United Forum
Go Back   United Forum > Everything else > News, Current Affairs & Politics
Reply
 
Unread 09-01-2019, 10:38 PM
Hands of Scone
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cream
The point, you fucking retard, is that when we talk about relative poverty. we're talking about BUYING POWER.

This is inextricably linked to inflation.

Your scenario removes inflation from the picture. So not only is it outlandish, as you freely admit, it is in fact utterly invalid.

We can't even accept it warts and all. It is the reasoning of a fucking child.

CUNT.
You’re missing the pint aren’t you you fucking spastic?

Of course it’s outlandish you dolt, but the point - highlighting the ridiculous defintion of ‘relative poverty by demonstrating that even instantly doubling the amount of money available for povs to spend would not serve to reduce poverty in any way - has flown over your large thick fucking head. Inflation is supremely irrelevant. But, in this clearly hypothetical argument how do you know the level of inflation wouldn’t be less than the doubling of wages thus increasing the ‘buying power’ (merely a rebranding of the concept of relative poverty)? You don’t but it doesnt fucking matter anyway.

Well, take it the other way.

The top 100 earning billionaires get paid zero. No one else’s wages differ. This serves to alleviate ‘relative poverty’ with no effect on their actual buying power. Their relative buying power would increase and they’d be happier because ‘relative poverty’ equals relative buying power and this equals the politics of envy. More concerned with what the other is getting that they aren’t than whther theyre doing alright or not.

The equality politics instinct on seeing an able bodied man and a man in a wheelchair is not to help the cripple but to break the other guy’s legs.

Dont bother replying. Just take your fat stupid carcass along to the “Times I was proved wrong” thread and make your confession.

Fucking lump.

Last edited by Hands of Scone; 09-01-2019 at 10:41 PM.
 
Unread 09-01-2019, 11:01 PM
Cream
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands of Scone
You’re missing the pint aren’t you you fucking spastic?

Of course it’s outlandish you dolt, but the point - highlighting the ridiculous defintion of ‘relative poverty by demonstrating that even instantly doubling the amount of money available for povs to spend would not serve to reduce poverty in any way - has flown over your large thick fucking head. Inflation is supremely irrelevant. But, in this clearly hypothetical argument how do you know the level of inflation wouldn’t be less than the doubling of wages thus increasing the ‘buying power’ (merely a rebranding of the concept of relative poverty)? You don’t but it doesnt fucking matter anyway.

Well, take it the other way.

The top 100 earning billionaires get paid zero. No one else’s wages differ. This serves to alleviate ‘relative poverty’ with no effect on their actual buying power. Their relative buying power would increase and they’d be happier because ‘relative poverty’ equals relative buying power and this equals the politics of envy. More concerned with what the other is getting that they aren’t than whther theyre doing alright or not.

The equality politics instinct on seeing an able bodied man and a man in a wheelchair is not to help the cripple but to break the other guy’s legs.

Dont bother replying. Just take your fat stupid carcass along to the “Times I was proved wrong” thread and make your confession.

Fucking lump.
Didn't read past the bolded part: it isn't just outlandish it's INVALID.

I've already pointed that out.

So everything typed after that is just you arguing with yourself. Which isn't going to get you anywhere.

Geddit?
 
Unread 09-01-2019, 11:10 PM
Fat Al
 
Default

They have a formula they use to ascertain poverty.
You're expert enough to dispute it?
Let's hear your credentials to dispute it then?

Let's say the figures are wrong, just to err on the side of caution. Let's be really cautious & say the figures are out so badly, the actual figure isn't 14,000,000, it is 'just' 7,000,000.
7 million is still more than 10% of the population of one of the top 10 richest economies in the world. 1 in 10 of our countries people are living in poverty.
But all you see is a) an opportunity to attack the method of ascertaining this data & b) that one particular political party hasn't made more of it.

This transcends party politics. It's fucking disgraceful. And it shows that you are just on here banging your shitty agenda out, post after post.
Change the fucking record.
 
Unread 09-01-2019, 11:25 PM
Harri Jaffa
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Al View Post
They have a formula they use to ascertain poverty.
You're expert enough to dispute it?
Let's hear your credentials to dispute it then?

Let's say the figures are wrong, just to err on the side of caution. Let's be really cautious & say the figures are out so badly, the actual figure isn't 14,000,000, it is 'just' 7,000,000.
7 million is still more than 10% of the population of one of the top 10 richest economies in the world. 1 in 10 of our countries people are living in poverty.
But all you see is a) an opportunity to attack the method of ascertaining this data & b) that one particular political party hasn't made more of it.

This transcends party politics. It's fucking disgraceful. And it shows that you are just on here banging your shitty agenda out, post after post.
Change the fucking record.
Spot on

There's a lot of homeless on the street and it's getting worse. Don't need stats to figure that out, just your eyes...
 
Unread 10-01-2019, 07:11 AM
Hands of Scone
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cream View Post
Didn't read past the bolded part: it isn't just outlandish it's INVALID.

I've already pointed that out.

So everything typed after that is just you arguing with yourself. Which isn't going to get you anywhere.

Geddit?
It’s a simple illustration. The premises are true and the conclusion is true. Therefore valid. You’re a fucking invalid.
 
Unread 10-01-2019, 07:15 AM
no fun
 
Default

Cream and irk throwing nasty insults at each other despite being irl pals

Copycat wankers
 
Unread 10-01-2019, 07:27 AM
Hands of Scone
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Al View Post
They have a formula they use to ascertain poverty.
You're expert enough to dispute it?
Let's hear your credentials to dispute it then?

Let's say the figures are wrong, just to err on the side of caution. Let's be really cautious & say the figures are out so badly, the actual figure isn't 14,000,000, it is 'just' 7,000,000.
7 million is still more than 10% of the population of one of the top 10 richest economies in the world. 1 in 10 of our countries people are living in poverty.
But all you see is a) an opportunity to attack the method of ascertaining this data & b) that one particular political party hasn't made more of it.

This transcends party politics. It's fucking disgraceful. And it shows that you are just on here banging your shitty agenda out, post after post.
Change the fucking record.
The old argument from authority. My credentials to dispute it are that I’ve had a bit of a think about it. Read up on it a bit too. Anyone can do that. You don’t have to parrot things you’ve taken at face value. And your conclusion doesn’t follow. I don’t have any more of an agenda than you do. Why must you attack me for having a different opinion? Can’t you just accept that people have different opinions? You holding your favoured opinion doesn’t make you ethically pure and me ethically bad.

Try to read my words and try to understand them. I’m not disputing the figures. Im sure on the spurious definition used there are 14 million people whose income after the usual deductions is less than 60% of the median income. I’m saying that that is not a meaningful or helpful definition of poverty. It’s a broadly drawn redefinition of poverty designed to further the equality politics agenda.

It’s dishonest it eliberately conflates actual poverty with this bullshit definition of ‘relative poverty’. As a headline grabbing claim it sounds awful and, as you’ve amply demonstrated, your average gullible type will read it and demand something be done without understanding it doesnt mean anything more than a lot of people earn less than the median, which given the nature of the median is bound to happen if there is a any kind variation in earnings. It’s as daft as calling for everyone to earn at the average wage.

The method of alleviating this definition of relative poverty is state control of all salaries within prescribed limits and redistribution of private property via state mandated coercion. There’s an agenda for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harri Jaffa View Post
Spot on

There's a lot of homeless on the street and it's getting worse. Don't need stats to figure that out, just your eyes...
They fall into the definition of actual and not relative poverty and the situation is clearly a disgrace.

Concentrating on ‘relative poverty’ with its absurb claims does nothing to help them. It hinders in fact as it draws attention and resources to where they are not needed.

Another example of a virtue signalling policy that will make the situation it purports to solve worse.



Quote:
What's been happening to poverty?

Absolute poverty, both before and after housing costs, has halved over the past 20 years.

But while absolute poverty is falling, the reduction over the past 10 years was much smaller than it has been over comparable periods of time since the 1960s.

Relative poverty, meanwhile, has remained more or less stagnant - inequality is as bad as it was two decades ago.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&so... 7192807052192

And there’s the rub. ‘Inequality’ not poverty is the real issue. Good luck to the man who thinks he can solve the ‘problem’ of inequality. A few countries have tried. Can anyone tell me what happened to them?

Last edited by Hands of Scone; 10-01-2019 at 07:56 AM.
 
Unread 10-01-2019, 08:49 AM
Harri Jaffa
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands of Scone View Post
The old argument from authority. My credentials to dispute it are that I’ve had a bit of a think about it. Read up on it a bit too. Anyone can do that. You don’t have to parrot things you’ve taken at face value. And your conclusion doesn’t follow. I don’t have any more of an agenda than you do. Why must you attack me for having a different opinion? Can’t you just accept that people have different opinions? You holding your favoured opinion doesn’t make you ethically pure and me ethically bad.

Try to read my words and try to understand them. I’m not disputing the figures. Im sure on the spurious definition used there are 14 million people whose income after the usual deductions is less than 60% of the median income. I’m saying that that is not a meaningful or helpful definition of poverty. It’s a broadly drawn redefinition of poverty designed to further the equality politics agenda.

It’s dishonest it eliberately conflates actual poverty with this bullshit definition of ‘relative poverty’. As a headline grabbing claim it sounds awful and, as you’ve amply demonstrated, your average gullible type will read it and demand something be done without understanding it doesnt mean anything more than a lot of people earn less than the median, which given the nature of the median is bound to happen if there is a any kind variation in earnings. It’s as daft as calling for everyone to earn at the average wage.

The method of alleviating this definition of relative poverty is state control of all salaries within prescribed limits and redistribution of private property via state mandated coercion. There’s an agenda for you.



They fall into the definition of actual and not relative poverty and the situation is clearly a disgrace.

Concentrating on ‘relative poverty’ with its absurb claims does nothing to help them. It hinders in fact as it draws attention and resources to where they are not needed.

Another example of a virtue signalling policy that will make the situation it purports to solve worse.





https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&so... 7192807052192

And there’s the rub. ‘Inequality’ not poverty is the real issue. Good luck to the man who thinks he can solve the ‘problem’ of inequality. A few countries have tried. Can anyone tell me what happened to them?
Irkles

I've been in Birmingham, Bristol, Brixton and snowdonia in the last couple of weeks.

I don't know what it was like in Birmingham but it's bad
Brixton has got worse despite of the gentrification of certain bits.
1 person I met a year ago in snowdonia now does work every day to stock up her food bank in a place where all you can see is mountains with food walking on them.
There's a fucking campsite just off the m32 in Bristol of homeless people. I don't know what the weathers like where you are but it ain't camping weather here.
 
Unread 10-01-2019, 08:52 AM
Hands of Scone
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harri Jaffa View Post
Irkles

I've been in Birmingham, Bristol, Brixton and snowdonia in the last couple of weeks.

I don't know what it was like in Birmingham but it's bad
Brixton has got worse despite of the gentrification of certain bits.
1 person I met a year ago in snowdonia now does work every day to stock up her food bank in a place where all you can see is mountains with food walking on them.
There's a fucking campsite just off the m32 in Bristol of homeless people. I don't know what the weathers like where you are but it ain't camping weather here.
Well done. Those people are in actual poverty. Let’s do more to assist them. It’s a disgrace and there but for the grace of god go I. What’s that got to do with relative poverty?
 
Unread 10-01-2019, 08:57 AM
Harri Jaffa
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands of Scone View Post
Well done. Those people are in actual poverty. Let’s do more to assist them. It’s a disgrace and there but for the grace of god go I. What’s that got to do with relative poverty?
Who cares what word is put in front of poverty. It's getting worse. Everyone can see it
Reply
Thread Tools
Similar Threads for: Glad to see our MPs have their priorities right
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Policing priorities Fat Al News, Current Affairs & Politics 5 28-12-2017 11:45 AM
Jose Mourinho explains Manchester United priorities fred tissue Football Auto-Threads 0 10-05-2017 07:40 PM
Policing priorities Fat Al News, Current Affairs & Politics 13 10-08-2015 07:35 PM
Dan King: United's priorities are in small print fred tissue Football Auto-Threads 0 30-05-2009 09:20 PM
Nice to see our diligent policemen are getting their priorities right.. Sparky*** Off Topic 11 06-12-2007 08:02 PM
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:08 PM.

Copyright ©2006 - 2019 utdforum.com. This site is in no way affiliated to Manchester United Football Club.