Judge Vinson maintains Healthcare law Unconstitutional. Gives Obama 7 days to appeal.
333 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Strider*;28415691]It doesn't lag much behind what I consider prosperous countries.[/QUOTE]
what you consider prosperous countries are behind other prosperous countries in many other aspects.
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;28415696]How exactly is "Median household income" calculated? I sure hope it isn't literally "household," what with the extremely poor not having any physical address.[/QUOTE]
From what I can tell it actually doesn't take into account homeless people or people without income.
"Means and medians for people are based on people 15 years old and over with income" according to wikipedia.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28415698]
Are you really this clueless?[/QUOTE]
We ask this question every time you post.
This thread is surprisingly funny.
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;28415702]What you consider prosperous doesn't really matter to me, seeing as you're a lunatic.
And for the record, the slight number increase, is actually extremely significant on a personalised basis. You wouldn't realise this.[/QUOTE]
Hong Kong is in a destitute area (China) yet it still retains a median household income tailing the developed countries Ireland, Scotland, and South Korea.
It's the power of the free market.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28415718]Hong Kong is in a destitute area (China) yet it still retains a median household income tailing the developed countries Ireland, Scotland, and South Korea.
It's the power of the free market.[/QUOTE]
Since the household income you cited ignored the extremely poor, you really have no proof that it's as good as you say.
You all complained about how horrible the wealth inequality was in Hong Kong, I show you a chart indicating how well off the citizens of Hong Kong really are and now you're attempting to defend your cluelessness.
I'm having a great time.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28415718]Hong Kong is in a destitute area (China) yet it still retains a median household income tailing the developed countries Ireland, Scotland, and South Korea.
It's the power of the free market.[/QUOTE]
It's the power of no regulation, and oppression of the poor by the rich.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28415718]Hong Kong is in a destitute area (China) yet it still retains a median household income tailing the developed countries Ireland, Scotland, and South Korea.
It's the power of the free market.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/97.html]Lower = more poverty[/url]
Look at all those democratic socialist countries ranking better
[QUOTE=Strider*;28415731]You all complained about how horrible the wealth inequality was in Hong Kong, I show you a chart indicating how well off the citizens of Hong Kong really are and now you're attempting to defend your cluelessness.
I'm having a great time.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it must be great fun trolling.
Ok how about we stop arguing about median and actually look at relevent figures: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality[/url]
Hong Kong has a GINI coefficient (rating of economic inequality) from the UN of 43, while Canada has a GINI of 32 and Denmark 24. The USA has 40, lol, and China is slightly above HK.
e: Basically the higher the number, the richer the rich and the poorer the poor, and the greater disparity between the two.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28415739][url=http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/97.html]Lower = more poverty[/url]
Look at all those democratic socialist countries ranking better[/QUOTE]
Its the power of the free market!
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;28415729]Since the household income you cited ignored the extremely poor, you really have no proof that it's as good as you say.[/QUOTE]
The extremely poor are extremely poor because they have no income.
In capitalism if you don't work you don't eat or you find an institution to feed you.
Deal with it, I can't cite sources with the "extremely poor" because such sources do not exist.
The homeless and the jobless have no income.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28415731]You all complained about how horrible the wealth inequality was in Hong Kong, I show you a chart indicating how well off the citizens of Hong Kong really are and now you're attempting to defend your cluelessness.
I'm having a great time.[/QUOTE]
It. Ignored. The. Extremely. Poor. So there fore.... It's a bullshit chart and you're just twisting things to your world vision.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28415750]The extremely poor are extremely poor because they have no income.
In capitalism if you don't work you don't eat or you find an institution to feed you.
Deal with it, I can't cite sources with the "extremely poor" because such sources do not exist.
The homeless and the jobless have no income.[/QUOTE]
At this point, I really really hope you're just trolling. I don't think anyone can be so completely unaware of what they're implying.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28415750]The extremely poor are extremely poor because they have no income.
In capitalism if you don't work you don't eat or you find an institution to feed you.
Deal with it, I can't cite sources with the "extremely poor" because such sources do not exist.
The homeless and the jobless have no income.[/QUOTE]
So they don't exist to you? They exist and they're a sign your favourite chinese city isn't so great. I go to school with quite a few chinese guys and girls, from various parts of china, and at least from what they've told me, while it's a nice city, it's still filled with fucking poor people.
man why won't someone answer my question i've googled it to hell and back and i can't find anything
[QUOTE=Strider*;28415750]
The homeless and the jobless have no income.[/QUOTE]
Which makes your median income figure useless for determining the prosperity of a country.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28415746]Ok how about we stop arguing about median and actually look at relevent figures: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality[/url]
Hong Kong has a GINI coefficient (rating of economic inequality) from the UN of 43, while Canada has a GINI of 32 and Denmark 24. The USA has 40, lol, and China is slightly above HK.[/QUOTE]
All of China is miserable but equal and some in Hong Kong are extremely affluent while the rest are moderately well off.
Why do you consider wealth equality such an important thing?
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28415746]Ok how about we stop arguing about median and actually look at relevent figures: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality[/url]
Hong Kong has a GINI coefficient (rating of economic inequality) from the UN of 43, while Canada has a GINI of 32 and Denmark 24. The USA has 40, lol, and China is slightly above HK.
e: Basically the higher the number, the richer the rich and the poorer the poor, and the greater disparity between the two.[/QUOTE]
You should post them on ranking in the list, the gini rankings themselves are not the best to compare.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28415779]All of China is miserable but equal and some in Hong Kong are extremely affluent while the rest are moderately well off.
Why do you consider wealth equality such an important thing?
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill[/QUOTE]
Ha ha you can't read. China ranks higher than Hong Kong in economic disparity.
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;28415783]You should post them on ranking in the list, the gini rankings themselves are not the best to compare.[/QUOTE]
There are other figures there, but nothing adds up to a really linear ranking list, and the UN GINI was available for the most countries. You can analyze the list yourself, I just looked over it for a bit and posted this to shut down the stupid median argument and get actual evidence behind this.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28415779]All of China is miserable but equal[/QUOTE]
I think you are reading the figures incorrectly
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.png[/img]
Greener is more equal
[QUOTE=Pockets;28415775]man why won't someone answer my question i've googled it to hell and back and i can't find anything[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Elsewhere, in a section entitled “Payment of Penalty,” it says that individuals failing to carry a government-approved health insurance policy must pay a maximum penalty of $750."[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-jackson-lee-no-penalty-obamacare-onl[/url]
I figured 'Obamacare' would be more likely to find remarks on it.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28415779]All of China is miserable but equal and some in Hong Kong are extremely affluent while the rest are moderately well off.
Why do you consider wealth equality such an important thing?
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill[/QUOTE]
oh good quote mine.
Wealth equality isn't important? Well, no wonder, we're dealing with an elitist lunatic. Just because they are poor does not mean they are not worthy of life, of a fair chance, and don't say they have a fair chance.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28415789]I think you are reading the figures incorrectly
[img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.png[/img_thumb]
Greener is more equal[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the visual.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28415788]Ha ha you can't read. China ranks higher than Hong Kong in economic disparity.[/QUOTE]
I admitted as much.
Reread what I wrote.
[editline]4th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28415789]I think you are reading the figures incorrectly
Greener is more equal[/QUOTE]
Let me rephrase, more equal than Hong Kong.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28415718]Hong Kong is in a destitute area (China) yet it still retains a median household income tailing the developed countries Ireland, Scotland, and South Korea.
It's the power of the free market.[/QUOTE]
Didn't you just say it's cut off from the rest of China? So the locale wouldn't matter, would it?
China has a shitty median household income and a majority of people living in destitute areas, this is not the power of the free market, this is a poor city in a poor country. Just with a lot of rich people running the show.
You're contradicting yourself
[QUOTE=Strider*;28415731]You all complained about how horrible the wealth inequality was in Hong Kong, I show you a chart indicating how well off the citizens of Hong Kong really are and now you're attempting to defend your cluelessness.
I'm having a great time.[/QUOTE]
You showed us a chart with a low income really low on a list
Ok, so what was your point?
Strider*, please, explain why scandanavian countries can do so well and be so socialist?
[QUOTE=Strider*;28415750]The extremely poor are extremely poor because they have no income.
In capitalism if you don't work you don't eat or you find an institution to feed you.
Deal with it, I can't cite sources with the "extremely poor" because such sources do not exist.
The homeless and the jobless have no income.[/QUOTE]
In Capitalism, if you're not one of the lucky 2%, you will starve, no matter how hard you work.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28415812]I admitted as much.
Reread what I wrote.
[editline]4th March 2011[/editline]
Let me rephrase, more equal than Hong Kong.[/QUOTE]
Uh, no you didn't, this is what you said: "All of China is miserable but equal"
that implies that the capital level is low but consistent, which would make for a lower GINI ranking and lower economic disparity.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.