And Spain goes left..

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:

Your words were abject poverty and you have proven nothing. According to who and what standards.
I say the world is flat. I can post it again as proof.

I didn't say I could prove anything. You wanted me to back up what I said with facts, it is a fact that the US has the highest poverty rate in the WW. You want handy links, well I'm afraid I don't have any. If you don't trust or believe what I said was a fact, feel free to go find out otherwise.

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:

I didn't say I could prove anything. You wanted me to back up what I said with facts, it is a fact that the US has the highest poverty rate in the WW. You want handy links, well I'm afraid I don't have any. If you don't trust or believe what I said was a fact, feel free to go find out otherwise.

You got it. I don't believe it. Just because you said it does not make it fact. You also used the word abject poverty. Which is even further from the truth.
But the world is flat.

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:

You got it. I don't believe it. Just because you said it does not make it fact. You also used the word abject poverty. Which is even further from the truth.
But the world is flat.

I never said it did, you asked for facts, I gave, you don't believe, you're choice. Regardless infact of whether you believe me on that particular fact, there are many people living in abject poverty in the US, and many more than in most other coutries. Is it this that you do not believe, or is it my theory about the aversion to socialism? Because I find it hard to believe that it could be the former. If it's the later then of course, it is after all just my theory.

[John Smith]

PS to TB: You got it. I don't believe it. Just because you said it does not make it fact.
Looks like HPI-1 and HPI-2 (Human Poverty Indexes) are used as a an ecomomic measures by the United Nations. The HPI-1 (Human Poverty Index for developing countries) measures deprivations in the three aspects of human development: longevity, life expectancy, and a decent standard of living. HPI-2 (Human Poverty Index for industrialized countries) includes, in addition to these dimensions, social exclusion.
According to UN's Human Development Indicators In 2003, USA has the highest HPI-2, followed by Ireland and UK. Sweden, Norway, and Finland have the lowest values.
My critisism of this data is three-fold. First, I am not sure why the "social exclusion" is a component in the calculation of the poverty index. While there is a clear correlation between the social exclusion and poverty, combining the two skews the real "poverty" picture by double accounting. Second, it's not clear how the index measures a "decent standard of living". That term surely means different things in different countries, doesn't it. And finally, I'd rather be rich in the US than "not poor" in Norway, if you know what I mean.

[Joe Pluta]

TB: I didn't say I could prove anything.
Not surprising.
It took me about twenty seconds to find the facts. US child poverty rates (usually the best marker of a country's social condition) rank at about 20%, highest among the OECD. However, not by much. Italy is 19.5%, and the UK has 16.2%.
Given our immigrant population, it's not surprising that there's a high poverty rate. Our two most impoverished states are New York and California, while others include Florida, Illinois and Texas, all focal points of immigration.
Anyway, a few facts.
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

Ah yes, Map's new favorite source - terror apologist and "divine revelationist", Juan Cole, the man who talks to the Bab in his dreams.
Says Joe, who promised us to kill unknown number of innocent babies to save his own! :roll: I'd prefer somebody with a good-natured, healthy divine revelation any day.
And *you* weren't even kidding!
And who thinks he is MUCH, MUCH smarter than you. See some quotes:
Oh, thank you, Joe! Now I know than Juan Cole is number 1 on right-wing thought police's "most wanted" list! Actually, nothing really new here.
Curious, however, is the fact that the site you referred to defines its mission as "to define and promote American interests in the Middle East." Definitely a highly unbiased source of information.
[ March 16, 2004: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
TB: I didn't say I could prove anything.
Not surprising.
It took me about twenty seconds to find the facts. US child poverty rates (usually the best marker of a country's social condition) rank at about 20%, highest among the OECD. However, not by much. Italy is 19.5%, and the UK has 16.2%.
Given our immigrant population, it's not surprising that there's a high poverty rate. Our two most impoverished states are New York and California, while others include Florida, Illinois and Texas, all focal points of immigration.
Anyway, a few facts.
Joe

You seem to be confused, those are statistics. The 'fact' is (not surprisingly) as I stated previously.

[John Smith]

Map to Joe: Says Joe, who promised us to kill unknown number of innocent babies to save his own!
I never had a chance to ask, -- what if one of the innocent babies was baby Jesus?

[Jim Yingst]

Ah, you don't think there's enough chance of this thread getting closed already, what with the veiled (and not so veiled) insults being directed at each others' countries? Now you want to revive that inane hypothetical "how many people would you kill to save your child" thread and keep poking
Joe with a stick to see if he'll poke back? :roll: Don't you have any better way to pass the time?

[Mapraputa Is]

Jim, while I appreciate your efforts in keeping this thread civil, I should note that *I* didn't start the poking. I gave a link to JC's blog and addressed it specifically to Daniel, just to make him feel better. I ignored Joe's first post where he brought up again and again JC's private divine revelations. When Joe brought this topic yet again then I thought I should stop it and pointed out to Joe's own words. Just to illustrate that to attack the speaker rather than the message can lead to pretty much ridiculous results.
As far as I know, Christianity for one religion respects private divine revelations, and ridiculing them can be offensive for believers.
[ March 16, 2004: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Jim Yingst]

Map - yeah, I saw your post as a tit-for-tat response. Made sense as an immediate response to Joe's post. Eugene on the other hand I saw as leaping on the bandwagon - "hey, now that you bring it up, let's attack Joe about his responses to that other thread". That was more what I was responding to.
For what it's worth I've been busy deleting some of the more egregious insults earlier in this thread. Probably not all of them; I don't feel like going through every sentence with a fine-toothed comb, and probably I'm overlooking some things that some people find insulting, but I don't. But here's a hint: blatantly characterizing an entire nation as "cowards" is a Bad Idea™ here at JavaRanch. If your post gets deleted after doing this, don't be surprised. Some of the insults are still preserved, implicitly or explicitly, in the responses of others. I did this in cases where I felt that the response actually added to the conversation, but was directly inspired by the insults. I didn't want to do the additional work of separating references to insults from positive contributions. In such cases the respondants may choose to re-edit their posts, or not, as they see fit.

[Joe Pluta]

Says Joe, who promised us to kill unknown number of innocent babies to save his own!
Yup! Still do! You won't shake me from that position. Anyway, I'm going to start another thread here...
Joe

[John Smith]

Jim to Map: Eugene on the other hand I saw as leaping on the bandwagon - "hey, now that you bring it up, let's attack Joe about his responses to that other thread". That was more what I was responding to.
I don't think you understand, Jim. The question "would you crucify Christ to save your own child?" may seem "inane and hypothetical" to you, and you may see it as poking, but to me (and I suspect to Map and Joe as well) it opens the gate to thinking without the bounds of fear. Granted, the subject is heavy and the participants take certain risks, but the potential rewards are high. If MD is intended for "word association games" types of subjects, that's fine, please confirm it, and I'll take the theological discussions elsewhere. But it seems to me that you object to the form, not to the substance, and if that is the case, then I think you misjudged the form in your attempt to be fair. But perhaps it was me who misjudged the situation, -- and if Joe would tell me that he doesn't appreciate the discussions around the ethics and morality, I promise not to engage him on these topics ever again. Is that fair enough?

[Mapraputa Is]

The question "would you crucify Christ to save your own child?" may seem "inane and hypothetical" to you, and you may see it as poking, but to me (and I suspect to Map and Joe as well) it opens the gate to thinking without the bounds of fear.
I can testify that I didn't see Eugene's post as offensive or provoking. He has been long known to be interested in this kind of theoretical discussions, and he has been human and tolerant to his subjects of investigations; even ready to take a good deal of abuse during this process. It can be at times difficult for me to follow his line of thinking also, but this shouldn't preclude us from trying not to read his intentions worse than they are...
--------------------
"An etnographer will tolerate most anything to get data." -- Michael Agar. Language shock.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Get of your moral high horse for a moment.
It's not that high, and if you'd just climb up here with me, the world would be a better place.
Joe

I imagine that about 99% of the human race probably think that if people thought like them the world would be better.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

Says Joe, who promised us to kill unknown number of innocent babies to save his own!

To be fair I think that particular conversation has been chewed back and forwards enough now....

[Donald R. Cossitt]

Hmmmmm. Appears to be a private thread here...

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Says Joe, who promised us to kill unknown number of innocent babies to save his own!

Let me first change the baby.
Let us say my baby, OK if there is a man-eater lion(forget the world and all) and there are only two children and one of them is yours.
And you can save only one child.
I will save my child first.
Whom will you save ??

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by R K Singh:

Let me first change the baby.
Let us say my baby, OK if there is a man-eater lion(forget the world and all) and there are only two children and one of them is yours.
And you can save only one child.
I will save my child first.
Whom will you save ??

So you chose your own. But your baby was closer to the lion. The lion killed you and both babies.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
But your baby was closer to the lion.

Actually I killed lion with my hands ... but that I dont want to disclose else PETA people will throw eggs on me

[Phil Chuang]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
The UK government being Labour is a Socialist one.
The US aversion to socialism is probably the reason why so many of their citizens live in abject poverty.

Abject Poverty? Ok, if you consider abject poverty to be in a house with running water, electricity, and television. Given that the GREATEST THREAT TO OUR "POOR" is OBESITY, I sincerely doubt that the USA is among the worst of nations when it comes to poverty.
Also, most "poverty" studies I've seen simply measure yearly income - they don't take into account that there are quite a few "rich" persons included as "poor" because they decided to take a year off work.
What is "poor" anyway? Is it on the scale of the US, where the bottom 25% are considered poor? Or is it on the scale of the world? If you measure poverty against a single nation, then yes, you will have poor. By that definition anybody below the 100th percentile is poor. But measured against the world... I'd say that our "poor" have significantly better lives than any other nation's. Visit China, Africa, and Russia before you start describing the US as being in abject poverty.
[ March 17, 2004: Message edited by: Phil Chuang ]

[Donald R. Cossitt]

...so many of their citizens live in abject poverty...

The people in this country (US) that are in poverty are there for the same reason those who are wealthy are wealthy: because they choose to be, pure and simple. The problem is that since the "New Deal" Americans have been spoon fed the socialist b*** s*** that it is the government's responsibility to look after us; which is ABJECT nonsense!
It used to be said of Great Britain that the sun never set on her. However, since Fabian Socialism (among other things) she is withering away to a mere shadow of her once powerfull self. This is the fate of America as well I am afraid, and for the same reasons. Government is intended to help people do what they cannot do for themselves; which damned little!

What is "poor" anyway?

Poor is an attitude; broke is a temporary financial condition.
I suppose this post will be censored as well?

[stara szkapa]

Originally posted by Donald R. Cossitt:
The people in this country (US) that are in poverty are there for the same reason those who are wealthy are wealthy: because they choose to be, pure and simple.

Question to Donald and for that matter to everyone else reading this thread. Have you already decided on whether to become wealthy or poor? What factors you take into consideration before making the final decision. For those who decided to be poor what is the appeal of being failure?

Originally posted by Donald R. Cossitt:

The problem is that since the "New Deal" Americans have been spoon fed the socialist b*** s*** that it is the government's responsibility to look after us; which is ABJECT nonsense!

I don't agree. If society doesn't provide support for poor people it would be too easy for people who decided to become poor to succeed, and it would be unfair to those who decided to be wealthy who have to go through so much hassle to become prosperous.

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Phil Chuang:

Abject Poverty? Ok, if you consider abject poverty to be in a house with running water, electricity, and television. Given that the GREATEST THREAT TO OUR "POOR" is OBESITY, I sincerely doubt that the USA is among the worst of nations when it comes to poverty.
Also, most "poverty" studies I've seen simply measure yearly income - they don't take into account that there are quite a few "rich" persons included as "poor" because they decided to take a year off work.
What is "poor" anyway? Is it on the scale of the US, where the bottom 25% are considered poor? Or is it on the scale of the world? If you measure poverty against a single nation, then yes, you will have poor. By that definition anybody below the 100th percentile is poor. But measured against the world... I'd say that our "poor" have significantly better lives than any other nation's. Visit China, Africa, and Russia before you start describing the US as being in abject poverty.
[ March 17, 2004: Message edited by: Phil Chuang ]

OK so in a house with running water, electricity and television which are you going to eat?

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Donald R. Cossitt:

The people in this country (US) that are in poverty are there for the same reason those who are wealthy are wealthy: because they choose to be, pure and simple.

Who chooses to be poor? Its not about choosing to be rich, and its not even about working hard towards it, its about being able to do something that is wanted by the market. If a person is too poor to go to university, and lives in an area with hardly any jobs, they are very unlikely to become rich. Saying that poor people deserve to be poor is an incredibly huge insult.

The problem is that since the "New Deal" Americans have been spoon fed the socialist b*** s*** that it is the government's responsibility to look after us; which is ABJECT nonsense!

No, but the government has a responsibility to help those in society who *need* it. Maybe you'd prefer a country where poor people don't get medical care, education or housing. Maybe you've never been poor and you don't realise quite how hard it is.

It used to be said of Great Britain that the sun never set on her. However, since Fabian Socialism (among other things) she is withering away to a mere shadow of her once powerfull self.

There are some fantastic things out there called history books. If you read some of them then you'd perhaps have a better grasp of why the British Empire declined. You seem to have glossed over two world wars which crippled the UK economy already damaged by the largest economic depression in modern times. You've somehow missed the fact that despite not having an empire the UK economy is still one of the largest in the world. You don't seem to have noticed that it was a socialist party (containing several member of the Fabian society) that came into power after WWII and built the country back up. The UK may not be the military power it once was, but it has arguably the strongest economy in Europe - not bad for a country with a Fabian influenced government eh?

This is the fate of America as well I am afraid, and for the same reasons. Government is intended to help people do what they cannot do for themselves; which damned little!

Is that all you think government should do? For some reason I thought that helping to improve the economy and general standard of life through-out the country were fairly good things for it to do. Hmmmm.

Poor is an attitude; broke is a temporary financial condition.

This is shocking! Do you really think that poor people are poor because they aren't trying enough? Try going into a poor town with hardly any job opportunities and telling the people that they have an attitude problem. Try telling the single parent who cant get a full time job that they aren't trying hard enough. Try telling the person who works in a factory because they couldn't afford to go to university that they are lazy. There are some people who could improve their situation by trying harder, but there are far more people who, despite doing everything they can, still only have a low income.
Being poor is not an attitude problem. Thinking it is most definatly is an attitude problem.

[Steve Wink]

Originally posted by Donald R. Cossitt:
[QB]
It used to be said of Great Britain that the sun never set on her. However, since Fabian Socialism (among other things) she is withering away to a mere shadow of her once powerfull self. This is the fate of America as well I am afraid, and for the same reasons[QB]

Well, strictly speaking, it was the British Empire that the sun never set on. That went when we gave people their countries back*. We still have disproportionate power for a small island with 60 million people on it. ( not that I'm complaining about that.)
* plus being bankrupted by wars, as someone else has pointed out.

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by R K Singh:

Actually I killed lion with my hands ... but that I dont want to disclose else PETA people will throw eggs on me

Good comeback.

[Donald R. Cossitt]

Who chooses to be poor? Its not about choosing to be rich, and its not even about working hard towards it, its about being able to do something that is wanted by the market. If a person is too poor to go to university, and lives in an area with hardly any jobs, they are very unlikely to become rich. Saying that poor people deserve to be poor is an incredibly huge insult.

People choose to be poor by their attitudes. Their is a huge difference between being rich and being wealthy: if one wins a million dollar lottery, one is rich. However, if one is dilligent and earns a million dollars one is wealthy. The difference being the one who won the money will soon be worse off than before. No difference between this scenario and those third and fourth generation welfare recipients: get a handout on the 1st of the month and you need another the next... They do not need me to insult them, they insult themselves.

No, but the government has a responsibility to help those in society who *need* it.

NOT! It is the responsibility of family, friends, community. It is none of the governments business whether I or my family is fed, educated, etc.

There are some fantastic things out there called history books.

Yes, indeed. I have read some of them. They show that the most powerfull economy the WORLD has ever known (US) suffered through those same things. Not too bad for FREE ENTERPRISE eh?

Is that all you think government should do? For some reason I thought that helping to improve the economy and general standard of life through-out the country were fairly good things for it to do. Hmmmm.

Governments do not improve economies; individuals with ideas willing to risk it all over and over and over again do.

This is shocking! Do you really think that poor people are poor because they aren't trying enough? Try going into a poor town with hardly any job opportunities and telling the people that they have an attitude problem. Try telling the single parent who cant get a full time job that they aren't trying hard enough. Try telling the person who works in a factory because they couldn't afford to go to university that they are lazy. There are some people who could improve their situation by trying harder, but there are far more people who, despite doing everything they can, still only have a low income.

No. Just not trying hard enough at the right things. If I live in a "poor town with hardly any opportunities" I am going to move to one that isn't and does!! Not sit on my POOR dead a** waiting for some government to come bail me out. We see it here in this country by our friends south of the border. Did you know it is 3 - 5 five times more likely that an alien will come to the US and become wealthy than it is for a free-born citizen? You know why? Because they know that socialism doen't work and we have believed the "New Deal" damndable lies!
I stand firm: Poor IS an attitude!

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:

Good comeback.

I know you cant kill lion so what will you do ?
[ March 18, 2004: Message edited by: R K Singh ]

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Donald R. Cossitt:

[A standing ovation]
Thank You Doco! I agree 100% with Doco..
Poor is an attitude..
[ March 18, 2004: Message edited by: Paul McKenna ]

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Joe King:
Who chooses to be poor? Its not about choosing to be rich, and its not even about working hard towards it, its about being able to do something that is wanted by the market. If a person is too poor to go to university, and lives in an area with hardly any jobs, they are very unlikely to become rich. Saying that poor people deserve to be poor is an incredibly huge insult

Most people do not choose to be poor but many also do not choose to work their way out of poverty. If a person is too poor to go to university they can opt for military service and have the military pay for their college education. If a person is talented but poor they can obtain something called a "scholarship". Even better, take a student loan.
Ever read about "rags to riches" stories? Many of these people never took handouts, they worked their way out of it. Most of the time, all it takes is an "I Can!" attitude

No, but the government has a responsibility to help those in society who *need* it. Maybe you'd prefer a country where poor people don't get medical care, education or housing. Maybe you've never been poor and you don't realise quite how hard it is.

I disagree! Government has no business looking after the poor. Now the government may have to step in and help the disabled and handicapped etc. but not the able bodied and poor. They can help themselves..
I grew up in India, there was/is no quality public medical care, or quality public schools or quality public housing. Most of the amenities provided by the government were so lacking that you'd be better off staying away from government facilities than using them (maybe except for the schools). Now I am not saying India is an ideal model, far from it.. infact I'll even state that the Western model of selective intervention by the government is a good thing but that is all it should remain.. "selective". Too much intervention by the government can destroy anything.

You don't seem to have noticed that it was a socialist party (containing several member of the Fabian society) that came into power after WWII and built the country back up. The UK may not be the military power it once was, but it has arguably the strongest economy in Europe - not bad for a country with a Fabian influenced government eh?

Somehow I do not recollect any prime minister of england after Churchill other than Margaret Thatcher. The Iron Lady and a conservative who believed that government should be limited in its role.. OK, now I remember John Major, but he was another conservative as well. Are you saying Margaret Thatcher had nothing to do with the rise of England??

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Donald R. Cossitt:

People choose to be poor by their attitudes.

No, nobody chooses to be poor. Some people can't be bothered to do much to improve themselves, but they are very few. The fairy tale dream that everyone can make it rich is simply not true - some can, some will, but some will also, through no fault of their own, simply not have the opportunity to do so. Do you *really* think that all poor people have an attitude problem? Staggering.

It is none of the governments business whether I or my family is fed, educated, etc.

Really? Why on earth do governments pass laws concerning education etc then? They do not do the feeding themselves, but they definatly have a role in insuring that no-one goes hungry. Do you think the government should just ignore people who are starving? Take an example - a man looses his job (through no fault of his own), and has no money to pay his rent - he looses his house and his belongings and is on the streets. He wants to look for a job, but nobody will employ him while he doesn't have a permanent address. Do you think that the government should just ignore him? Surely the better option is to offer a level of welfare support that allows the man to get a place to live and look for a job. Perhaps you'd prefer him to starve.

They show that the most powerful economy the WORLD has ever known (US)

The most powerful economy now, but I'm not so sure about the most powerful that the world has ever known. That's a bit off the subject though.

They show that the most powerfull economy the WORLD has ever known (US) suffered through those same things

Sorry, I missed the bit where most of Americas industrial cities were bombed by Germany. I also missed the bit where America held out, despite a food blockade, against a far bigger military power. Your point that the US suffered the same things as the UK in WWII is a bit odd. I'm not saying that the US didn't suffer during the war, but there is no doubt that the UK's industrial infrastructure was far more directly damaged by enemy attacks then the US's industrial infrastructure.

Not too bad for FREE ENTERPRISE eh?

Exactly where did I say that free enterprise was a bad thing?

Governments do not improve economies

What do you think the budget is for then? Or changing interest rates? Or investing in public projects? Or employing a part of the labour market? What do you think the budget is for? Why does government change tax levels? Can you possibly explain why you think that governments do not improve economies? Are you saying that there are no examples of governments improving economies? I'm a bit confused by a statement that seems so incredibly wrong. Have you studied economics at all? If not, then I apologise - you may not have been taught what governments do in economies.

individuals with ideas willing to risk it all over and over and over again do.

In a free market this is true, and its one of the great things about the market system. Unfortunately free markets don't always happen of their own accord, and sometimes government intervention is needed to ensure that free markets can form (such as governments blocking monopolies etc). This is an example of a government improving an economy.

If I live in a "poor town with hardly any opportunities" I am going to move to one that isn't and does!!

How would you do that if you couldn't afford to buy/rent a place in another town? How would you do that if you had no qualifications and all the available jobs demanded them? Do you think people live in poor towns for the fun of it?

Not sit on my POOR dead a**

I think you mean arse. Last time I checked, an ass was a type of donkey.

Because they know that socialism doesn't work

Can you point out one successful government anywhere that doesn't use any socialist ideas, and I include things like a state run police force, health care for poor people, government pensions, public libraries etc? Successful economic planning is about taking a mixture of different ideas. The most successful economies around at the moment are doing well because they are a mixture of capitalist ideas (market forces determine the distribution of most resources) and socialist ideas (some state determining of the distribution of resources).

I stand firm: Poor IS an attitude!

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I wouldn't say it too loudly when in a poor neighbourhood though. *Some* people may consider it an insult.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

Most people do not choose to be poor but many also do not choose to work their way out of poverty. If a person is too poor to go to university they can opt for military service and have the military pay for their college education. If a person is talented but poor they can obtain something called a "scholarship". Even better, take a student loan.

Wanting to work your way out of povery and being able to are different things though. In some cases its just not possible/likely.

Ever read about "rags to riches" stories?

Sure I have, but I'd expect that for every successful person who has worked their way up, there's been several who have tried but didn't succeed.

I disagree! Government has no business looking after the poor. Now the government may have to step in and help the disabled and handicapped etc. but not the able bodied and poor. They can help themselves

Over the long term this may be true, but in the short term people may need help. A single mother looking after two children may not be able to get a job until the children are old enough to look after themselves. In this case, the government should financially help the mother if she needs the money. I'm not advocating hand outs to all, but short term help for those that need it.

Too much intervention by the government can destroy anything.

I totally agree! On the other hand, too little intervention can also be damaging. The fact that Victorian Laissez-faire economics are no longer popular is an example of this. To little intervention and we'd be bordering on anarchy. I suppose that the key is to achieve a balance.

Somehow I do not recollect any prime minister of england after Churchill other than Margaret Thatcher.

There's a good list here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom

Are you saying Margaret Thatcher had nothing to do with the rise of England??

This is a much debated issue. The UK economy did improve slightly during her government, but so did the world economy. It was also during this time that the UK discovered much of its north sea oil/gas (I forget which) reserves which helped the economy a lot.
Personally I think that Thatcher left the UK a lot more damaged than she received it. Decisions such as splitting the railways into many companies (and privatising the (then) profitable BT) were bad to say the least. The UK did have boom periods under the Thatcher government, but it also suffered from depressions - the Conservative monetary policy of the time lead to the economy being like a yo-yo between boom and bust. The current, more stable, economy is one of the (few?) good things about the current government. The UK is still trying to recover from the mistakes of Thatcher's government, and with any luck will never see the likes of her again.

OK, now I remember John Major

LOL, I'm suprised you did - he's got to be one of the most boring people to ever walk the face of the earth
[ March 18, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]

[Tim Baker]

Some people have obviously never worked for minimum wage.

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
Some people have obviously never worked for minimum wage.

Care to elaborate a bit further..

[Jim Yingst]

[Joe King]: I think you mean arse. Last time I checked, an ass was a type of donkey.
Hi, Joe. Welcome to this new thing called the Internet, where it's actually possible to find yourself in discussions with people from OTHER COUNTRIES, not all of whom are standardized on the exact same form of English. Yeah, I know, English originated in England, yadda yadda, but it's not as if it was standardized at the time the US broke away. Differences between UK and US usage exist, and will probably continue for a long time. This is old news, isn't it? :roll: And yes I know you'd say "standardised", but I don't, so deal.
[ March 18, 2004: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by R K Singh:
... but that I dont want to disclose else PETA people will throw eggs on me
They'd probably throw tomatoes because buying eggs would be supporting chicken exploitation.

[Richard Hawkes]

Poor is an attitude
All western economies rely an a proportion of the population having to work in jobs that don't provide much opportunity beyond (maybe) lifting those people just above the poverty-line. I don't believe that opportunities are infinite.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
[Joe King]: I think you mean arse. Last time I checked, an ass was a type of donkey.
Hi, Joe. Welcome to this new thing called the Internet, where it's actually possible to find yourself in discussions with people from OTHER COUNTRIES, not all of whom are standardized on the exact same form of English. Yeah, I know, English originated in England, yadda yadda, but it's not as if it was standardized at the time the US broke away. Differences between UK and US usage exist, and will probably continue for a long time. This is old news, isn't it? :roll: And yes I know you'd say "standardised", but I don't, so deal.
[ March 18, 2004: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

Perhaps I should have put a smiley face or something - I wasn't being totally serious. Everyone knows Americans cant spell*

*This too is a joke

[Tim Baker]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

Care to elaborate a bit further..

People who think you can just 'work' your way out of poverty have obviously never been there.