* Login   * Register
It is currently Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:10 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics



All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic


 Post subject: Some very humble revolutionary talk.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 10:23 am 
Offline
New Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:42 pm
Posts: 17
My rule of thumb is that people without power tend to suffer. However, if my rule of thumb is correct, then what about class warfare? Do you think that the U.S. upper-middle-class suffers relative to the upper-middle-class of more democratic nations like Sweden or France. My rule of thumb might suggest that is the case. However, the only documentation I can provide is this TED Talk video.

Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies
standard-resolution video
http://download.ted.com/talks/RichardWi ... _2011G.mp4

high-res video provides better-than-DVD quality.
http://download.ted.com/talks/RichardWi ... G-480p.mp4

Jack


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Some very humble revolutionary talk.
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:32 am 
Offline
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:43 pm
Posts: 2757
Location: New Zealand
stewjack wrote:
My rule of thumb is that people without power tend to suffer. However, if my rule of thumb is correct, then what about class warfare? Do you think that the U.S. upper-middle-class suffers relative to the upper-middle-class of more democratic nations like Sweden or France.


You are suggesting that the U.S middle class is suffering more due to the undemocratic nature of current U.S government? Interesting thought, a bit hard to prove in the current economic climate because all the middle classes of all the 1st world countries are suffering.

_________________
Whats that? A YouTube Channel? Don't worry there isn't a video about Politics or Religion in sight (or on the channel).

http://www.youtube.com/user/Runicmadhamster


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Some very humble revolutionary talk.
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:15 am 
Offline
Nomarch
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:06 am
Posts: 1860
Location: Austin, TX
Talk of a middle class in one country is relative to the middle class in another only in terms of proportion. Mexico, for example, has a very small percentage of its population that could be termed middle class. The same is true of many poor countries.

China too has a small percentage of middle class citizens, but that percentage is rapidly growing. And that growing percentage greatly worries China's leaders. It worries them because the poor are easily manipulated by the government simply beacause they rely on the government for their very existance. Not true of a middle class.

To illustrate the point just look closer to home where over half of American households now receive some sort of government check each month. Is it more likely these households will vote for politicians that promise to keep the checks coming or will they vote for candidates that promise to reduce those payments?

The grand scheme for liberal politicians is the same as with politicans world-wide, regardless whether that country allows their citizens to vote or not. They rely on the poor for their power and will ensure the poor stay poor to remain in power. And the corollary of that equation requires a shrinking or non-existant middle class. For that is where the trouble lies as the middle class tends to get extremely upset when you take away their land and money.

_________________
Fugitive from the law of averages


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Some very humble revolutionary talk.
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:28 pm 
Offline
New Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:42 pm
Posts: 17
Runicmadhamster wrote:
You are suggesting that the U.S middle class is suffering more due to the undemocratic nature of current U.S government? Interesting thought, a bit hard to prove in the current economic climate because all the middle classes of all the 1st world countries are suffering.


I was actually thinking more along the line of average life-expectancy-at-birth statistics compared by top economic quintile (20%) for many different nations. Life expectancy at birth is always lowest for the lowest quintile income group. Other people have demonstrated a positive correlation with low life-expectancy-at-birth numbers with income inequality for comparable national GDP's The problem is comparing GDP's as well as how "democratic" a nation is.

People immediately bring up different national data reporting requirements, as well as errors in collection. However, thing have improved over the years, and both people and governments find this type of data worth acting on. Perfection is not required. I seem to remember that Sweden's average life-expectancy-at-birth statistics are quite good. Maybe it is just the cold air.

As a democracy activist I find this an interesting political issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Some very humble revolutionary talk.
PostPosted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:34 pm 
Offline
New Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:42 pm
Posts: 17
hondo69

You make arguments based on undefined terminology that would require a definition if you were making a serious argument. You compare economic data across nations that ignore relative GDP. That makes your comparisons meaningless. To top it all off the economic data you are using has nothing to do with my argument! You don't need to compare economic data across nations. Compare levels of democracy? Yes. Comparing average life expectancy within comparable economic quintiles? Yes. Basically I think you didn't understand what I was saying in the first place.

If your avatar means you are connected to the Tea Party then why do you seem to reject the views of the founding fathers. In your fourth paragraph, you seem to be rejecting the benefits of a democratic form of government. Our founding fathers would have disagreed violently. In fact they did! No taxation without representation.

Quote: The grand scheme for liberal politicians is the same as with politicians world-wide, regardless whether that country allows their citizens to vote or not.

People seated in on a jury also vote. If you define democracy as the rule of the people, then jury nullification could be viewed, as Jefferson did, as more important than the right to vote for a legislature. Don't you wish our U.S. government was as "democratic" today as it was was in say 1830. I do. I wonder if you reject the constitutional function of the jury also?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group


Home l Common Sense l Hardcore History l Donate l Community l Merchandise l Blog l About Us