Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[Forty Two]

Given Forty Two's logic in dismissing Slate as a source, I have to wonder why the Heritage Foundation gets a pass, given their partnering with the Discovery Institute and hosting such anti-luminaries as Stephen Meyer (multiple times), John West and Jay Richards.

Look everybody - the Heritage Foundation does NOT "get a pass." The site that was being given a pass was Slate. I explained very clearly that the bias of Heritage is, in fact, relevant to the discussion. What it doesn't do is INVALIDATE it as a source. When Heritage cites numbers from the Census Bureau, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and such, those are hard numbers. The numbers are real whether cited by Heritage or Slate.

I did not rely solely on Heritage anyway. I cited the Economist, the OECD Better Life Index, Forbes, and Pew Research studies, too, and I provided links. But, for some obvious reason, some of you want to just harp on Heritage Foundation. That's why I cited multiple sources not just one.

I took issue with Slate, because (a) Slate is a clickbait source, and not a serious news/data outlet, and (b) Slate has a as much of a left wing bias as Heritage has a right wing bias, and (c) the article in Slate substantively addressed only ONE statistic, the LIS income study, and did NOT specifically address poverty. It equated income inequality with poverty which IS NOT ACCURATE and does not measure poverty levels.

The stats and sources I cited were varied, and across the board, and did address poverty per se, income, wealth and consumption - all of which are relevant factors.

I did not claim that there was no poverty whatsoever in the US, nor do the sources when you examine them. Of course there are people needing help and there is poverty. That's true in various Shangri-las like The Netherlands, where everything is run fairly and morally, and not like in the evil US - they have poverty and homelessness there too. Not huge, of course, because no western, first world, democracy has the poverty that exists in the second world and third world.

The reason the western first world countries have less poverty than "the rest of the world" is that they have capitalist economies (some with greater or lesser social welfare systems - but all with some form of social welfare). The countries that base their economies on socialism, communism or central planning fail, and fail miserably.

This whole line of discussion, of course, was generated by the article suggesting that the feisty Australian who goes around the world holding countries to account for poverty issues is now going to set his sights on the US, which - the article said - we know in advance is an "outlier" from "the rest of the world" when it comes to poverty. We suck, it said, compared to "the rest of the world." The reason I posted the numbers from the OECD better life index, the Pew Research center, yes, Heritage too, and also Forbes, and The Economist, is that the numbers show that the US is not "an outlier" from "the rest of the world" and that in reality the lives of "the poor" in the US compare very favorably to "the rest of the world" and there are very few other countries in which it's better to be "poor" than the US. That's not even arguable based on the numbers.

That does not, of course, mean that there are no problems in the US, or that the US is perfect, or that the US is superior. It isn't. All it means is that we are not some suck-ass "outlier" from "the rest of the world" which needs to catch up to how "the rest of the world" treats its poor. The reality is that the US is among countries like Canada, Oz, NZ, six or seven countries in western continental Europe and the UK in being the best in the world among the 192 countries when it comes to poverty. The "rest of the world" sucks ass to be poor in. You want to be poor in Russia instead? Romania? Turkey? Thailand? China? Indonesia? Colombia? Venezuela? Brazil? Mexico? Come the fuck on.

[Scot Dutchy]

Tell these people that:

And these.... 27,000 homeless in the Netherregions - https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2013/52/2 ... etherlands

Nobody says there are zero problems in the US or zero people needing help. That does not refute the overall numbers, does it?

No comparison. Once again cherry picking but what do expect from the right wing who are unable to see the difference between travellers and their native people.

Early 2012, more than 27 thousand people were homeless. Half of them have a foreign background and 40 percent have a non-western background. Nearly half of all homeless are found in Amsterdam, Utrecht, The Hague and Rotterdam.

In a population of 17 million. Nice shot in the foot again.

[Forty Two]

That's fine and dandy. That's the way it goes. Charter was free - being big boys and girls - to hire someone other than Rutledge. They made a decision that Rutledge was worth more to them than $98 million. Nobody hires someone unless they think that person is worth more to them than the amount they're paying.

Do you have any idea how Corporate Cronyism works?

An overpaid CEO is only "worth it" to those that have their snouts in the same trough.

The CEO is worth it to the persons that hire the CEO. When it comes to Charter, it's the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors are beholden to the shareholders, who vote to elect them. That's how it's supposed to work. If the Board wants to overpay and answer to the shareholders for it, then the shareholders will deal with it.

Your statement is very general. An overpaid CEO is only "worth it" to those who have their snouts in the same trough? The Board of Directors snouts are in the same trough as the CEO to be hired, therefore, they want to give more of the food from the trough to the CEO rather than keep it for themselves?

Crony capitalism is a reference to an improper marriage between government and businesses, where business success depends more on government largess and restriction of competition.

[Scot Dutchy]

You have massive problems and dont kid yourself but you do the whole time. Heritage is the biggest source of fake news but you are unable to see that. You are either blind or do you possess special glasses that hides the problems when you are walking about. You know Seth had a pair.

[Forty Two]

Tell these people that:

And these.... 27,000 homeless in the Netherregions - https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2013/52/2 ... etherlands

Nobody says there are zero problems in the US or zero people needing help. That does not refute the overall numbers, does it?

No comparison. Once again cherry picking but what do expect from the right wing who are unable to see the difference between travellers and their native people.

Early 2012, more than 27 thousand people were homeless. Half of them have a foreign background and 40 percent have a non-western background. Nearly half of all homeless are found in Amsterdam, Utrecht, The Hague and Rotterdam.

In a population of 17 million. Nice shot in the foot again.

Yet, you ignore the actual numbers regarding the US for two images you pulled off google... thanks for making my point! Do you get it now?

YOU cherry picked, Dutchy, when you referenced the US. You think that the image you posted is representative of the US, but the OECD Better Life Index is not relevant to the discussion, eh?

Your approach to this issue is: Ignore the statistics regarding how people in the US live, and just go by a narrative and pictures found on the internet, and that's not cherry picking because we all know the US is a land full of poor people on the streets, and a few billionaires. But, when it comes to the Netherlands, all the poverty and homelessness is perfectly explainable when you look at the numbers as to who is poor and why. We look at the numbers and details when it comes to the Netherlands, but we ignore the numbers and details when it comes to the US.

[Scot Dutchy]

I did not rely solely on Heritage anyway. I cited the Economist, the OECD Better Life Index, Forbes, and Pew Research studies, too, and I provided links. But, for some obvious reason, some of you want to just harp on Heritage Foundation. That's why I cited multiple sources not just one.

All right wing with a vengeance. The only 'neutral' one being OECD.

You should look this up "State Policy Network".

As of 2015, SPN had a membership of 65 think tanks and hundreds of affiliated organizations in all 50 states.[40] Membership in SPN is by invitation only and is limited to independently incorporated 501(c)(3) organizations that are "dedicated to advancing market-oriented public policy solutions."[41] According to Politico, SPN's associate members include a "who’s who of conservative organizations", including the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, FreedomWorks, Americans for Tax Reform, and American Legislative Exchange Council.[30] In 2011, SPN and its regular member organizations received combined total revenues of $83.2 million, according to a 2013 analysis of their federal tax filings by the liberal watchdog group Center for Media and Democracy.[30][23]

All disgusting organisations supported by the 1%.

[Scot Dutchy]

Your approach to this issue is: Ignore the statistics regarding how people in the US live, and just go by a narrative and pictures found on the internet, and that's not cherry picking because we all know the US is a land full of poor people on the streets, and a few billionaires. But, when it comes to the Netherlands, all the poverty and homelessness is perfectly explainable when you look at the numbers as to who is poor and why. We look at the numbers and details when it comes to the Netherlands, but we ignore the numbers and details when it comes to the US.

Health, education and social welfare. You are just a blind right winger who cant accept facts. Like all good right wingers the fake news is more import than facts. Poverty is rampant in the US. Your health care is terrible. Education is lousy and dont talk about social care that is a joke. When 1% owns more than half of the population does thing are wildly wrong.

Go and join Seth please. This is no place for the likes of you.

[Forty Two]

You have massive problems and dont kid yourself but you do the whole time. Heritage is the biggest source of fake news but you are unable to see that. You are either blind or do you possess special glasses that hides the problems when you are walking about. You know Seth had a pair.

One, I pointed out that the US does have problems. I never denied that.
Two, Heritage was one of several sources, which you refuse to even address, and one of my sources was the OECD Better Life Index, and you've not even mentioned that. The Economist. Pew Research, etc. But, you keep on about the Heritage's citation of the US Census data, Housing and Urban Development Data, Department of Energy data, Department of Agriculture data -- all that hard data you declare to be fake news because it was cited by Heritage.

Nothing you've said changes the fact that what it means to be among "the poor" in the US is much different than it is in "the rest of the world." The bottom 10% live better than most of the rest of the world.

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111

The United States performs very well in many measures of well-being relative to most other countries in the Better Life Index. The United States ranks at the top in housing, and income and wealth. They rank above the average in health status, jobs and earnings, education and skills, personal security, subjective well-being, environmental quality, and civic engagement

. That's not Heritage, that's the OECD - an intergovernmental organization of 35 first world countries, and as noted the US performs VERY WELL in many measures of well-being relative to most other of those 35 countries. The "rest of the world" would be the remaining 155 or so countries who wouldn't even rank on the OECD list because we're talking South America, Africa, and Asia, most of which are abysmal when it comes to poverty.

In the United States, the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 44 049 a year, much higher than the OECD average of USD 30 563 a year, and the highest figure in the OECD.

In general, Americans are more satisfied with their lives than the OECD average. When asked to rate their general satisfaction with life on a scale from 0 to 10, people in the United States gave it a 6.9 grade on average, higher than the OECD average of 6.5.

The bottom 10% of the US live better than the bottom 10% in countries like Germany and France.

that's not a claim that there are no problems in the US - you're the only people who makes those kind of claims (about the Netherlands).

[Forty Two]

Your approach to this issue is: Ignore the statistics regarding how people in the US live, and just go by a narrative and pictures found on the internet, and that's not cherry picking because we all know the US is a land full of poor people on the streets, and a few billionaires. But, when it comes to the Netherlands, all the poverty and homelessness is perfectly explainable when you look at the numbers as to who is poor and why. We look at the numbers and details when it comes to the Netherlands, but we ignore the numbers and details when it comes to the US.

Health, education and social welfare. You are just a blind right winger who cant accept facts. Like all good right wingers the fake news is more import than facts. Poverty is rampant in the US. Your health care is terrible. Education is lousy and dont talk about social care that is a joke. When 1% owns more than half of the population does thing are wildly wrong.

Go and join Seth please. This is no place for the likes of you.

The US actually measures well on health, education and welfare, according to the OECD's better life index. There are some countries that beat us out on some measures - like Finland, like the Netherlands on some measures, but in general, overall, the US performs very well and is not an "outlier" in the world.

I am not a right winger, and it is you who don't post facts. You posted one article from clickbait Slate, and it did not contradict the OECD data or the US government data, and did not contradict the Pew Research data. You ignore all that, preferring to go with your "everything is better in the Netherlands" routine.

I've not posted fake news, and you know it.

Poverty is not "rampant" in the US. You've not cited data for that. When people live "below the poverty line" in the US, it means something entirely different than in most of the "rest of the world." In a first world country like the US, people who are low income still tend to own houses, cars, and have disposable income.

In the US, the 1% does NOT own more than half, so that shows that you are full of shit. You don't even know what you're talking about.

In the Netherlands, it's the 1% owning 25%. Is that cool? Is that in the range of acceptable wealth disparity, or is that a problem for the Netherlands to solve? Answer that one, Dutchy.

[Forty Two]

I did not rely solely on Heritage anyway. I cited the Economist, the OECD Better Life Index, Forbes, and Pew Research studies, too, and I provided links. But, for some obvious reason, some of you want to just harp on Heritage Foundation. That's why I cited multiple sources not just one.

All right wing with a vengeance. The only 'neutral' one being OECD.

Good - the OECD puts the US at the top of the OECD, by far, along with Canada and Australia, a couple of other really nice countries.

Glad you accept the OECD data.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Given Forty Two's logic in dismissing Slate as a source, I have to wonder why the Heritage Foundation gets a pass, given their partnering with the Discovery Institute and hosting such anti-luminaries as Stephen Meyer (multiple times), John West and Jay Richards.

Look everybody - the Heritage Foundation does NOT "get a pass." The site that was being given a pass was Slate. I explained very clearly that the bias of Heritage is, in fact, relevant to the discussion. What it doesn't do is INVALIDATE it as a source. When Heritage cites numbers from the Census Bureau, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and such, those are hard numbers. The numbers are real whether cited by Heritage or Slate.

You dismissed Slate as a source because they'd published some articles that you apparently felt were disreputable. I happen to agree that the piece as you described it doesn't seem to be particularly trustworthy. My question is why Heritage Foundation isn't dismissed as a source for promoting nonsense from the Discovery Institute, including the malicious nonsense of John West.

[Scot Dutchy]

I did not rely solely on Heritage anyway. I cited the Economist, the OECD Better Life Index, Forbes, and Pew Research studies, too, and I provided links. But, for some obvious reason, some of you want to just harp on Heritage Foundation. That's why I cited multiple sources not just one.

All right wing with a vengeance. The only 'neutral' one being OECD.

Good - the OECD puts the US at the top of the OECD, by far, along with Canada and Australia, a couple of other really nice countries.

Glad you accept the OECD data.

Top of what? Inequality, ignorance and bad health.

Please find up to date data. Your cherry picking is so obvious.

[Tyrannical]

best solution to poverty lol

[Scot Dutchy]

Another thing the US is brilliant at; gun deaths. The best in the world. A great society that is so peace loving.

[Hermit]

While Forty Two is taking a bit of time out to find more Heritage Foundation type objective data,

OECD data and Pew Research, already cited previously. I've not relied on exclusively the Heritage Foundation. However, the Heritage Foundation is a far better source than, say, clickbait Slate.

Hey, FortyTwo, you missed a bit of my post.

... I had a bit of a look around on my own. So it turns out that the official Federal Poverty Levels for the 48 Border States and D.C. starts at an annual income of US$12,228 in 2016 for a single person and changes incrementally in line with how many people live in a household*. Just about all forms of income are taken into consideration. Exceptions are Capital gains or losses, Noncash benefits (e.g. food stamps and housing subsidies) and Tax credits**. According to the United States Census Bureau 12.7% of the US population lived between the applicable poverty thresholds***.

Now I would like to know two things:

1) How can an article include, as Forty Two claims, a lot of people who "live in houses they own, have two cars in the driveway, have plenty of food, have computers, tvs, internet, and go to the movies and other entertainment options regularly with some discretionary funds" among people living below the poverty thresholds?

2) Does Forty Two really expect anyone to accept the following statement in the Forbes article he linked to and quoted: "Thus we can say that by global standards there are no poor people in the US at all: the entire country is at least middle class or better. We seem to have fought and won that War on Poverty."?

*https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time ... holds.html
**https://www.census.gov/topics/income-po ... sures.html
***https://www.census.gov/search-results.h ... chtype=web