Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[Scot Dutchy]

BTW 42 our minimum wage is €11.05 per hour. Which is far more than what America pays especially when you take into account cost of living.
We have a proper social net. You get paid €1134 per month if you dont fall under unemployment benefit plus there is a whole load of other benefits you are entitled to.

[Forty Two]

Another load of garbage noted 42. Get your facts right will you. As in every post you post your facts are way off the mark. Our cost of living is nowhere as high as America.
New York is 6th world wide and Amsterdam 34th.

Expatistan Cost of Living Index
Cost of Living Index 2017 Mid-Year

New York is about the highest cost of living city in the US. When you look at the country as a whole - https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/c ... ted+States - local purchasing power is 30% higher in the US than the Netherlands.

And, it's not "bullshit." Your country does have a minimum wage of about 8.95 Euro, which is about what you claim Walmart starts its workers at. $9 an hour. Give or take. Even if you have the same cost of living, you're not treating your workers any better or appreciably better are you? And you have just as much homelessness in Netherlands as in the US. As per the link I posted.

So get off your high horse.

The Netherlands is a first world country which does not know poverty. I'm not suggesting any sort of superiority on the part of the US. I'm defending against your claim that the Netherlands is esssentially Shangri-la. You have homelessness. You have poverty. You don't pay your minimum wage workers high wages. And, yet you declare that the US, to be a fair, non-brutal country has to have a minmum wage that results in no government aid being paid to anyone who is employed. If government aid is paid to an employed person, you're callling that a subsidy to the employer.

Here's my source for the 8.95 minimum wage - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... by_country It has a link to a source from the Netherregions government. Has it gone up?

You say that your country has a proper safety net, but you don't even understand the US social safety net. I'm not saying yours is improper. I'm saying that we have a safety net too, and the data is unequivocal that the poor in the US do live better than most of the rest of the world, and they are eligible for social safety net assistance. What's interesting is that you want to classify, in the US, social welfare payments as subsidies to Walmart.

Why don't you call your social safety net payments to the poor in the Netherlands as a subsidy to retail employers? Surely, employed people at lower income levels get public assistance of some sort, don't they? Or, do people in the Netherlands making the minimum wage with three kids not getting assistance? Maybe you should raise your minimum wage so that anyone working will not have to get any government assistance? Isn't that what you said should be done in the US? Because, like, if a minimum wage walmart employee gets food stamps, you claim that's a subsidy to Walmart, right?

[Scot Dutchy]

My source is the Dutch government. Once again you are as always completely confused by a social democratic country. All you claim is just garbage. Your data is useless. You are not the worth the time just like Seth used to be. Enjoy your dump of a country and dont play with the guns.

[pErvinalia]

.

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.

You have not posted any OECD data. Stop saying you have.

I linked to the OECD website, which contained data.

Which data specifically backs your point?

In a first world country like the US, people who are low income still tend to own houses, cars, and have disposable income.

You've been asked to back this up multiple times by multiple people. What's wrong with you?

I did - Posted the stats on the US, where it gave the percentage of the poor who owned various items. You are not bothering to look at the data and just going into insult mode again.

You claim you refuted something, when you did not.

I've absolutely refuted your claim that you provided data from the OECD and that the BLI via the Economist supports your argument. I did it two years ago as well. And both times you have refused to address my refutations. You are weak as piss.

Your own conclusory declarations that what I said was wrong is neither an explanation nor a refutation. You're just hand-waving as usual,

Bullshit. I've specifically stated why it doesn't support your argument, and you've yet to address any of those points.

Fuck off, pErvinalia. I do have you on ignore. And, when I noticed that you claimed you had posted some take-down of my info that I supposedly ignored, I clicked through your posts, and noted insult after insult and claim after claim that I'm lying. And, in one post, you said the Better Life Index is an average and says nothing about the poor - that right there is horseshit, because the data presented show the level of the bottom 10% vs the top 10% of given populations in given countries.

You are incorrigible. I specifically addressed how it isn't showing what you think it is showing, and now it is you who is hand-waving those refutations away. Is it worth my time explaining it a third time now??

So, yest, it's an average, but it's an average OF THE BOTTOM 10%, and and average OF THE TOP 10%.

NO IT ISN'T! You are either lying and/or stupid here.

That's how the numbers can be compared. When you compare the bottom 10% in the US vs the bottom 10% in Italy, Germany or France, you are comparing the average of that bottom 10% in each country, which is a perfectly relevant statistic.

Bottom 10% of what? Measured how? You can't answer this stuff, because the answer isn't provided by the links you quoted. I've explained this to you already. Do I have to keep explaining it??

Now, this all I'm going to say about your nonsense posts, because you never cite sources, and you never post specifics

Lying again. I specifically addressed the sources you provided and included quotes from another source. You are a terminal fucking liar, and should be embarrassed to show your face around here.

You even poo-poo The Economist's presentation of the OECD Data, with the economist hardly being a pro-US, right wing source.

It doesn't matter whether it is left-wing, right-wing, or straight down the centre. It quite simply doesn't show what you think it shows. And I haven't "poo-pooed" it. I've specifically shown how it doesn't show what you think it does.

And, then you say I never posted to any OECD data, when I absolutely did - both directly throough links to the OECD website, and to wikipedia summaries of that data, and to Forbes interpretation of that data, and other sources interpretation of that data, like the Economist and others.

There is no relevant data. The Economist utilised an unknown subset of the data, so it is useless. The others were just a written summary with zero data in them. And as I've explained to you numerous times now, the OECD BLI is AN AVERAGE! IT SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THE POOR! Why can't you understand this simple point??

So, I'm not going to get back into a back and forth with you. You are just a friggin' troll who tries to disrupt threads with your insults and constant bullshit, trying to get other people to stop talking about an issue that doesn't jibe with your preferred "narrative."

God you are a fucking cry baby. Utterly incapable of owning your own words. You are an embarrassment to rationality.

[Forty Two]

I am hand-waving your nonsense away, because you can't talk to people without insults and trolling. I am done wading through your bullshit, and you skipped the data that I did post, and made nonsense claims about the BLI top/bottom 10% chart just being an average so it said nothing about poverty. Of course it said something about poverty, because it's comparing the top and bottom 10% groups of various countries. That says everything about how the bottom 10% live in those respective countries. You ask "bottom 10% of what?" Bottom 10% of the populations of each country in terms of income. This is why your posts are idiotic. You don't even read the material before you respond.

When I don't respond to you further, it's because you're on ignore and I'm not opening your posts anymore. I'm sick of your trolling and your lying about me, my motives and my veracity. Fuck off for good.

[pErvinalia]

.

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.

You have not posted any OECD data. Stop saying you have.

I linked to the OECD website, which contained data.

In a first world country like the US, people who are low income still tend to own houses, cars, and have disposable income.

You've been asked to back this up multiple times by multiple people. What's wrong with you?

I did - Posted the stats on the US, where it gave the percentage of the poor who owned various items. You are not bothering to look at the data and just going into insult mode again.

This is specifically what you claimed: "When an article says so many millions of people are "poor" in America, they are including in that group 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."

No data you posted supports this bullshit. A "lot of [poor] people" do not have two cars in the driveway, have computers, internet and go to the movies and other entertainment options regularly with some discretionary funds. The latter bit you've pulled out of your arse, and the former bits the data you presented directly refutes your claim (as so often is the case).

[pErvinalia]

I am hand-waving your nonsense away, because you can't talk to people without insults and trolling. I am done wading through your bullshit, and you skipped the data that I did post, and made nonsense claims about the BLI top/bottom 10% chart just being an average so it said nothing about poverty. Of course it said something about poverty, because it's comparing the top and bottom 10% groups of various countries. That says everything about how the bottom 10% live in those respective countries. You ask "bottom 10% of what?" Bottom 10% of the populations of each country in terms of income. This is why your posts are idiotic. You don't even read the material before you respond.

Physician heal thyself! I've posted three times now why the Economist data is unusable, as it is an unknown subset of the total dataset and AGAIN the top/bottom 10% is not meaningfully defined. If you think it is, then go ahead and state how it is defined. Stop fucking shirking the issue and face the fact that you have presented shoddy data that you don't even understand how it is presented.

When I don't respond to you further, it's because you're on ignore and I'm not opening your posts anymore. I'm sick of your trolling and your lying about me, my motives and my veracity. Fuck off for good.

You simply can not own your own words and accept that you have made a giant fucking error in posting that Economist chart. It categorically doesn't show what you think it is shows, and I've explained three times now at least why it doesn't. And you have yet in the two years that you've been trotting this bullshit out even once attempted to defend the methodology. You either know the methodology is flawed, or you are too stupid to understand why it is flawed. In either case, it presents a pretty fucking sorry picture of your tenure here.

[Animavore]

I think Rev's about to have a breakdown expecting honesty from a supporter of dishonest politicians and policies.

Have you not discovered the value of putting Trump-cultists on ignore yet?

[pErvinalia]

I just can't let his lying and misrepresentation go unchecked. No one other than Hermit reads his shit properly, so it's basically up to us to point out to the others why a superficially well structured wall of text is in reality a deceitful edifice in front of a giant pile of steaming bullshit.

[Forty Two]

This is not a thread about Trump. It's also not supposed to be some pissing contest between countries. It's supposed to be a discusison of whether Capitalism is the best solution for poverty. However, others have made it about denigration of the US in particular, with a view toward superiority of certain other countries (who happen to also be capitalist countries, too, so the pissing contest doesn't really make much sense).

Also, i've not been dishonest, pErvin is mischaracterizing what I said. I'm not going to waste my time addressing points he advances without citation or source, and requiring me to wade through troll post and insult and personal attack after personal attack. I just can't be arsed with it. I've posted lots of material here, with citations and sources, and he comes out and declares I never cited to the OECD, when that's been one of my primary sources, and I've cited both to secondary sources using their data, and directly to the OECD website.

I am accused of presenting biased sources, because one of the several sources I've cited was Heritage. Even admitting that the bias of Heritage was relevant and reasonable to bring up and address - folks nevertheless keep coming at me about it, over and over again. They don't want to look at any of the data at all discussed there, because it's a "right wing source" and then demand to be taken seriously when the rebuttal to it is in the leftist, click-bait source Slate. I acknowedged, of course, that we should look to the substance of the Slate article, and not discount it completely just because it has a far left bias and is a clickbait, generally non-serious publication. But, of course, nothing I post gets the same consideration. Dutchy and pErvin just want those sources ignored until I've met some sort of self-imposed test on pErvin's part to refute some generalized denials in his posts.

And, pErvin's supposed refutations are silly. I mean, he asks "who is the bottom 10%? on what basis?" about a chart where the meaning of bottom 10% and top 10% are clearly laid out in the material surrounding the chart. It's bleeding obvious, too - it's the bottom 10% of the population by income, and the top 10% of the population by income, then the chart compares those groups in the Better Life Index. There is nothing wrong with those numbers, and nothing wrong has been identified. What's merely been declared is that it reflects an "average" and doesn't say anything about poverty. Well, that's just pErvin not understanding the chart and/or doing his usual bit of mischaracterizing it.

He and Dutchy, for some reason, need to peddle a narrative that the US is an awful place to live, with no safety net, and can't possibly have people living in conditions better than "the rest of the world." That's their narrative, and nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

So, yes, he's going to have a breakdown, because he's making demands of me, while insulting me and calling me a liar, which I'm not inclined to meet. One, his posts are stupid, shrill, and hardly worthy of a response, because they reveal a person who appears not to have read the material he seeks to refute. it looks to me like he looked at a chart, failed to understand it, wants to declare it meaningless, and cause me to go on a wild goose chase to persuade him about it. Well, I would be happy to do that with someone I respected and someone who wasn't a namecalling troll. But, i don't think, after all the interactions I've had with him, that he is serious about wanting to understand the points he opposes. All he wants to do is shout it down, push what he thinks is an unpalatable narrative away.

Well, I'm done dealing with it. I've fallen off and attempt to continue discussions with him after I said I wouldn't several times. I figured maybe he'd speak like a normal human being instead of the disagreeable blowhard he is. Well, he's proven me wrong. So, I'll talk to the better people here. it shouldn't matter - he thinks I'm a liar and stupid anyway - so I'm not sure why he wants to talk to me. We'll all be happier if I just don't interact with him.

[pErvinalia]

And, pErvin's supposed refutations are silly. I mean, he asks "who is the bottom 10%? on what basis?" about a chart where the meaning of bottom 10% and top 10% are clearly laid out in the material surrounding the chart. It's bleeding obvious, too - it's the bottom 10% of the population by income, and the top 10% of the population by income,

OMG, you really have no clue. It's SPECIFICALLY not that. Go and fucking read the article again, then read it again, and again, until you see how the top/bottom 10% is defined.

then the chart compares those groups in the Better Life Index. There is nothing wrong with those numbers, and nothing wrong has been identified. What's merely been declared is that it reflects an "average" and doesn't say anything about poverty. Well, that's just pErvin not understanding the chart and/or doing his usual bit of mischaracterizing it.

I never said the chart was an average, you fucking liar. STOP FUCKING LYING! For the fourth time, the chart is an UNKNOWN subset of the BLI categories, and top/bottom 10% is based on "Income OR Education"!

He and Dutchy, for some reason, need to peddle a narrative that the US is an awful place to live, with no safety net, and can't possibly have people living in conditions better than "the rest of the world."

I have never said any such thing. FFS stop with the fucking lying!

[Forty Two]

Ugh, why am I doing this - you said I did not post any data about lots of the poor owning houses and cars. Look above - you're calling me a liar and telling me to own my words - and saying I did not give data bout the cars and houses owned by the poor. Here is why you are a dishonest prick, or you just don't read what's posted.

The links I posted contained the citation to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development's American Household Survey which found that of the people in the US below the poverty line, 73% of them have cars or trucks. 43% owned houses - not rented - owned - nearly 1/2 the poor owned a house, and nearly 3/4 owned a car or truck (at least one, because nearly 1/3 had TWO cars/trucks). 97% had a color television, and more than half had two or more color televisions. The data is from the US government sources. They're in the material I cited, repeatedly. As noted, the typical poor family has enough food, and health care, and has on top of all previously mentioned, internet access, phones, all kitchen appliances like refrigerators, dishwashers, garbage disposals, etc., and entertainment like DVD players and Xboxes or other gaming systems.

So, look, pErvin. It's o.k. to disagree., But I'm sick of being called a liar when I'm not. I cited the material. It's from the US government, Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Energy. It's not bullshit. It's not something I'm refusing to own.

Your posts are painfully stupid, because it's obvious YOU DON'T READ THE POSTS YOU SEEK TO REFUTE. I'm just sick of your idiotic insults, because it should be obvious to anyone, despite your usual protestations and shouting trying to win converts to your team and paint me as a liar, I'm not lying. I've posted the material. It says what I said it says. You haven't refuted anything.

And, again, as a disclaimer folks - I'm not claiming superiority here - pErvin and Dutchy are. No first world country like the US, Canada, Oz, NZ, Netherlands, UK, Belgium, Germany, etc. have poverty like "the rest of the world." None of you know what poverty really is, and that's a good thing. And, you know why? You know what the common denominator of all the countries that have all but eliminated poverty? They are all for the most part capitalist countries with social safety nets for the needy. And, that's the top of this thread - capitalism is the best solution for poverty. It has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system ever tried. Capitalism is good. It's not evil. It's not harmful to the poor. It helps people, not hurts them. And, of course, no system being perfect, there are folks who fall through the cracks, have bad luck, have disabilities or other issues that cause them to not be able to support themselves. Those people get help. And, they get help in the US, too. The notion that they don't is just wrong.

[pErvinalia]

Hurry up and suspend me. I'm offended by a site that provides a platform for this level of dishonesty.

If I'm not suspended by tomorrow, I'll address the above (which is likely to be another pile of bullshit and lies).

[pErvinalia]

Ugh, why am I doing this - you said I did not post any data about lots of the poor owning houses and cars. Look above - you're calling me a liar and telling me to own my words

OMFG! I categorically did not say you didn't post any data on the point I was questioning you on. Again, you are lying. What in the living fuck is wrong with you?!?

The links I posted contained the citation to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development's American Household Survey which found that of the people in the US below the poverty line, 73% of them have cars or trucks. 43% owned houses - not rented - owned - nearly 1/2 the poor owned a house, and nearly 3/4 owned a car or truck (at least one, because nearly 1/3 had TWO cars/trucks). 97% had a color television, and more than half had two or more color televisions. The data is from the US government sources. They're in the material I cited, repeatedly. As noted, the typical poor family has enough food, and health care, and has on top of all previously mentioned, internet access, phones, all kitchen appliances like refrigerators, dishwashers, garbage disposals, etc., and entertainment like DVD players and Xboxes or other gaming systems.

So, look, pErvin. It's o.k. to disagree., But I'm sick of being called a liar when I'm not. I cited the material. It's from the US government, Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Energy. It's not bullshit. It's not something I'm refusing to own.

Oh ffs. You are unbelievable. You said "a LOT of poor people...". YOUR OWN FUCKING DATA shows that it's NOT a lot for most of the things I questioned you on: two cars, computer, internet, and then the made up movie and discretionary spending shit. How hard is this for you to understand? LESS THAN 50% (OR THEREABOUTS) IS NOT A "LOT"! It's a fucking minority.

And, again, as a disclaimer folks - I'm not claiming superiority here - pErvin and Dutchy are. No first world country like the US, Canada, Oz, NZ, Netherlands, UK, Belgium, Germany, etc. have poverty like "the rest of the world." None of you know what poverty really is, and that's a good thing. And, you know why? You know what the common denominator of all the countries that have all but eliminated poverty? They are all for the most part capitalist countries with social safety nets for the needy.

The welfare state isn't capitalism. This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people.

[Forty Two]

My source is the Dutch government. Once again you are as always completely confused by a social democratic country. All you claim is just garbage. Your data is useless. You are not the worth the time just like Seth used to be. Enjoy your dump of a country and dont play with the guns.

LOL - your source is the Dutch government, good. I asked you if it had changed. I used wikipedia, which cited to the Dutch government and explained that your minimum was 8.95 euro in 2015, and less for those under 23. Did it go up?

You cite Slate, and claim my data is useless? My data is from the US government.

You've yet to address the homelessness stat. I gave a link. How can your enlightened, superior social democratic country be so much nicer to the poor but have .19 homelessness to the US's .18? odd, eh? Or, that stat is garbage too?

All stats garbage except those that support my narrative that the US is a dump. LOL