Dis-arming of America

[Jaimecbr900]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_income
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_..._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index

"As of 2006, the United States had one of the highest levels of income inequality, as measured through the Gini index, among high income countries, comparable to that of some middle income countries such as Russia or Turkey,[15] being one of only few developed countries where inequality has increased since 1980"

As for the whole "standard of living" thing, there are a variety of indices, the United States isn't first in any of them. In terms of countries who are consistently ahead of us, you're looking at places like Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, etc.

The best one is probably the Economist Intelligence Unit's Quality of Life index - for 2005 we were 13th.

http://www.shannonireland.com/media/Media,2966,en.pdf

Also, its achieved when a government is of the people, by the people and for the people, acting in the best interest of said people.

Not constantly acting in the best interests of itself as a whole, its members as individuals and the interests of corporations.

2 things:

-The whole "distribution of wealth" idea is ambiguos and based on whomever devices the formula. For example, in the chart you provided it shows that the U.S. although only 5% of the total world population has over 25% of the world's "wealth", which could be seen as some kind of great divide. But if you look at China, with over 50% of the entire world's population and it too having over 25% of the world's wealth.....what's that mean really?

- Distribution of wealth is a Socialist idea, hence why it's so much more prevelent in Europe. It assumes equality of wealth as some sort of checks and balances device directed towards keeping the GOV'T in check. The idea, much like Communism, backfires because when you try and stiffle an individual's or corp's ability to advance, i.e. make more money, then you repress and ultimately irritate one very basic human principle....the principle that we always naturally strive to be better tomm than we are today. Why do you think that sometimes when you look at some of the most politically repressed countries they seem to be stuck in some kind of time warp where they never seem to advance with the rest of the world? Because the oppressive gov't basically kills the drive of it's citizens by basically capping their advancement in life.

Anyway, my

[The12lber]

2 things:

-The whole "distribution of wealth" idea is ambiguos and based on whomever devices the formula. For example, in the chart you provided it shows that the U.S. although only 5% of the total world population has over 25% of the world's "wealth", which could be seen as some kind of great divide. But if you look at China, with over 50% of the entire world's population and it too having over 25% of the world's wealth.....what's that mean really?

I'm going to pretend for a second you're seriously not dumb enough to think that China's 1.2 billion people are half of the world's estimated 6.7 billion people.

In any case there's nothing ambiguous about it and you failed in reading the graph - Asia is represented and not China. Economic measures are not voodoo. This is economics, not Reaganomics. They're based on hard math. GDP is GDP and PPP is PPP no matter who calculates it. In any case, differences internationally in GPD have to do with the developmental status of a nation's infrastructure/economy/etc. International distribution of income/wealth isn't what were were talking about anyhow.

- Distribution of wealth is a Socialist idea, hence why it's so much more prevelent in Europe. It assumes equality of wealth as some sort of checks and balances device directed towards keeping the GOV'T in check. The idea, much like Communism, backfires because when you try and stiffle an individual's or corp's ability to advance, i.e. make more money, then you repress and ultimately irritate one very basic human principle....the principle that we always naturally strive to be better tomm than we are today. Why do you think that sometimes when you look at some of the most politically repressed countries they seem to be stuck in some kind of time warp where they never seem to advance with the rest of the world? Because the oppressive gov't basically kills the drive of it's citizens by basically capping their advancement in life.

Your argument is self defeating. Those European nations with socialistic policies that you mentioned, the ones you say backfire, they all score dramatically higher than us on all quality of life indices (which include things like personal freedom etc). Their governments are more democratic and afford greater personal freedom than ours.

Socialism != the crushing weight of an oppressive Government. I don't know what kind of TV you've been watching, but these countries you seem to think are stuck in a time warp because of their "oppressive governments" are more developed than ours.

You're thinking of sub-saharan Africa.
Anyway, my

Epic fail

[Jaimecbr900]

Epic fail

Says the barely out his teens know-it-all who can't even quote right in an internet forum. Talk about epic failure....

You know something? I was already an adult under Reagan, not just read about him in text books, smarty pants. So don't sit there and smugly try to lecture me about "Regeanomics" jack leg, when you weren't even a glint in your father's eye when Reagan was in office.

If you look at the very first link YOU provided when I asked YOU to show me what YOU meant by "wealth distribution", you will see that ASIA, which last time I checked was where CHINA is located, does indeed hold 50+% of the world's population ACCORDING TO YOUR ALL KNOWING AND ALL PROVING CHART. So if you want to split hairs with someone, split hairs with Wikipedia and not me.

Second of all, the "distribution of wealth" or Robin Hood theory is indeed a SOCIALIST idea. Matter of fact, even the link YOU provided says that clearly. Here, I'll quote it for you since you're having reading comprehension and open-mouth-insert-foot syndrome:

"Various forms of socialism, and capitalism to a lesser degree, make attempts to diminish the conflicts arising from the unequal distribution of wealth."

"The economic/political system of communism forwards the idea that a government, serving the interests of the proletariat, would confiscate the wealth of the rich and then distribute benefits to the poor."

"They cite the former Soviet Union and The People's Republic of China as examples of countries where, despite aggressive economic regulation, wealth continues to be distributed unevenly."

Hmmmmm, so let's take a look at YOUR example of how "distribution of wealth" is NOT a Socialist/Communist idea......oh, wait......We just did, huh? Who's dumb one now???? The Robin Hood idea has always been a Socialist battle cry. It has also served to keep people dependent on their GOV'T rather than themselves, after all if can't get it on your own....under the Socialist ideals.....the gov't will make sure to take it from someone else that has it to "share" it with you. That my friend, is exactly what Socialism is all about at its core. Looks good on paper, to those that get the handouts, but it doesn't work.

How about you stop making blanket generic statements and use some concrete proof? Name those countries where YOU feel that people have all this wealth they share with each other in harmony, get to walk around naked if they want, and live out their lives in the lap of luxury. Name them. Because I know that in just about every country in Europe you can't even own a gun, let alone carry one. That's a great "freedom". How about voting? I know that up until the late 20th century several countries didn't even give their citizens a right to vote. Great "freedom" there. Let's not forget about freedom of speech, religion, and press......because in Europe people don't get killed for any of those, right? Another great "freedom". Yep, wealth distribution.....which has worked so remarkably for countries like Germany during Hitler and Italy during Napoleon and Mussolini.....and personal freedoms.....which is why the good ole U.S.A. was even created to begin with.....sure do go a long way towards showing all of us idiot Westerners just how it should be done. Whatever, no thanks.

Finally, name those countries you think are so much more "developed" than we are. I'd be curious to see that list. I'm willing to bet that short of some index, chart, or economist saying so.....you have no other real material to prove your point. Wanna bet?

[BUGMAN]

Anyone in here old enough to have experienced the last 4-5 Presidencies?

[The12lber]

Now that explains a lot.

We are arguing with a kidiot? No wonder he doesn't seem to grasp the concept of anything that I am saying and keeps going backwards with his post.

Yup I think I am done wasting my time on someone that has little or no life experience and has learned everything they preach about theatrically.

That's the kind of feeble excuse you'd expect from an idiot who was proven wrong because someone who actually had a clue came in, brought a mountain of evidence to support his claim, and articulated it in a manner that can be described as something other than a text-filled cluster****.

[BUGMAN]

That's the kind of feeble excuse you'd expect from an idiot who was proven wrong because someone who actually had a clue came in, brought a mountain of evidence to support his claim, and articulated it in a manner that can be described as something other than a text-filled cluster****.

I need no excuse since it wasn't my opinion to begin with.

[The12lber]

No excuse it wasn't my post to begin with. You continue still to argue against me with a post that I added simply to see everyones opinion/debates on. I even disputed parts of it in my 2nd post which once again I am pointing out to you.

Why you do that? Your not proving me wrong but in your head you still think you are?

Answer my question, how old are you really? I can tell that your not very experienced hence the fact that you repeatedly refer to the main post that was not composed by me which you have been told repeatedly.

Um, I haven't been arguing with you at all. You haven't done any arguing. I quoted one thing from the post and disproved it and someone took issue with what I said. That is where this dialogue originates from. We haven't really been talking about your cute little post at all.

Pretty much everything I have said in this post has been towards JaimeBCR or yellow race car as his avatar who is amazingly proud of himself for making money without going to college - guy. I haven't really addressed anything towards you up until this point. I realize this is the internet and everything, but desperate for attention much?

You're trying to make this about you, and its not... at all... and it never has been. Go find something I said in my posts and prove me wrong. But you won't.

[The12lber]

Says the barely out his teens know-it-all who can't even quote right in an internet forum. Talk about epic failure....
Oh, where did I quote you wrong?

You know something? I was already an adult under Reagan, not just read about him in text books, smarty pants. So don't sit there and smugly try to lecture me about "Regeanomics" jack leg, when you weren't even a glint in your father's eye when Reagan was in office.

If you look at the very first link YOU provided when I asked YOU to show me what YOU meant by "wealth distribution", you will see that ASIA, which last time I checked was where CHINA is located, does indeed hold 50+% of the world's population ACCORDING TO YOUR ALL KNOWING AND ALL PROVING CHART. So if you want to split hairs with someone, split hairs with Wikipedia and not me.

Yeah, China is in Asia, but Cina is not the only country in Asia ****tard - a lot of other countries are too. China does not even have the largest GDP of the Asian nations, Japan does. What you said would be like pinning all of America's GDP on output from California and more over referring to America as "California". More over, its not my fault you chose to decide that Wealth Distribution only meant internationally. The article I linked you to was about Wealth Distribution in general, its not my fault all you ****ing did was look at the graph and not read because you are an idiot. From the first paragraph.


"Distribution of wealth is a comparison of the wealth of various members or groups in a society, and is one aspect of the economy and social structure. Typically, various racial and ethnic groups possess differing amounts of wealth, and the same is true when people are grouped by age or education. Different jobs bring in greatly different wages; the pay for some jobs is thousands of times greater than the pay for other jobs."

Second of all, the "distribution of wealth" or Robin Hood theory is indeed a SOCIALIST idea. Matter of fact, even the link YOU provided says that clearly. Here, I'll quote it for you since you're having reading comprehension and open-mouth-insert-foot syndrome:

Yeah, I never said it wasn't. What are you, retarded?


"Various forms of socialism, and capitalism to a lesser degree, make attempts to diminish the conflicts arising from the unequal distribution of wealth."

"The economic/political system of communism forwards the idea that a government, serving the interests of the proletariat, would confiscate the wealth of the rich and then distribute benefits to the poor."

You're talking about communism, not Socialism.

"They cite the former Soviet Union and The People's Republic of China as examples of countries where, despite aggressive economic regulation, wealth continues to be distributed unevenly."
Again, still communism. Another problem still, these nations weren't(aren't) democracies.

Hmmmmm, so let's take a look at YOUR example of how "distribution of wealth" is NOT a Socialist/Communist idea......oh, wait......We just did, huh? Who's dumb one now???? The Robin Hood idea has always been a Socialist battle cry. It has also served to keep people dependent on their GOV'T rather than themselves, after all if can't get it on your own....under the Socialist ideals.....the gov't will make sure to take it from someone else that has it to "share" it with you. That my friend, is exactly what Socialism is all about at its core. Looks good on paper, to those that get the handouts, but it doesn't work.

How about you stop making blanket generic statements and use some concrete proof?
I actually provided evidence from the start. Its not my fault you chose not to look at it.
Name those countries where YOU feel that people have all this wealth they share with each other in harmony, get to walk around naked if they want, and live out their lives in the lap of luxury. Name them. Because I know that in just about every country in Europe you can't even own a gun,
Yeah, about that, which European countries don't allow gun ownership? Wait, you probably can't name any because you're speaking out your ass. Europeans enjoy this freedom as well. And seriously, when you talk about freedoms you go straight to the guns, I love it.
let alone carry one. That's a great "freedom". How about voting? I know that up until the late 20th century several countries didn't even give their citizens a right to vote.
Yeah, lots of countries still don't. How's this relate to the nations in question though? Oh, wait, it doesn't. We're not talking about ****ing Saudi Arabia.

Great "freedom" there. Let's not forget about freedom of speech, religion, and press......because in Europe people don't get killed for any of those, right? Another great "freedom".
I'm assuming this is some kind of dig because Europe didn't get hit by any individual terrorist attacks as major as 9/11. That's probably because Europeans gave up on having an empire a long time ago but we are still an imperialist power, stepping on the toes of some seriously angry people.

Yep, wealth distribution.....which has worked so remarkably for countries like Germany during Hitler and Italy during Napoleon and Mussolini.....
Wow, what a sound argument. "FASCISTS DID IT- IT MUST BE EVIL."
Hitler and Mussolini got up and brushed their teeth every morning, I'm sure that's pretty terribly evil as well.
and personal freedoms.....which is why the good ole U.S.A. was even created to begin with.....sure do go a long way towards showing all of us idiot Westerners just how it should be done. Whatever, no thanks.

Finally, name those countries you think are so much more "developed" than we are. I'd be curious to see that list. I'm willing to bet that short of some index, chart, or economist saying so.....you have no other real material to prove your point. Wanna bet?

I realize dumb people like to do this when smart people know better than them... but seriously... THIS IS BASICALLY WHAT ECONOMISTS GET PAID TO DO AND IS THEIR FIELD OF EXPERTISE. And nobody else. Do you want me to make a collage of Norway next to the U.S. and do a side by side comparison or something?

WHAT OTHER EVIDENCE WOULD YOU USE THAN SOME INDEX, CHART OR SURVEY PERFORMED BY AN ECONOMIST?

That is how you compare these things. You get economists. BECAUSE ECONOMISTS KNOW ABOUT ECONOMICS.

Dude, you're pretty ****ing dumb. I never disputed wealth redistribution as a socialist ideal. More over, talking about the collapse of the U.S.S.R. doesn't shoot holes in any kind of socialist economics. While there is wealth redistribution in both, Communism creates a command economy and that is the reason it doesn't work.

All I did was lol@you reading Asia = China and point out that your little rant about Socialist policy leading to government oppression and some kind of "developmental time warp" was total bull**** and is disproven by what actually occurs in reality land.

All these other comments about voting and Hitler and ****... **** man... quite the rant that leads nowhere.

Linked before but linked once again because apparently you don't know how to copy paste things into your browser.

http://www.shannonireland.com/media/Media,2966,en.pdf

And no, despite the URL the document is hosted at, this is not Irish propaganda. That's just the first place I found the index. Most of the economists who made it were English.

As for these countries you seem to be intimating don't exist and I am making up, it ranks

1)Ireland
2)Switzerland
3)Norway
4)Luxembourg
5)Sweden
6)Australia
7)Iceland
8)Italy
9)Denmark
10)Spain
11)Singapore
12)Finland
13)United States

But socialism is destructive, right? roflskates

Notice every Scandinavian country in the world is beating us. Didn't I mention Scandinavia specifically?

[The12lber]

Italy during Napoleon and Mussolini.....

I decided this was so funny it was worth another post. Napoleon is the famous dictator turned short lived conqueror and one of the greatest military minds of his time. His time was the early nineteenth century... and he was the dictatorial leader of France... he died a hundred years before Mussolini ruled Italy.

I'm in awe of how stupid you are.

[Jaimecbr900]

I decided this was so funny it was worth another post. Napoleon is the famous dictator turned short lived conqueror and one of the greatest military minds of his time. His time was the early nineteenth century... and he was the dictatorial leader of France... he died a hundred years before Mussolini ruled Italy.

I'm in awe of how stupid you are.

Wow, you truly are just an absolute idiot that can't think beyond whatever someone regurgitates at you........WOW!!!! Since you can't think for yourself and deductive reasoning is not your friend, I'll explain what I was trying to say to those that have IQ's higher than spit. BOTH of them were dictators/Socialists who used forms of "wealth distribution", yet anyone with a high school education knows how well that worked out for BOTH of them. Get it now Mensa card carrier? Probably not. I gave you too much credit before and figured I didn't have to spell things out since you think you know so much and this was basic History. I'll be sure to use smaller words, big bold pictures, and pop-ups next time.

If you're too stupid to be able to quote someone correctly on this forum even after I've already made fun of you for being a newbie quoter, then you don't deserve any more of my attention.

[The12lber]

Wow, you truly are just an absolute idiot that can't think beyond whatever someone regurgitates at you........WOW!!!! Since you can't think for yourself and deductive reasoning is not your friend, I'll explain what I was trying to say to those that have IQ's higher than spit. BOTH of them were dictators/Socialists who used forms of "wealth distribution", yet anyone with a high school education knows how well that worked out for BOTH of them. Get it now Mensa card carrier? Probably not. I gave you too much credit before and figured I didn't have to spell things out since you think you know so much and this was basic History. I'll be sure to use smaller words, big bold pictures, and pop-ups next time.

If you're too stupid to be able to quote someone correctly on this forum even after I've already made fun of you for being a newbie quoter, then you don't deserve any more of my attention.

I wasn't misquoting you... you said "Italy during Napoleon and Mussolini"... intimating that both were Italian dictators and possibly that both ruled Italy together at the same time.

More over, your arguments suck, considering both rulers were ousted by (Napoleon lived under English house arrest on an island for the rest of his life and Mussolini was caught by anti-fascist guerillas then shot and hung up like a piece of meat) foreign military force and not by economic collapse... not that Napoleon was a socialist in any case, as stated earlier.

In any case, you can refer back to my post where I listed all those terrible socialist Western European/Scandinavian countries that are horribly underdeveloped because of their socialistic tendencies. Turns out based on a composite of political freedom/healthcare/GDP per capita/etc they enjoy a higher standard of living than us.

Or perhaps you'd rather just use your anecdotal argument, like referring to countries who's problem wasn't Socialism but Fascism or countries that collapsed because of Communism, a wholly seperate economic design than socialism.

U R DUM

[Jaimecbr900]

I wasn't misquoting you... you said "Italy during Napoleon and Mussolini"... intimating that both were Italian dictators and possibly that both ruled Italy together at the same time.

What happens when people ASSume???

More over, your arguments suck, considering both rulers were ousted by (Napoleon lived under English house arrest on an island for the rest of his life and Mussolini was caught by anti-fascist guerillas then shot and hung up like a piece of meat) foreign military force and not by economic collapse... not that Napoleon was a socialist in any case, as stated earlier.

Glad you read your 8th grade History book so you can come back and educate us all. You still missed the whole point, but I'm not even going to bother to repeat it to you again. Your head must be made of Oak.

In any case, you can refer back to my post where I listed all those terrible socialist Western European/Scandinavian countries that are horribly underdeveloped because of their socialistic tendencies. Turns out based on a composite of political freedom/healthcare/GDP per capita/etc they enjoy a higher standard of living than us.

Then there's an SAS flight waiting to take you to the promised land.....

Or perhaps you'd rather just use your anecdotal argument, like referring to countries who's problem wasn't Socialism but Fascism or countries that collapsed because of Communism, a wholly seperate economic design than socialism.

U R DUM

Because there is only one kind of Socialism, right? Because not one of those different variants of Socialism have anything to do with Communism, right?