thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 7^th, 2024 at 3:12pm:


Quote:


But he is the last known noble conservative ? Assuming that he may have been a noble conservative ?

Frank wrote on Jan 30^th, 2024 at 9:37pm:


Aha - the conservative's refuge of 'fake news" .....

google any of my asertions re paycheck to paycheck in the US cf growh of the Chinese middle class..

Frank wrote on Feb 13^th, 2024 at 9:34am:


A very confused woman  trying to prove reason is unreason (with John Anderson looking on approvingly...go figure).

Playing with words in an illogical fashion:

"Truth has become a right wing concept" because (wait for it...) "if you say it, you are considered RW...."

eg, trying to prove anti-racists are racists:

Quote:


Fallacy of composition/straw man; not all anti-racists say that; and some RW - like some of all of us - ARE racist.

Her next trick: "biological women"...ok, she's on stronger ground, but trannies are only 0.1 percent of the population, why is she so concerned about tranny activists?

I think she already proved her grasp of "truth" is ideology-based.      

Frank wrote on Feb 13^th, 2024 at 5:06pm:



.... when the real issue is entrenched poverty, you dummy.

If there's no poverty (and there is absolutely no need for poverty in the modern AI and IT assisted economy), you can argue about "racism" to your heart's content (and I won't give a stuff). 

Quote:


All used to avoid looking at poverty eradication.
The problem is the right think poverty eradication is a zero sum game: the rich have to pay more taxes to erdicate poverty.

Why are you opposed to public sector funding of poverty eradication, given the public sector (the currency-issuer) can fund itself without borrowing or needing your money.

Note: the issue for a currency issuer is the resource limit, and inflation, not the money limit, because inflation can be controlled via price controls.

Why are you conflating "totalitarianism " with a public sector (government) funding itself?

You think poverty, to allow some people to become billionaires without price controls, is better than eradicating poverty while people can still become billionaires with price controls.   

And you think the private financiers demanding the sole privilege of funding government aren't "totalitarian".

Wake up, rather  than persisting with your "cultural  totalitarianism" nonsense, as a result of your belief in zero-sum economics.

We can all prosper, while some get rich.   

Jasin wrote on Feb 14^th, 2024 at 11:04am:


The question is: who is responsible for the entrenched poverty in the world?

Note: currency-issuing governments can eradicate poverty overnight, if they claim their legitimate right to create  money, alongside private sector financiers who create money when they write loans in the private sector.

(Resources, not money, are the limit to a nation's wealth).

And note: population growth rates fall as poverty rates fall, because people don't want to be burdened - and fall into poverty -  by offspring they can't  afford to raise. 

Whereas absolute poverty  causes people to  propogate without limit, in the hope one offspring (who somehow  survives) might assist with the family's subsistence food production.

Jasin wrote on Feb 14^th, 2024 at 1:03pm:


Everyone suffers in famines, 3rd world countries more so where death stalks the land.

The point is, eradicate 3rd world national poverty, and watch the birth rate fall as people know they can't afford to raise more offspring.

Whereas the fact is people in absolete  poverty breed without restraint:
(google)

"In developing countries children are needed as a labour force and to provide care for their parents in old age. In these countries, fertility rates are higher due to the lack of access to contraceptives and generally lower levels of female education."

Poor African countries have the highest birth rates - and lowest life expectancy.
 
Quote:


The evil is poverty, not the women having the babies, as noted above. 

Quote:


Refuted above: people don't "choose" to overpopulate, as already noted, poverty causes it.

Whereas over-indulgence indeed may be a sin of the wealthy.

You need to concede government can eradicate systemic poverty.

Jasin wrote on Feb 15^th, 2024 at 7:09pm:


You are blaming the victims of poverty.

You ignore external (macroeconomic) realities, to repeat:

"In developing countries children are needed as a labour force and to provide care for their parents in old age. In these countries, fertility rates are higher due to the lack of access to contraceptives and generally lower levels of female education."

"needed as (free) labour" thus propagating poverty.

Jasin wrote on Feb 16^th, 2024 at 1:10pm:


Faulty macro-economics:

at the national level, the RBA is deliberately increasing unemployment -  and poverty - to control inflation.

It's a vicious policy, with RW politicians blaming the victims of the same RBA policy as "dole bludgers".

There are other ways to control inflation AND maintain real full employment.

And at the international level the IMF (Instant Misery Fund) insists on government 'austerity' to achive balanced budgets and repayment of loans - again increasing poverty.

You are captured by erroneous mainstream economic orthodoxy.