for the politically correct and the socialists

[gweilgi]

1 hour ago, Smallclub said:

There are many people living in poverty in Brazil, but is Brazil, the 8th or 9th largest economy, "poor"?

There are about 9 millions people (14% of the population) living below the poverty line in France, which isn't exactly a "poor" country.

"Poverty" is a very emotive word.  Politicians and other people with agendas like to throw it about because people *think* they know what it means, and other than at economics seminars or statistics conventions, precious few people bother to define what they mean by "poverty" in any given context.  This is a real problem because it is very much a moving target.  It is relative.  In France, for instance, the official poverty line is set at 60% of median income, or €1,008 (USD1,090 or AUD1,427) a month ... which is not very much at all in expensive France but across much of Africa (and, incidentally, Brazil) would make the person a member of the middle class.  Nor does this figure take into account in-kind benefits such as state-funded healthcare or income supplements or subsidised council housing.  On top of that, any individual or organisation is always free to redefine poverty for their needs ("for the purposes of this study, we define poverty as....").  Nor do such assessments typically allow for levels of immigration (how many North Africans are there in France right now?) or cash-poor and asset-rich groups like farmers or retirees.  

In other words, yes, poverty is an issue, but we have to be very careful indeed to know precisely what we are talking about before jumping to conclusions.  

 

 

[Smallclub]

6 minutes ago, gweilgi said:

  In France, for instance, the official poverty line is set at 60% of median income, or €1,008 (USD1,090 or AUD1,427) a month ... which is not very much at all in expensive France but across much of Africa (and, incidentally, Brazil) would make the person a member of the middle class.  Nor does this figure take into account in-kind benefits such as state-funded healthcare or income supplements or subsidised council housing.

The comparison with Africa doesn't make sense. And since when state-funded health care is a in-kind benefit in a first world country?

[gweilgi]

4 hours ago, Smallclub said:

The comparison with Africa doesn't make sense. And since when state-funded health care is a in-kind benefit in a first world country?

 

Correct me if this is wrong:  

"Health, maternity and paternity insurance benefits are provided in Metropolitan France by the local Health Insurance Funds (Caisses Primaires d'Assurance Maladie/ CPAM) and in the Overseas Departments by the General Social Security Funds (CGSS).

As from January 1st, 2016, a universal healthcare system (Puma) covers healthcare costs (formerly called "benefits in kind") for all individuals who:

• are working, or
• have been residing in France (including Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Reunion Island, Saint Barthelemy and Saint Martin) on a stable and ongoing basis for at least 3 months."

http://www.cleiss.fr/docs/regimes/regime_france/an_1.html

In many Western countries, healthcare is funded partly by the government and partly by mandatory contributions by employees and/or employers.  This makes such healthcare a benefit in kind, whether it is a state system or private cover.  It should therefore be added to the gross income of an individual or family.  The same goes for subsidised or free housing, travel and other benefits.  

I included the comparison to Africa to illustrate how poverty levels are very much relative rather than absolute.  

[dvickery]

Socialists sell Trinidad topes for 60$cuc a box

capitalists sell Trinidad topes for 313 chf a box

derrek

[joeypots]

Unfettered capitalism in the USA  died when Teddy Roosevelt's administration broke up Standard Oil. Capitalism works. We fetter, or regulate, capitalism order to prevent an unhealthy concentration of wealth. See Rockefeller. This is often referred to as socialism. We argue about the balance of capitalism and socialism, not about the merits of each. I wish we could stop demonizing each part of the equation and try to see and debate the nuances in the relationship of the two sides. My .02$

[havanaclub]

Socialists sell Trinidad topes for 60$cuc a box

capitalists sell Trinidad topes for 313 chf a box

derrek

Well you are wrong on the socialists selling topez boxes for 60CUC a box.
Was just in Cuba and your price is way off. Maybe for the fakes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dvickery]

3 hours ago, havanaclub said:

 

Well you are wrong on the socialists selling topez boxes for 60CUC a box.
Was just in Cuba and your price is way off. Maybe for the fakes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Pardon me ... 160$cuc

was only out by a 1

no idea if there is fake topes out 

derrek

[havanaclub]

Pardon me ... 160$cuc

was only out by a 1

no idea if there is fake topes out 

derrek

That's more like it.
Box of Reyes of 60CUC though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk