of government works well for those in power.
I think Marx's ideas are still a useful counter point to capitalism even if pure communism/socialism might never work. I think that unfettered capitalism leads to massive inequality out of all proportion to the relative skills and abilities of the people at the top and at the bottom.
Actually, there aren't many examples of unfettered capitalism anymore. It's evolved and most economies have varying degrees of government regulation.
The massive inequality between people at the top and at the bottom is, in my view, a necessary evil as you recognize differing levels of ability, opportunity, luck and effort. Worldwide, the byproduct of that dynamic has been to massively reduce the number of people at the lower end of the spectrum.
44% of the world population lived in absolute poverty in 1981. The share of poor people in the world has declined quickly since. In 32 years, the share of people living in extreme poverty fell below 11% (2013). It is now below 10%.
As long as there is equal opportunity to pursue great wealth we shouldn't be penalizing those who are successful. In any human hierarchy, some will rise to the top but they have the effect of dragging everyone else upward as well.
Communism/socialism removes incentives and thus will never generate the economic prosperity required for humanity to progress.
Without involving myself in this discussion, I would like some clarity on the figures in the last post.
The percentages are very appealing but 44% in 1981, could actually be the same number of people as the 11% in 2013, so effectively as the population has increased, the percentage could have decreased but in real terms the number may have stayed the same or actually be more in number in 2013 than they were in 1981
let them eat cake
The earths population rose from 4.5B to 7.0B over that period between 1981 and 2013. Even with that increase the number of people in poverty, in absolute terms, dropped from 1.98B to approx. 770m. Intuitively you would think that since most of the growth occurs in the less wealthy, developing nations, the absolute number might actually be higher. As you questioned.
To my mind, that makes the decline even more impressive.
I really think that the misguided media focus on so-called inequality has obscured the real progress that has occurred, worldwide. Reducing that number by half, in 21 years, is an incredible achievement.
Sub-Saharan Africa, with an exploding birth rate at double the world average, is the only region not making substantial progress.
I'm All Right Jack - Wikipedia
I suppose you would also need a definition of 'poverty' and has that definition changed with time
Are you discussing 'poor' only in terms of economic wealth, monetary terms or ...................................
I would not have considered myself poor in 1981, but today I dont have an all singing all dancing, access to the world mobilephone - does that make me poor?, many "poor" people I see do have these items
most of the generation after the war were poor as buggery
most had a few jobs each and used the tally man
more fat on a butchers dog than them
mobile/fags/bingo/booze/flatscreen poor me poor me
and not any flatscreen - it has to be a 300 yard wide one backed by plasma, I just need to sit closer to mine and use a magnifying glass to get HD
No, the definition hasn't changed and that is clearly an economic measure. As importantly, it's been consistent over time.
Terry Thomas and Peter Sellers. Two of the greats. Was it a good movie, as in funny?
Dave I enjoyed it and was funny
A nation bankrupt by war....... standard of housing a disgrace for most parts
What was rammed down the throats of people was that we have to export to live.....balance of payments was the continual theme of the politicians.
Currency taken abroad was extremely limited although there was not much opportunity for the average family to afford foreign holidays.
The availability of credit by the introduction of credit cards gave a boost to the economy but continues to be a burden of debt for many.The relaxation of HP credit restrictions from the 1980s meant that consumers were able to purchase highly priced goods with the minimum of deposits.
Apparently it has been claimed that many British citizens would find it difficult to raise £500 to cope with an emergency.....those at the bottom of the pile must find it difficult to make family economic headway when on the so called National Minimum Wage.
Separate names with a comma.