Really?

[Dak]

I read Reuters regularly, and this gem caught my eye, pulled from the following article:

Inequality in major U.S. cities rivals Africa: U.N.

"The life expectancy of African Americans in the United States is about the same as that of people living in China and some states of India, despite the fact that the United States is far richer than the other two countries," it said.

Is the United States richer than China? If that is the case then why do we owe them so much money? Usually the lenders are considered the rich, not those forever borrowing.
The research also points out that despite the in-equality, the US level of poverty was "relatively much lower" than other parts of the developed world. It also mentions that race was a factor in the inequlity and makes the life expectancy statement above as proof.

So two points off of this:

#1. Considering our colossal budget deficits and huge debts to countries like China, is America truly wealthy or have we merely been "running up a tab" that we are about to have to pay?

#2. Why is the U.N. conducting economic equality studies? Since when is economic equality got anything to do with their purpose. Raising people out of poverty level is important, but why equal?

This article is an excellent example, to me, of incomplete information on something that doesn't actually have any merit to start with as a concept, not to mention subtle continued conditioning that economic equality should be a common goal.

 

[6Jesus6Christ6]

Running a real big fuckin tab.

 

[whiskey funeral]

YA RLY.

 

[The Ozzman]

We've been financing everything through debt. If anything, we're actually one of the poorest nations in respect to that

 

[6Jesus6Christ6]

Yeah, but we keep sending fucking money we borrow to third world countries to help them out. Real fucking brilliant plan that is. Like to meet the imbecile that came up with that idea.

 

[MasterOLightning]

Is the United States richer than China? If that is the case then why do we owe them so much money? Usually the lenders are considered the rich, not those forever borrowing.

There could be any number of measures of richness. They are probably using per capita income, in which case the USA is still a very wealthy nation. The people of the USA are relatively wealthy, but the state is in debt.


So two points off of this:

#1. Considering our colossal budget deficits and huge debts to countries like China, is America truly wealthy or have we merely been "running up a tab" that we are about to have to pay?

China is more than happy to loan us money so we can buy things from them. If we can't then, they're sunk too.

#2. Why is the U.N. conducting economic equality studies? Since when is economic equality got anything to do with their purpose. Raising people out of poverty level is important, but why equal?

Human rights is an important cause of the U.N. Studying economic stratification is a way to determine in what ways standards of living can be improved and human rights can be furthered. I don't think they mean equality in a literal sense. Equality of opportunity is more likely to be the meaning there.

This article is an excellent example, to me, of incomplete information on something that doesn't actually have any merit to start with as a concept, not to mention subtle continued conditioning that economic equality should be a common goal.

Are you possibly trying to say that you don't think we should try and raise standards of living and reduce poverty? Equality of economic opportunity should absolutely be a common goal. They do not mean economic equality in a communist/pure-wealth-distribution sense.

 

[Dak]

There could be any number of measures of richness. They are probably using per capita income, in which case the USA is still a very wealthy nation. The people of the USA are relatively wealthy, but the state is in debt.

Yes, but it matters little that there's private wealth when the collective [we] are 10 trillion in debt. It has to get payed by someone.

China is more than happy to loan us money so we can buy things from them. If we can't then, they're sunk too.

But if we are buying from them with their own money they aren't making a profit. I am hoping this statement of yours was a joke.

Human rights is an important cause of the U.N. Studying economic stratification is a way to determine in what ways standards of living can be improved and human rights can be furthered. I don't think they mean equality in a literal sense. Equality of opportunity is more likely to be the meaning there.

So was it measuring income or is it measuring "opportunity" (although how you accurately measure that I am not sure). First, don't contradict yourself; second, did you seriously just say that?

The sad fact is the nations that have serious quality of life issues also by and large aren't in situations to care if the U.N. determined so or not.

Are you possibly trying to say that you don't think we should try and raise standards of living and reduce poverty? Equality of economic opportunity should absolutely be a common goal. They do not mean economic equality in a communist/pure-wealth-distribution sense.

Again, did you realize you just arbitrarily changed and determined intent of this research to fit your perspective and then accused me of something rediculous based on a false premise.

 

[MasterOLightning]

Yes, but it matters little that there's private wealth when the collective [we] are 10 trillion in debt. It has to get payed by someone.

So they say. Frankly I've yet to encounter a good solution for the national debt.

But if we are buying from them with their own money they aren't making a profit. I am hoping this statement of yours was a joke.

You must not understand how cash flow works.

Regarding everything else, you seem to just be railing against a media outlet and the UN for not using your preferred semantics, and for promoting social structures you disagree with. You think there's something inherently bad about using resources for helping the unfortunate.

 

[Dak]

So they say. Frankly I've yet to encounter a good solution for the national debt.


You must not understand how cash flow works.

Regarding everything else, you seem to just be railing against a media outlet and the UN for not using your preferred semantics, and for promoting social structures you disagree with. You think there's something inherently bad about using resources for helping the unfortunate.

#1. Spending less than we take in taxes maybe?

#2. You must not understand how credit and debt works. Apparently neither does most of America as evidenced by our current economic situation

#3. Using my preferred semantics? I took it at face value, you are the one who tried to change it from what it said to what you wanted it to mean, but yes I do have a problem with the insinuation of economic equality being a obvious global goal of merit.

#4. When have I ever said it's bad to help the unfortunate? Strawman sir. The problem is HOW it's done, not that it is being done. Not to mention, economic equality is a vastly different issue than merely helping the unfortunate.

All in all you failed to adress my original points in favor of thinly veiled personal attacks.