quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
Merry Christmas and dont forget to vote for me !

seeks, aren't you being wildly optimistic here? Aren't you forgetting you have to run for something to receive votes? This is similar to a person proclaiming loudly that he/she is going to fly to the moon but conveniently forgetting he/she is not an astronaut.

To be honest seeks I've become completely and utterly disillusioned with the whole democratic process. However, if you tell  me where you're running and the party you will be representing I will consider it a worthwhile venture to cast a vote for any one of the opposing candidates.

Merry Christmas seeks and all the very best of British!

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

If you use dead soldiers as the standard, the USA was a minor player.  I tend to think a stratagey to minimize our number of dead, and get the most geopoltiical gain for each one spent is smart stratagey.
I am sorry I did not make my self clear on this subject.   I was trying to point out that the gross numbers of combatants in the Russian theater were much larger and thus had higher body counts.  Hitler never commited more than thirty divisions to western Europe while dedicating more than ten times that number in Russia. 
I could not agree more that the U.S. got huge geopolitical gains for its involvement in that conflict


Our industrial and food base was indeed Major.  Regardless of how you chose to define "material used by Russia in the war", which could really mean many different things, the USA came through with aid in 42-43 that tipped the balance.  There was a non stop convoy of goods up into Alaska, then onto planes for Siberia.  The USSR lost huge amounts of material in a fall back war, which ended up in horrifiic sieges.  Our aid broke those seiges and allowed Stalin to re set up manufacturing (feed the workers and soldiers) behind the Urals, and push the Germans back to Germany. 
This is the story I see on the history channel but if we can get away from hollywood history and go to the facts we find that The U.S. provided less than ten percent of Russia's war time production.  Where as our contribution to our allies western front were considerable.  There is significant evidence in the public record to show that the hope of the western allies was that Germany and Russia would destroy each other and the west would not have to worry about national socialism or the Bolshevics.

Then we invaded France/ West Europe.  We were also of course at war in the Pacific, so out total contribution to WW2 was much larger than just mainland Europe. 
The war in the pacific was considered by Washington to be of minor importance in comparison to Europe and it was stated as so over and over again.  Thus the Pacific theater of operations was dealt with primarily by the USMC  which entered the conflict with less than 40,000 men and was only a bit over 600.000 at wars end.  In comparison the Germans had over twice that many men involved in the assault on Stalingrad.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Does the average poor American have more living space than the average not poor American might be a better question. ---
Why would it?  I see where we have a difference of perspective.  You seem to be more concerned with Realtive wealth, than Absolute wealth.  Having space is indeed nice, and brings absolute benefits to people.  I am sure everyone on this board loves thier "dungeon room", or wishes they had one.  Even if one is still making payments on thier home, it is thier's in many ways.  It can be used for equity for a concrete one.  But you also get the freedom to make changes as you( and zoning laws) see fit.
If are making payments on a home and you are out of work the bank will not loan you money on the equity in your home because you have no income to payback the loan which is one of the primary quaifications for getting a home equity loan...so it is money that in theory is yours but you may not access it.  Of course you could sell your home and take the equity out and become a rentor which will in most cases be higher than your mortgage was and you no longer have the mortgage interest deduction.


A one bedroom appartment for two people has a kitchen a living room and a bathroom .  Two rooms per person not exactly living under a bridge but hardly living large.   I don't know why you think Apts come in one plan, but they vary.  And by historical and modern standards two rooms per person is indeed living large, like royalty. 
A one bedroom apartment is by definition one bedroom, a batroom,a kitchen and a living room.  I am unaware of any royality who live in one bedroom apartments. 


To be able to turn a handle and get hot clean water is living like royalty. 
No one, niether rich nor por, in the whole city of Albuquerque New Mexico can do that.

To have ice cream in your freezer is a luxury that was formerly only for the kings.
To compare then to now is not valid. 

A 20 year old POS beats walking in the rain/snow, or to take your honey on a drive to the country. 
You can choose to see workers in China as slaves ( but they do not meet any resonable definintion of slaves), yet they are desperate to get those jobs.  They see those jobs as a ticket to the future.
You are right, if by future, you mean not starving to death before you wake up tomorrow.  If you mean that within the forseeable future they will have financial security then we diasgree.

Korea is a good example of how it actually does work, Korea( south) has changed  incredibly in the past 30.  N Korea is an example of an an anti capitalist state.
When the coffee producers decided to keep the same 1 pound, 2pound and 3 pound cans but put less coffee in them I do not remember being asked...they just appeared on the shelves and I had the choice of buying this or that brand of coffee in a one pound can that only had 13 ounces in it.  ---You can buy coffee by weight and grind it yourself, it's better that way anyway.  You can also buy Fair Trade Certified Organic coffee,by weight, and if they don't  have it at your store, get it on-line or become a distributor in your area.  You have lots of choices on ice cream (and any other products also), it comes in different densities due to air and butterfat, which has a lot more importance than size of the package.   That's capitalism, and you  are complaining that you are getting ripped off on your ice cream?
My post concerning coffee and ice cream was in response to your assertion that consumers dictate what is sold.  Since the overwhelming majority of food stuffs are sold in the half dozen or so major chains,  having access to speciality markets is hardly relevant since they represent less than a fractional percentage  point of the goods sold.  My point was and is that those who control the distribution and sale of the named food stuffs arbitrarily changed the amount of product in the package not at the request of the consumer but by their own whim.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

...Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden, Fight Club.  This comment relates to the fact that calling the United States a democracy does not actually make it one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
With regard to the subject of the Soviet Union's contribution to the allies 2nd World War victory, my guess is that many Americans have no idea how significant it, the contribution, really was. I expect you believe that the Soviets just ended up in Berlin by mistake or accident. Ahh well, and then the ingratitude of instigating the Cold War under the aegis of that old Peace Loving War Monger W Churchill, .....good for business tho'    What !!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

i dont know about your country gent but this country ceased being democratic in 1913.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Having a roof over your head is the bare minimum requirement for being on this earth. It is hardly major strides in civilisation. As a point aside, many European countries do not have a culture of home owning. They tend to rent out of convenience.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

So while the rich have accumulated a few more jets and yachts the poor have accumulated air conditioning. Jesus Christ, I can understand beer and football being the opium of the masses but air conditioning? You lot must be easily swayed over there :-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

You mention London, I can tell you from experience that a £300,000 house in London can be half the size of a Government provided (i.e. free) house in North East England. It is all about demand on the housing stock and you are not comparing like with like because whereas you have a lot of space out there we have a building on pretty much every blade of grass. The telling point is that while those who pay £300k+ for a house in London can afford to holiday around the world, eat out regularly at quality restauraunts, cluds/bars etc can the poor in the US?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

You can get a car in Britain for a hundred quid i.e. the same cost as a decent night out. Many unemployed in Britain own their own car.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Same with a TV, you can pick one up for 50 quid ($80ish) bottom of the range and unless you're homeless anyone can afford to own one in Britain. The unemployed included.

...DVD players can be picked up for 20 quid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

A much better way of looking at this question is to ask how much disposable income the US poor have after they have bought their home and cheap consumer goods. The reason being, sitting in the house night after night watching rubbish on television is not much of a life, it is barely a subsistence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
With regard to the subject of the Soviet Union's contribution to the allies 2nd World War victory, my guess is that many Americans have no idea how significant it, the contribution, really was. I expect you believe that the Soviets just ended up in Berlin by mistake or accident. Ahh well, and then the ingratitude of instigating the Cold War under the aegis of that old Peace Loving War Monger W Churchill, .....good for business tho'    What !!

Seems to me that the germans were bogged down on their way to hmm stalingrad was it?, with one of the worst winters in the countries history for cold temp and snow, they were starving and under equipt and that fortunately slowed the german war machine down...  If i remember russians had a go forward and fight or die , no retreat similar to the germans only worse...  Had the germans broken through and got to the eastern oil fields i gulp at how the war would have turned out as my guess is that it would have substantially prolonged it with all the extra resources at their disposal...   Especially considering that they had subs in the new york harbor and they were what was it 6 months from completion of a long range bomber to bomb us directly...  So a lot would have, or at least could have been very different if the russians were not able to hold them back.  then there was the a bomb,,,  sound about right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Having a roof over your head is the bare minimum requirement for being on this earth. It is hardly major strides in civilisation. As a point aside, many European countries do not have a culture of home owning. They tend to rent out of convenience.

There are homeless who might disagree with you. 

True enough and it is shocking that countries in the Western world with all their wealth have serious homelessness problems. The Government needs to step in and do something about the 700,000 to 2 million homeless problem you have in the US. Maybe take a few yachts off these rich types and use the money to fund homes and shelters (simplistic but I think you get the point). This brings me back to my original point that the Governments of Britain and the US need to get a grip on the distribution of wealth in the two countries.

I'm guessing that this point about owning a home is made because purchasing a home requires a capital investment, and the equity in a home is considered an asset.  If you have the capital to invest and own the equity, you probably aren't that bad off.

Well, possibly. I'm sticking to my guns here and saying those living in straw huts a thousand years ago had a roof over their heads so if this is the best we can do for today's society then we're struggling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

So while the rich have accumulated a few more jets and yachts the poor have accumulated air conditioning. Jesus Christ, I can understand beer and football being the opium of the masses but air conditioning? You lot must be easily swayed over there :-)

*laughs*  Not that easily swayed.

Honestly, I don't care much about what the rich have.  I don't look at economics as a zero-sum game... them having more doesn't mean I have less.  Catching up to them isn't something I'm worried about, either.  I don't have much use for either a jet or a yacht. 

To an extent I agree. I'm a reasonably simple man with simple tastes and my simple tastes are satisfied. What about the homeless though? I imagine they're not too impressed that they're sleeping in a box while the rich go swanning about in the lap of obscene luxury. It comes back to my wealth gap point - it is obscene that a country like the US has so many homeless. Genuinely, from where I'm standing it's pretty shocking. Same with Britain. Too busy spending tax money on tridents instead of hospitals, affordable housing etc. Too many people with their priorities completely out of order.

But air conditioning... ahh, that's another story.  That affects my physical comfort.  I live in Texas, after all.  It may not mean that much to you with Manchester's average high temperature in the height of summer being a whopping 67F (19C).  The average July temperature where I am is over 95F (35C) with typically at least two weeks worth of days in the summer where the temperature is well over 100F (38C).  The highest temperature recorded here was 118F (48C). 

And I live in a more temperate area of Texas. 

Ok, point taken here. We don't have much call for air conditioning. Hey, I like it, it's comfortable and rain gives the place character! 95F on average?! that's hot in anyone's language (unless you're a gecko on the plains of the Sahara). How do you cope in that heat? It must be torture!

Anecdotal, yes, but... when one of my friends in London last summer complained about the unusual heat, I was floored to learn that he has no air-con in his home, his car, or where he works. 

Many cars have air con. Homes generally do not because we just don't have the weather for it. Indoor shopping centres do. As do all the offices I have worked in.

Needless to say, when only an estimated 500,000 out of 22,539,000 households in the UK have air conditioning, I don't find it unusual that you don't seem to think it's a big deal.

Point taken but maybe you see my point that air conditioning isn't much to ask for in a land of vast wealth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

You mention London, I can tell you from experience that a £300,000 house in London can be half the size of a Government provided (i.e. free) house in North East England. It is all about demand on the housing stock and you are not comparing like with like because whereas you have a lot of space out there we have a building on pretty much every blade of grass. The telling point is that while those who pay £300k+ for a house in London can afford to holiday around the world, eat out regularly at quality restauraunts, cluds/bars etc can the poor in the US?

The point wasn't to really compare economies and housing markets.  We have a wide spread in housing costs here based on location, as well. 

I can understand the point you are trying to make with regard to disposable income, but I can't address it as it's an entirely subjective issue.  Is it really relevant to compare the wealthy of London to the poor of the US? 

My intention was to show that while the US might have poor just like the rest of the world, "poor" here is generally quite a bit better off than "poor" elsewhere.

To be fair, I didn't intend to take you down the road of comparing Britain and the US. My understanding is, in general, people in the US enjoy a better standard of living than their British counterparts. Thus, I'm not disputing this. My real point is there is a huge wealth gap in the US which in my opinion is unhealthy and not impressive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

You can get a car in Britain for a hundred quid i.e. the same cost as a decent night out. Many unemployed in Britain own their own car.

But again, remember we are comparing the poor of the US to the poor of the rest of the world... not just the UK which has a similar standard of living. 

Owning a car requires capital... capital to purchase, capital to operate, and capital to maintain.   Inexpensive or not, if it gets you from point A to point B, it's an asset.  If you have one, then you're better off than a lot of the world's poor.

True, but then aren't we the nations who think we're a cut above the rest? Be honest, you do and we do. You can see it on these boards day in, day out. If you and us are that good then we should be able to prove it by running a society where everyone gets a fair crack at life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Same with a TV, you can pick one up for 50 quid ($80ish) bottom of the range and unless you're homeless anyone can afford to own one in Britain. The unemployed included.

...DVD players can be picked up for 20 quid.

See my response above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

A much better way of looking at this question is to ask how much disposable income the US poor have after they have bought their home and cheap consumer goods. The reason being, sitting in the house night after night watching rubbish on television is not much of a life, it is barely a subsistence.

As I said before, I can understand what you're trying to get across but I can't answer you because it's subjective.  How people choose to live their lives will impact what their disposable income is.  I've known people with very little who've enjoyed world trips, and people who for all intents and purposes are very wealthy that can't manage to scrape together the cash for a taxi ride.

The interesting thing about disposable income is that once you dispose of it, you don't have it anymore.  If a family chooses to invest their extra income into a larger house or a newer car and can no longer easily afford world trips or eating regularly at nice restaurants, are they now poor or somehow deprived?

I take this point, people have differing priorities. Still, the provision of cheap housing and cheap consumer goods don't satisfy my mind that the very rich are justified in living in obscene luxury. I was in Southern Ireland last year and British buyers have snapped up many of the holiday homes and they're standing empty apart from the 3 weeks or so that they visit. Too much money in the wrong hands as far as I'm concerned.


Edited just because.
 
Hey! Trying to put me off the scent with frivolity! Very crafty!

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Same with a TV, you can pick one up for 50 quid ($80ish) bottom of the range and unless you're homeless anyone can afford to own one in Britain. The unemployed included.
...DVD players can be picked up for 20 quid.
 
Not quite sure what point NG was trying to make when he posted the above...

But NG these machines are made in factories peopled with the very  types who you constantly tell us are victims of Western exploitation. Somebody does even if its not you. By the way,  not buying one wont help them either

It seems tha NG doesnt like the idea that rich people exist while at the same time many are poor. NG, there are so few in the "own their own private jet category"  that it would make next to no difference if you confiscated all their wealth and then re distributed it to the deserving poor, like me.
If it did have any affect one thing would unquestionably follow, the poor would re appear in very short time. You are tilting at Windmills my son !!!  
 
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Same with a TV, you can pick one up for 50 quid ($80ish) bottom of the range and unless you're homeless anyone can afford to own one in Britain. The unemployed included.
...DVD players can be picked up for 20 quid.
 
Not quite sure what point NG was trying to make when he posted the above...

But NG these machines are made in factories peopled with the very  types who you constantly tell us are victims of Western exploitation. Somebody does even if its not you. By the way,  not buying one wont help them either

It seems tha NG doesnt like the idea that rich people exist while at the same time many are poor. NG, there are so few in the "own their own private jet category"  that it would make next to no difference if you confiscated all their wealth and then re distributed it to the deserving poor, like me.
If it did have any affect one thing would unquestionably follow, the poor would re appear in very short time. You are tilting at Windmills my son !!!  
 
 

Britain's richest 1% own 23% of the wealth (Inland Revenue, 2002).

You may like this state of affairs seeks but as far as I'm concerned it is not a good reflection on British society.

In the US, the richest 1% own 40% of the wealth.

Listen to this, Bill Gates' market value is the same as the poorest 110 million Americans.

http://www.cellartastings.com/en/bookshop/0887309526.html

Unbelievable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

i dont know about your country gent but this country ceased being democratic in 1913.

I would say we had a 70 year period of an enfranchised nation with real choice - 1920ish to 1990ish - and that is your lot. Pretty shambolic in anyone's language.

What changed in 1913, Real0ne?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
It's odd people still use bill gates as an example, especially in a post about wealth distribution, when he's giving most of it up anyway.
Unbelievable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

You're missing my point. What on earth is going on in a place where one person can amass riches equivalent to 110 million people? This is a wealth gap out of hand.

Don't get overly touchy. It's a discussion with people offering points of view.