Epistles from the Apostles
THR, re Iraq you may be interested in a couple of pieces from The Real News where Sabah al Nasseri discusses this issue. The first concerns the offensive against al Sadr and the second is about the outcome of the battle of Basra.
"The percentage of the population living in poverty increased in 10 years (1994 to 2004) from 7.6% to 9.9%. "
I note that the statistics used in the research quoted were calculated "Using an international poverty line of 50% of median income". http://www.vinnies.org.au/UserFi...fair%
20OECD.pdf
This, as you should know, is highly misleading. In an age of economic growth and rising average incomes, this tells us nothing about whether or not people are better off in real terms. Instead, merely by having the wealthy increase their wealth by more than the poor, we end up with this figure.
A more honest look at the situation would bee that the poorest are far better off than 15 years ago due to more jobs and higher real wages.
I'm sure you are disappointed that the "myth" of unparalleled prosperity being a reality. Unfortunately, there will be no revolution tomorrow, "comrade".
I think we all understand that there will be no revolution tomorrow, but there is always the day after tomorrow...
The economy is often more fragile than some like to pretend. Should it collapse in any significant way, it is highly likely that we would observe some sort of political radicalisation in the community. It is not self-evident that this radicalisation would be leftist in character, though it may very well be.
I've seen other stats over the years with similar themes to the above. If you read the article, you'll see some other pieces of evidence for significant poverty.
Finally, at an anecdotal level, I know many people who work in the welfare industry and who assure me that things really are different today than 20 years ago. The poor are by no means better off. There's a doco tonight (IIRC) on youth homelessness in Sydney - why don't you have a look at it and tell me how we're all better off?
I read the Crikey article, but I don't accept the stats offered as being signs of increasing poverty.
On homelessness, it is a fact that most homeless people are mentally ill, and many of them choose to be homeless because they want to live a life free of all obligations and responsibilities.
As for people defaulting on mortgages or becoming bankrupt, this is due to poor spending and borrowing decisions they have made. To an extent, the rising prosperity has contributed to this as people's material expectations have gone through the roof. If you saw 4 Corners a couple of Mondays ago, you would have seen people who borrowed excessively, and would then compensate by borrowing even more. It was sad to see a family get evicted from the home they had owned, but they should have purchased a smaller home that wasn't huge, like the one they had purchased. They also should have more allowance for interest rates inevitably going up (they bought in 2001, when interest rates were unsustainably low) and other contingencies.
Now matter how poor and uneducated, people demand equal rights, including the right to borrow money. But with rights come responsibilities. If people want tio exercise the right to obtain credit, they must take the responsibility that comes with that.
What dissapointed me about 4 Corners was that it seemed to be blaming the banks, even though they were merely guilty of giving people what they wanted. It's not their responsibility to ensure that people make the right choices. That's the responsibility of the individuals concerned.
many of them choose to be homeless because they want to live a life free of all obligations and responsibilities.
Define many. Provide stats. Are there studies that prove how many homeless people do so because of the carefree don't hold me down full freedom lifestyle?
I'd be interested to see that.
Why did banks only calculate on ability to pay at 100 basis points over the then interest rate hmmmm? Why did companies in the US spruik Ninja loans so much leading to the biggest looming foreclosure forecast since the depression?
Hedge funds and modern financing drove the credit market and they did so on the backs of encouraging the less well off to get into a market where they could readily be screwed if things turned sour.
And look, they did.
The subprime meltdown is a classic example of why the neocon fantasy that regulation is bad is simply that.
If Bush et al had backed states in their credit regs the market would not have tanked so badly. But they didn't. And look what happened.
Hooray for the market.
Actually, its bad for banks if the loans they pay end up in default and cannot be fully repaid. The banks got screwed too: hence why our economy may be affected by the US sub prime.
I see you are trying to blame the banks for the poor borrowing decisions of other, much like 4 Corners the other week. Again, they are guilty of having given people what they wanted. They didn't twist anyone's arm and tell them they needed to buy a McMansion. Rather people approach banks so they can own them. And when they borrow more money to finance their mortgages, I'm sure they are begging for the bank to loan them some more credit, and not the other way around. The banks can be blamed for their own financial decisions, not those of others.
Perhaps in the US some extra regulation may be necessary. It could well be that in the US it is far moire laissez-faire that in Australia. I don't know that much about banking regulation.
...and many of them choose to be homeless because they want to live a life free of all obligations and responsibilities.
I think you've just demonstrated in a nutshell precisely why the 'philosophy' of Hayek/Rand et. al. are not only imbecilic, but dangerous.
"In adapting to homelessness, some people may become used to a transient lifestyle and after a period may state that they choose to remain homeless."
http://
www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov....omeHomeless.asp
Also read this: http://www.aic.gov.au/publicatio...004-05-
SAAP.pdf
THR,
just because something contradicts Marxist theory, doesn't mean its not true.
I think you need to start looking at things outside that ideological prism of yours.
You should watch 'Oasis', a doco that's on now on ABC, you semi-literate fool.
You wouldn't know your arse from a hole in the ground when it comes to these issues.
I take it from your inability to counter what I have said that I have won this debate.
What is your argument? That the homeless choose to get born into abusive families that subsequently break down? That homelessness is entirely a matter of personal responsibility, and that we should blame the victims?
no, not quite.
Only that its a complicated issue that dosen't fit neatly into Marxist theory.
Firstly, I didn't attempt to put the issue into Marxist theory.
Secondly, the sources I provided pretty clearly demonstrate that a class-based analysis of the issues is quite legitimate. The resources boom did not benefit everybody equally, and there are many people across Australia whose poverty refuted Howard's disingenuous claims of unprecenteded prosperity.
Oh Jeezus, is Leon still banging on about Marxist theory? WHERE IS THE MARXIST THEORY?!
You won shit, Leon.
BUT LEON WON! JUST LEAVE HIM ALONE!!!1!!
Get farked.
The Marxist Theory is in my pants.
You seem to pack a lot in your pants, Johnno.
The Marxist Theory is in my pants.
Yes, The Marxist Theory is taking a beating at the moment.
And how!
Commenting by HaloScan
