Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 57 of 57
Thanks Tree74Thanks

Thread: Marine LePen Sounded Okay To Me

  1. #51
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,821
    Thanks
    33530

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontrary View Post
    Here's the thing, globalization is already here, the problem is that the peasants (the majority of the worlds population) have no say.....we need to change that part of things.


    We have to stop competing with each other and cooperate with each other to achieve our goals, not race and try to beat others out of the prize....

    The best hope of ending things like slavery and child labor IS globalization and having some global standards on such things...as it stands now, its the power elite who decide everything and of course they shape it to benefit themselves, the few over the many, and continue to concentrate power to themselves. Globalization doesnt have to be done in the way its being done now, it can be done to benefit HUMANS instead of a few nations and the global power elites.

    Globalization should seek cooperation and for everyone to get what they need, everyone having access to resources and prosperity instead of trying to "beat" the others and box them out.
    You'll never get rich countries to agree to this. We enjoy high standards of living precisely because others suffer in poverty. We don't really want to change this. If we did, we would have done so already. The median household income in the US is about $55K, yet 40% of the world's population lives on less than $1000/year. Reducing that gap would mean a HUGE drop in American and European (and Japanese and Australian and...) standards of living.
    Thanks from Kontrary and bajisima

  2. #52
    Veteran Member Kontrary's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    13,924
    Thanks
    12534

    From
    Sweden
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    You'll never get rich countries to agree to this. We enjoy high standards of living precisely because others suffer in poverty. We don't really want to change this. If we did, we would have done so already. The median household income in the US is about $55K, yet 40% of the world's population lives on less than $1000/year. Reducing that gap would mean a HUGE drop in American and European (and Japanese and Australian and...) standards of living.
    I dont disagree with anything you say here, but there is a solution to this and we can have a shift in the way we do things. First of all, sustainable living is central....that addresses scarcity.

    You point out an uncomfortable truth, many people want to end "poverty" but dont acknowledge that to do so would either destroy the planet or deplete the resources *that is aside from the greed humans illustrate*...it would be impossible with the way we live now, but we can live differently. We can approach this in a very new and different way, its time for us to adapt. Its like the basic income issue, thats a hard one for many to take because thats a radical paradigm shift, but the younger generations illustrate they are ready for those paradigm shifts.

    We need much more research and development of sustainable living models so we can address poverty in a real way and actually solve that issue, and its possible, and even seeing that as "possible" is a radical paradigm shift as well!
    Thanks from Madeline

  3. #53
    res
    res is offline
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,410
    Thanks
    973

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    You'll never get rich countries to agree to this. We enjoy high standards of living precisely because others suffer in poverty. We don't really want to change this. If we did, we would have done so already. The median household income in the US is about $55K, yet 40% of the world's population lives on less than $1000/year. Reducing that gap would mean a HUGE drop in American and European (and Japanese and Australian and...) standards of living.
    Your starting position is that there is a finite amount of wealth in the world. I don't think that's true. If you compare wealth levels 100 years ago and today, the current world economy is far wealthier. New wealth can and should be created but in order for that to be a more equal distribution a global political-economic framework would need to be established to which all countries would agree adherence to. It doesn't mean that household income in the US has to drop, but that in developing world has to rise. For example, the EU has recognized this fact and is aware that the only way to stop the mass migration from Africa and ME to Europe is to raise living standards over there. However, they're doing the same they've always done. Throwing money at the problem hoping it'll go away but all it's doing is fortifying the oppressive regimes in those areas fighting each other for supremacy. They don't have a compliance mechanism that would effectively force those countries to productive use those funds. Without that detail, the money they're sending oversees could much better be spent at home.

    Given that the world is rebelling against the liberal world order, it'll be interesting to see if the current world order can survive this onslaught. If it doesn't, then all bets are off.

  4. #54
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,821
    Thanks
    33530

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by res View Post
    Your starting position is that there is a finite amount of wealth in the world. I don't think that's true.
    Nor do I. The key would be making people more productive, but that requires infrastructure and education--which are much more expensive to provide than the kind of aid you decry.
    If you compare wealth levels 100 years ago and today, the current world economy is far wealthier. New wealth can and should be created but in order for that to be a more equal distribution a global political-economic framework would need to be established to which all countries would agree adherence to.
    Yep. That's the "liberal world order" you don't seem to like. Thee are other problems too--the fact that some areas of the world aren't very productive--most of Africa falls into this category, for example.
    It doesn't mean that household income in the US has to drop, but that in developing world has to rise. For example, the EU has recognized this fact and is aware that the only way to stop the mass migration from Africa and ME to Europe is to raise living standards over there. However, they're doing the same they've always done.
    We might think the same thing about Mexico.
    Throwing money at the problem hoping it'll go away but all it's doing is fortifying the oppressive regimes in those areas fighting each other for supremacy. They don't have a compliance mechanism that would effectively force those countries to productive use those funds. Without that detail, the money they're sending oversees could much better be spent at home.
    No one invests in someone else's infrastructure. I doubt such projects would attract much attention, for the same reason that poverty generally doesn't attract that much attention.
    Given that the world is rebelling against the liberal world order, it'll be interesting to see if the current world order can survive this onslaught. If it doesn't, then all bets are off.
    I doubt the 2 billion people living below $2/day will have much to say either way.
    Last edited by Rasselas; 8th March 2017 at 01:32 PM.

  5. #55
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21608

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    I listened to her 60 Minutes interview last night, and wasn't horrified.

    No religious garments in public -- for anyone. Makes sense, given France's antipathy for all religions, AND it's a neutral way to prevent ME immigrants from attempting to remake their 7th Century society in France.

    Secure borders, controlled immigration. Rather hard to disagree with this, considering the flow of ME and African people who have recently moved to France.

    My only real complaint was she wants to outlaw the birquini. I see no reason a government should prohibit women from swimming unless they are meeting minimum nudity standards.

    Anyone else see this broadcast? Am I missing LePen's more hateful opinions?

    Edited to add link:
    I think you are VERY wrong about Marine Le Pen, Madeline. See the following:

    Left Vs Right? NO!! Open Vs Closed
    Thanks from Madeline

  6. #56
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21608

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Globalization is a natural process. You can try to channel it to your own benefit, but it's not something that can be stopped. You've read The Wealth of Nations, right? What did Smith have to say about smuggling? The forces of economic efficiency are more powerful than governments.

    If we withdraw from the world, it will pass us by.
    The countries that have closed themselves off from trade and commerce have become some of the worst economic basket-cases in the world: North Korea, Albania (for a LONG time), Cuba (to some extent, though the Castro regime DID invest a great deal in health care and education, lessening the damage in that case).

    There SHOULD be a powerful lesson there, for anyone willing to look.

  7. #57
    res
    res is offline
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,410
    Thanks
    973

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Nor do I. The key would be making people more productive, but that requires infrastructure and education--which are much more expensive to provide than the kind of aid you decry.
    What kind of aid did I decry?

    Yep. That's the "liberal world order" you don't seem to like. Thee are other problems too--the fact that some areas of the world aren't very productive--most of Africa falls into this category, for example.
    How did you reach the conclusion that I "don't seem to like the liberal world order"?
    Their productivity can be raised through capital accumulation, investment in infrastructure, education, health and macroeconomic stability of which Africa at the moment has none.

    We might think the same thing about Mexico.
    You might, mightn't you.

    No one invests in someone else's infrastructure. I doubt such projects would attract much attention, for the same reason that poverty generally doesn't attract that much attention.
    That is not accurate. For example, The World Bank Group is basically an investment vehicle for the United States and European countries for funding infrastructure projects in the developing world.

    I doubt the 2 billion people living below $2/day will have much to say either way.
    I wasn't talking about them. But that doesn't really matter right? You've already made up your mind.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 3rd March 2017, 10:54 AM
  2. LePen's anti Islam message gains influence in France
    By bajisima in forum Current Events
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 18th November 2015, 09:14 PM
  3. US Marine Looking Into To Suing....
    By Migi e! in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 19th June 2008, 07:55 PM
  4. Alarm sounded over arsenic in baby rice
    By Bowerbird in forum Healthcare
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 29th April 2008, 07:49 PM
  5. Marine in College
    By ilikeGW in forum Political Humor
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 9th August 2006, 12:08 PM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed