Left wing loopy, right wing rabid

Andrew Dickens writes about how reality is often far more complex than some commentators, journalists and politicians make out – Simple Answers, Complex Questions.

If there’s anything I’ve learnt in the years covering politics and economics it’s that not all left wing ideas are loopy and not all right wing neo-liberal thoughts are rabid.

The problem is both sides exaggerate both the benefits of their own ideology and the deficiencies in the opposite. In fact they exaggerate only their side of the argument and dismiss the rest out of hand meaning that both sides propose unbalanced and hence fundamentally flawed proposals. And then we call each other names. This is why talkback and parliament exists. Let’s face it. We’re tribal.

Forums like this often get tribal too. I don’t think tribalism should be suppressed, but it should be kept to a reasonable degree of jousting.

Politicians and the media give sound bite solutions to major problems while the people who actually have to fix them sit there in a world of grey. When it comes to health, education, law and order, the environment and the taxes to pay for it there are no simple answers no matter what some MP or media commentator tells you.

I agree that many political and social issues are complex and often with no simple solutions, but both media and politicians do their best to make it sound simple. However this often comes across as stupid.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the debate about poverty in New Zealand. One side screams there are 300 thousand kids in poverty. The other argues there are 100,00 people in hardship.

One side argues that the rich are deliberately creating the poor and uneducated and unemployed so they can become richer. The other argues there’s plenty of work and opportunity and free education out there and the poor are poor because they’re lazy and beneficiaries.

To me, there’s a little bit of truth in both those statements but it’s not one or other.

A common criticism of this sort of consideration is that it is fence sitting, beige, wishy washy. Considering the complexities of issues is none of those things.

Professor Gary Hawke, the author of the Hawke Report into tertiary education in the 80s, and I were talking about free universal tertiary education on the radio the other day and I said it was a simple political decision by the voters.

He’d love free universal tertiary education but it’s an inefficient use of taxpayers money. 50 per cent drop out so half the money is thrown away.

He favours spending more but targeting it to those people with ability and need. This is not the policy of either the left or right. But I think he’s probably right.

But targeted funding isn’t so easy for politicians to market as a policy. It’s sensible but more complex.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the debate about poverty in New Zealand.

One side screams there are 300 thousand kids in poverty. The other argues there are 100,00 people in hardship.

One side argues that the rich are deliberately creating the poor and uneducated and unemployed so they can become richer. The other argues there’s plenty of work and opportunity and free education out there and the poor are poor because they’re lazy and beneficiaries.

To me, there’s a little bit of truth in both those statements but it’s not one or other.

I disagree that “the rich are deliberately creating the poor and uneducated and unemployed so they can become richer”,  I think that’s nonsense. Most rich or well off people are decent people. And from a purely financial angle the less poor that people are the more money can be made off them.

O’Sullivan acknowledges this later:

I don’t mind the rich getting richer if along the way the poor get richer too. That’s the simple answer as long as you realise the questions are complex.

The loopy left and rabid right probably won’t agree but they are a small minority simple but unrealistic answers to complex questions.

Leave a comment

96 Comments

  1. Iceberg

     /  18th February 2016

    The real debate, outside of the slogans and sound bites, is about trade offs. No policy stands in isolation. The extremes don’t discuss the trade offs and implicit compromises.

    For example, whilst we can insist that Blazer puts a cap at the start of sentences, we can’t then expect he’ll have the brain power to put a space after a comma. It’s a trade off.

    Reply
  2. Blazer

     /  18th February 2016

    you cannot have rich people without….a whole lot of….poor people….lonely at the top….crowded at the….bottom.

    Reply
    • Iceberg

       /  18th February 2016

      So, with that inciteful piece of cause and effect (and dots for more effect), all we have to do is get rid of all the rich people and there would be no more poor people. Brilliant.

      Reply
      • mrMan

         /  18th February 2016

        If you wipe out a whole lot of poor people, you’e got a lot less people and not much to distribute, but wipe out the rich and you’ve still got a lot of people but at least there’s something to distribute.
        Say there’s 5 rich people , worth 5 million each, and 200 poor people worth $100 each.
        The combined wealth is $25 020 000.
        Kill the rich and distribute = 200 people worth $125 100.
        Kill the poor and distribute =5 people worth $5 004 000.

        Reply
        • kiwi guy

           /  18th February 2016

          Thanks for reminding us just how loopy and dangerous Leftists.

          Welcome to the Socialist Utopia:

          Reply
          • mrMan

             /  18th February 2016

            Oh yeah forgot one thing….
            Kill the rich and distribute = 200 people worth $125 100 and 5 bloody, headless corpses to burn or bury.
            Kill the poor and distribute =5 people worth $5 004 000 and 200 bloody, headless corpses to burn or bury.

            Reply
        • Iceberg

           /  18th February 2016

          It’s difficult wading through the gore to get to the “logic”, but what if the poor peoples “wealth” is linked to that of the rich, through wages and transfer payments?

          Reply
          • @ Iceberg – I seldom agree with you but that is a damned good point.

            Optimal word for me is “linked”. In the same way all human beings are somehow linked? All living organisms perhaps?

            The link I don’t get is between the existence of rich-and-poor inequality and mrMan’s “wiping out” one or the other …? Loopy mrMan today is it? Prove the headline correct? The streets of Dodge may not be safe … but perhaps they never are?

            After all, we are discussing a topic with a clear roadsign plonked on it.
            Let’s get loopy! Let’s get rabid! Or can we avoid this? So far … Nope!!!

            Rabid KG is with us today I see …? So dissappointing after the brief appearance of Phar Lap yesterday.

            “I don’t mind the rich getting richer if along the way the poor get richer too”.

            This may be the simple answer. The issues are undoubtedly complex.
            Sounds to me like a pretty good place to start though …?

            Considering the well developed and obscene income disparity, maybe even, ” … as long as the poor get relatively rich too”? (Oh shit! I’m loopy …)

            Reply
            • Pickled Possum

               /  18th February 2016

              @ Parti
              Morena e hoa

              I am of the thought that
              Some people are so poor
              All they have is… $$$$$ money $$$$$ 😉

              Left wing Right wing you can’t fly without them both working at the same time. If only one worked you would be flying in circles all day long. lol

              Kill the rich you reckon Icey … Jeez some of my best mates are Rich bitches. How can I live vicariously thru dead people.
              How can the poor get rich if all the rich are dead …who is going to pay the poor’s wages.
              Create their own wealth you say Al?
              Do you just need academic ability with a ton of motivation to suckceed to do that ….
              How hard can it be if the Rich did it, do it, does it.

              Been waiting for this rain; been a long time coming.
              Have a productive day smoking that thing you type on.
              My mums reading the blog while I work to pay the bills and she will regale me with the pearlers, the impressive one’s.

              This blog gives us both the best laughs we have had in years.
              comedic timing and real answers to complex questions without a hard handed moderation process, amazing what adults can do when push replaces shove. 🙂

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th February 2016

              @possum, to be rich enough all you need is good health and good ideas and beliefs in a country and community that respects freedom and property. We are fortunate to have that opportunity.

            • ahiahi pai Possum … now I’ve recovered my breath !!! :-/

              I rate this te pai o ngā whaikōrero : the best of speeches.

              “Been waiting for this rain; been a long time coming”.

              Ae, I roto i nga ara : in every way …

              After the slight shift in here from the other day, I couldn’t agree more : the combination of opinions, humour, love and music – even slugfest – is just awesome! I hope PG takes notice of your words …

              A testament to his wisdom and even moreso to your own.

              whakarongo , korero te whenua

              toku hoa

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th February 2016

              The “slight shift” being the absence of Blazer – apart from riding his Bain hobbyhorse mercifully consistently?

              That’s made a huge difference to both quality and tone. His trolling is very destructive.

            • Even moreso, I think, a generalized disregard for Oliver – with the notable exception of Deputy Pantsdown, who goes after him on sight and sometimes on sight of his own shadow – and – for a brief moment – the appearance of more moderate, sensible and reasonable versions of both Kiwi Guy and mrMan – though not without their inherent intensity and humour, which, at its best in KG’s case, I really do appreciate and enjoy.

        • SteveRemmington

           /  18th February 2016

          Great theory Einstein!

          You seem to be following the ideology that the best way to close the divide between the rich and the poor is to make everyone poor instead of making everyone rich.

          Please enlighten us on how the “poor” are going to create the additional $25million without the rich, which will enable you to continue your socialist experiment ?

          Reply
          • mrMan

             /  18th February 2016

            They took it from the bleeding headless corpses of the rich.it’s not ‘additional’ it’s all there at the start. Don’t diss something if you can’t understand it.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th February 2016

              It won’t be there at the end. Like Oliver’s Lotto winner and the Dutch “Clogs to clogs in three generations” wealth is temporary but stupidity is permanent.

            • mrMan

               /  18th February 2016

              But if you kill the stupid, in this example, you end up with 1 person worth $25 020 000 who has to dispose of 204 people all by himself.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th February 2016

              I’m not proposing to kill anyone. Educating the stupid is a sufficiently challenging task.

            • mrMan

               /  18th February 2016

              To paraphrase the christians “If you teach a man to fish, you have to talk to him, smell him, listen to his godawful slurping and chewing noises, watch him pick his nose and eat it, but if you kill him you just need to knock him on the head and throw him in a ditch”

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th February 2016

              Very well put, mM!

              However, the body in the ditch solution runs the risk of reducing the population to a degree that the Mongolian hordes will find you an easy target to invade and overwhelm.

            • mrMan

               /  18th February 2016

              You’re baying for blood too – down there ⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th February 2016

              @mM, that was a thought experiment refutation of the politics of envy.

            • Kevin

               /  18th February 2016

              Wealth seldom lasts more than three generations – the first generation creates the wealth, the second generation uses the wealth, and the third generation spends the wealth. The second generation learn the value of wealth by seeing how hard their parents had to work for it while the third generation, unless taught otherwise, have no idea and end up wasting it.

            • Iceberg

               /  18th February 2016

              Can’t fault any of that

            • SteveRemmington

               /  18th February 2016

              Your taking the position that the situation is static. A common mistake by those that base their ideas on slogans and not reality.

              Once that $25 020 000 net wealth is gone or not enough who is creating more. The poor?. If so why didn’t they create wealth originally?

              Answer me this were the rich that you so despise always rich or were they initially poor?

            • mrMan

               /  18th February 2016

              Now I didn’t say I despise anyone, I’m just running a sort of thought experiment. A ‘what if’ to Iceberg and Blazers kill the rich/poor = no more poor/rich. Simple answers to complex questions.

            • SteveRemmington

               /  18th February 2016

              A thought experiment?

              If that is truly the case then I suggest you get someone to assist you.

            • Oliver

               /  18th February 2016

              @SteveRemmi you have a cool avatar but your comment sucks.

            • SteveRemmington

               /  18th February 2016

              How mature Ollie. You add no value so feel free to fuck off.

            • Rob

               /  18th February 2016

              The fuck off was a mature touch wasn’t it.

            • Kevin

               /  18th February 2016

              Finite cake vs infinite cake.

      • Oliver

         /  18th February 2016

        OUCH! Iceberg got burnt lol.

        Reply
    • Oliver

       /  18th February 2016

      Or you get rid of the poor people and there would be no rich people.

      Reply
      • Iceberg

         /  18th February 2016

        Should we use the guillotine, death camps or firing squads? Plenty of Marxist examples for you to draw inspiration from.

        Reply
      • Oliver

         /  18th February 2016

        No we just let them smoke their cigarettes and drink themselves to death. That way the Alcohol and Tobacco industry will make a whole lot of money.p

        Reply
        • kiwi guy

           /  18th February 2016

          We should legalise drugs and hand them out for free to Leftist like they want, they love drugs!

          In no time at all they will drug themselves to death or at least into a comatose state.

          Reply
          • Rob

             /  18th February 2016

            And of course nobody on the ‘right’ uses drugs do they. How anybody can be as asinine as you is beyond me, other than you’re just a shitty troll.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th February 2016

              To a shitty troll, the whole world looks like shitty trolls.

            • Rob

               /  18th February 2016

              You’d know. Hey pants down, Wilkinson needs some help working through his anger issues. Help him out would you.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th February 2016

              😃

          • @ KG – “We should legalise drugs and hand them out for free to Leftists”

            Won’t this be self-defeating? Where will your favoured system’s moronic, compliant workers come from? They’ll all fail their compulsory drug tests.

            Reply
        • Oliver

           /  18th February 2016

          **False claim. Don’t do it. PG** But aren’t you glad I’m back kiwi gay?

          Reply
          • Mike C

             /  18th February 2016

            @Oliver

            “PG begged me to come back”

            I bet that’s news to George. LOL 🙂

            Reply
      • kiwi guy

         /  18th February 2016

        I thought Oliver had announced this blog was beneath him and buggered off?

        Promises, promises.

        Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  18th February 2016

      Or, more relevantly, you cannot have smart people without a whole lot of stupid people. So let’s kill the smart ones so the stupid ones won’t know they are stupid.

      Reply
      • Oliver

         /  18th February 2016

        Why because being able to make money makes you smart.? So if I win the lottery that makes me really intelligent. Try again Wilky.

        Reply
        • Kevin

           /  18th February 2016

          I would say that in a lot of cases being smart is a prerequisite for being wealthy. That plus opportunity plus a little bit of luck. Otherwise every bastard with a bit of smarts would be rolling in cash.

          Reply
          • Oliver

             /  18th February 2016

            Some people don’t obsess about money and would rather use their intellect to help people instead.

            Reply
      • mrMan

         /  18th February 2016

        Are you calling for your own blood there Alan ‘the smartest guy in the room’ Wilkinson?
        If the smart are that smart couldn’t they outwit the stoopid and trick them into killing themselves? Fake a new cold war then sound an alarm and run round locking the doors to the bomb shelters, voila, no more stoopid.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  18th February 2016

          You are possibly beginning to grasp the flaw in the Lefty ideology, mM. Keep working on it.

          Reply
          • mrMan

             /  18th February 2016

            You seem to think I came down in the last shower.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th February 2016

              That was certainly the impression you gave, complete with your poison pen. But I am willing to reconsider your case on its merits.

            • mrMan

               /  18th February 2016

              They’re fingertips.

        • A truly smart rich person sees that enabling everyone on the planet to be richer will enrich life for everyone, including themselves. If this theoretical rich person is ethical as well, the enrichment process will never, ever involve killing anyone …

          Reply
          • SteveRemmington

             /  18th February 2016

            Relevant to the discussion.
            Hat tip to Kiwiblog

            Mark Latham, formerly of the Australian Labor:

            ” the objective of government policy should be to float all boats, not to sink the biggest yachts in the flotilla in the vain hope that somehow this might help everybody else …”

            Whenever I hear ALP frontbenchers like Andrew Leigh and Sam Dastyari talking about income redistribution, I shudder at how distant they have become from mainstream values.

            Reply
            • Fair enough. What the Fr@k has Kiwiblog got to do with it?

              Does everyone absolutely have to be a roving troll …?
              Must be infected with either Loops or Rabies?
              What name do you think I use over there?

              Wasn’t Mark Latham a cricketer?

            • SteveRemmington

               /  18th February 2016

              Not sure what you are raving about Partizan?

              Comment was copied from Kiwiblog.

              Comment was relevant to the discussion.

              None of my business what names you use here or elsewhere.

              Yes I believe Latham was a name for a criketer.

            • Took it personally, my mistake. “Relevant ….” = comment on mine … no gap … Hat tip to Kiwiblog …?

              That’s a concession to Alan too by the way.
              You have NO IDEA how hard that is for me to say …

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th February 2016

              Kudos for climbing that mountain, PZ!

            • @ Alan – I figure I owed you one. I think you said “Fair point” in reply to one of my comments. I’m surprised a general alarm didn’t sound …

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th February 2016

              I always aim to be fair, PZ. Some test that resolve more than others and much more than you who are always honest if sometimes misguided.

            • @ Alan – Touchette! When your default position is anarcho-capitalism where are you going to find someone who ISN’T misguided?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th February 2016

              Not anarcho-capitalism, an economic and social liberal. Not so rare as you seem to think.

          • Kevin

             /  18th February 2016

            It really doesn’t matter if the rich are getting richer, so long as the poor are getting richer too.

            And they are.

            Reply
            • Oliver

               /  18th February 2016

              Kevin that doesn’t make any sense. Have a read of your comment and then give yourself a slap to the face.

    • alloytoo

       /  18th February 2016

      “you cannot have rich people without….a whole lot of….poor people….lonely at the top….crowded at the….bottom.”

      The fallacy of communism is that the economic pie is static and cannot be grown. This is coupled with the notion that the rich need the poor to be poor. This is, as Henry Ford demonstrated a century ago, nonsense. The rich need the poor to be middle class in order to buy their goods and services.

      Since the fall of communism abject poverty has declined globally, more and more the basic necessities of the abject poor are being met. Human beings on average have never had it so good.

      Reply
      • Oliver

         /  18th February 2016

        Tell that to the kids starving in Africa. Or people toiling away in sweatshops in southeast Asia. Or the war torn middle east. The reason that kiwis don’t live in poverty is because of cheap resources and cheap labour exploited from third world countries. So you’re wrong we are “rich” because of poor people.

        #best comment.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  18th February 2016

          No need to tell the Asians. They moved to the cities to escape the grinding poverty of peasant life and are well aware of their good fortune.

          As for Africa, it depends where you are and the quality of your government. So Nigeria has a president tackling corruption and has an economy now surpassing South Africa which is on a downward trajectory with a president that epitomizes corruption.

          Reply
          • Oliver

             /  18th February 2016

            Because living in smoke and concrete equals a better quality of life. Don’t think so.. Try again wilky.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th February 2016

              I don’t have to convince you, Oliver. The Asians decided for themselves. They are certainly smarter than you and probably many are richer too in consequence.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  18th February 2016

          And “The reason that kiwis don’t live in poverty is because of cheap resources and cheap labour exploited from third world countries”:

          Hilariously, abjectly wrong. The reason third world countries are getting richer so fast is that countries like NZ are trading with them and because they now have better governments. The reason NZ is rich is because of good government, good education, open markets and fair trade.

          Reply
          • Oliver

             /  18th February 2016

            No it’s because we have cheap oil from the middle east. And cheap stuff, clothes, electronics made in labour concentration camps in Asia. Take away cheap oil and cheap goods from overseas and we all will be living a peasant life.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  18th February 2016

              As I posted yesterday: http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore/tree_map/export/nzl/all/show/2011/
              which shows NZ exports US$2B worth of petroleum oils ourselves at international market prices – which fell due to US fracking production and despite middle eastern war and disruption.

              Yes, we will all be poorer as will the world if we cannot trade. Glad to see you coming around to supporting the TPP. But we do not depend on poverty elsewhere and we are affluent in spite of it. Quite the opposite, the growth of China and reduction of poverty has made us also richer, not poorer, and increased options in both countries.

        • alloytoo

           /  18th February 2016

          The fact that areas of deprivation still exist doesn’t mean that the overall human condition hasn’t improved.

          As Alan indicated African countries that tackle corruption and focus on rule of law (particularly property rights) and education will attract investment and create opportunities.

          South Africa is a sad basket case, corruption is rampant and unions stifle any sort of reform in the education sector. less than 30% of the children entering the education system end up graduating from high school. It’s a ticking time bomb.

          The Middle east offers contrasting examples of quality of life. The region’s sole functioning democracy has embraced globalization and foreign investment. It’s citizens enjoy protected civil liberties and a generally high quality of life irrespective of race sex, sexual orientation or religion.

          By contrast it’s neighbors despite vast oil resources restrict civil liberties and offer a substantially poorer quality of life for the majority of the populations.

          Asians countries offer further excellent examples of how investment and trade lead to better quality of life. One only has to contrast North and South Korea, or examine the major changes China’s embrace of capitalism has wrought on their economy.

          Reply
    • Kevin

       /  18th February 2016

      And if the poor people all have houses and at least two cars each, what’s so wrong about that?

      Reply
  3. Grandma Gibson

     /  18th February 2016

    Andrew Sullivan is a gay American blogger who has retired from blogging. Andrew Dickens, who wrote the article is on the reserve bench at NewstalkZB due to his leftist whinging and fondness for the bottle.

    The clue to his name, you idiot, is in the headline of the Article!

    Reply
    • @ Thanks Grandma. Your tone sounds familiar? When did you grow the long snout and fangs? But hey, no, I jest … much appreciated.

      Free speech is welcome here you know. Do please visit more often.

      NewstalkZB has a reserve bench with Lefties on it!!??
      You’re friggin’ kidding me !!!? Do they ever get a game?

      (I won’t be bathing in the shite to find out if it smells if you catch my drift)
      I wonder if I can get email alerts when any of them are going on air?

      Reply
  4. Blazer

     /  18th February 2016

    we’re so rich now that the average debt per capita is only $26,000…public debt only of course(120bil).

    Reply
  5. Utopian THesis for today –

    The polarisation right here, as exemplified by Alan vs Oliver (above), is a perfect example IMHO of taking simplistic sides in an incredibly complex issue or issues. By the way chaps, I DO NOT mean loopy or rabid. You are, indeed, on your own firm ground here Oliver. You’re both on firm ground! How can this be?

    I think it comes back to a situation I pointed out the other day. Politics is the consciousness of the population. Politics is a kind of Jungian ‘Collective Conscious’. I say Jungian because I think it includes archetypes like, e.g. the “individual” in relation to the “family, group, tribe, society or species”. To transfer only “versus” or conflict to this relationship is highly questionable. Families, for instance, tend to be “father AND daughter” rather than father versus daughter. Even if there are battles, there’s generally not a long-term war? Even if there was, it wouldn’t be “win-able”? What would a win look like? Permanent split?

    There isn’t, in reality, any objectively correct or ‘right’ politics. It doesn’t exist. We can and only ever will discuss, debate and contend differing philosophies and ideologies. These will, I assert, necessarily incorporate both the individual and the group. The distinctions are only a matter of emphasis, rather than exclusivity.

    The fundamental question is actually the relationship of Man to Mankind, and Mankind to the World.

    So, at one extreme end of the scale stands the (possibly inverted totalitarian) anarcho-capitalist and at the other the totalitarian command communist. Very few people really occupy these positions. Most are in the middle somewhere, and I would contend the VAST majority of them are not saying, “It must be THIS or it must be THAT!”.

    I think the vast majority of people are saying, or would perhaps agree to say, “We must find a middle ground somewhere. A middle way. What I want is a peaceful, relatively secure, interesting, challenging, fulfilling, comfortable, moderately prosperous life. Perhaps even a life a little freer of the stress of this current “competition” ethos”?

    Indeed, to impose one side exclusively (individualism) at the expense of the other (collectivism) – or vice-versa – is counter-productive as we have seen (Alan) and as we are seeing (Oliver). Here are two articles I just now found online. One for each of you as above.

    The first – Discover the Networks – completely debunks and denigrates Communism in relation to poverty (and I think its right) – while the second – Time (no less) – claims [with supporting evidence] that the very class struggle at the core of Marxist theory is back – “I’m baaack!” – alive and well and growing under globalised capitalism (and I think its right).

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=581

    http://business.time.com/2013/03/25/marxs-revenge-how-class-struggle-is-shaping-the-world/

    I don’t know the detailed answers but I know one thing. This ain’t f@ckin’ “Plum Pud” pick-up-sides in the primary school-yard. This is our world and I reckon that the pressures of this useless contest of “either or” is weighing bloody heavily upon it. It simply does not need to be a hard-line, inflexible position contest. That’s where we are now though.

    I don’t think its too far exaggerated to say : The world is going to become global ‘democratic’ capitalist under U.S and Western influence and if that “becoming” is threatened the US & West is going to enforce it. And yet “socialist” remains because “social” is embedded in the same genes as “individual”.

    Anyone who wants to make the future better is going to have to cooperate more to find a middle way. And I do not think that “free trade inevitably accompanied by war” is the only way to do it. In fact, redirecting the XXXXX billion dollars of global militarism into world poverty – and I don’t mean as outright aid – would make a big difference …

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  18th February 2016

      I read the Time article (by a China-based free-lance journalist) and wasn’t impressed. “Marx theorized that the capitalist system would inevitably impoverish the masses as the world’s wealth became concentrated in the hands of a greedy few, causing economic crises and heightened conflict between the rich and working classes.”

      Hasn’t happened – and it’s had plenty of time to do it. His sources are pretty much all the usual left-wing suspects.

      “With the global economy in a protracted crisis, and workers around the world burdened by joblessness, debt and stagnant incomes … political and economic events are being shaped by escalating tensions between capital and labor to a degree unseen since the communist revolutions of the 20th century”

      Well, no. There seems pitifully little evidence of this, at least in the major “capitalist” countries such as the US, UK, Germany, Japan, and dare I add, NZ and Australia.

      Reply
      • Oliver

         /  18th February 2016

        Wrong there are people who are in poverty as a result of capitalism. Even in the US of there are hundreds of thousands of people living in the street with no job. There are examples all over the world but MSM turns a blind eye it that’s why you still ignorant wilky. So Marx’s was right and wilky is wrong. No surprises here.

        Reply
        • Which countries have never succumbed to capitalism or have scrapped it have been successful in eliminating poverty?

          Reply
          • mrMan

             /  18th February 2016

            The Papua New Guinea hill tribes aren’t doing too bad either, and the Amazonians that still have jungle to live in.

            Reply
        • Oliver

           /  18th February 2016

          Capitalism is in every country now. But if you look back at the native American culture before the genocide there’s evidence of people living a rich and fulfilling lives with out capitalism.

          Reply
          • Iceberg

             /  18th February 2016

            And an average life span of 26.

            Reply
          • Timoti

             /  18th February 2016

            What else did they have? Do you know what they did to those born disabled?
            And of course don’t forget the inter tribal slaughter. Yeah, some fulfilling life.

            A quote:

            “Because their beliefs serve their ego rather than reality, Lefties just know what is good for us. Conservatives need evidence.”

            Reply
          • Kevin

             /  18th February 2016

            I think you’ll find that your example is what’s called “Romanticism”.

            Reply
  6. Blazer

     /  18th February 2016

    ‘“Marx theorized that the capitalist system would inevitably impoverish the masses as the world’s wealth became concentrated in the hands of a greedy few, causing economic crises and heightened conflict between the rich and working classes.”….most objective commentators confirm this is exactly what is happening right now,at an accelerating rate since the Greenspan ‘put’.

    Reply
    • So on we go with the utterly polarised divisive debate? I think you are correct Alan, insomuch as the global economy has resulted in miniscule or at best small increases in the income of the poor, while also concentrating the world’s wealth in fewer and fewer hands and, arguably, diminishing the wealth and possibly size of the middle class.

      And Blazer, I think you are right. I think this effectively amounts to “keeping the masses relatively impoverished”. We measure poverty in terms of US$1.25 – 1.90 per day FFS!

      And I think if we’re going to have a global economy and reap its benefits we must think about those benefits in relation to and accruing to all 198 nations on earth, assuming there are 197 recognised nations plus Palestine.

      Reply
    • Iceberg

       /  18th February 2016

      You are so full of shit it must hurt. Try to find one “objective” commentator that agrees with you, let alone “most”.

      Reply
    • Kevin

       /  18th February 2016

      That’s ignoring the fact that the working classes are getting richer.

      Reply
  7. Blazer

     /  18th February 2016

    according to the U.S there are only 2 types of nation in the world….those who are with us….and those who …aren’t.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s