The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Poverty: lazy louts or in need of aid? > Comments

Poverty: lazy louts or in need of aid? : Comments

By Philip Mendes, published 22/8/2005

Philip Mendes argues how to measure poverty is a distraction from how we define the causes and identify potential solutions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Mollydukes

Aspirations to achieve ones full potential start with acceptance of full and total responsibility for oneself.

When you lefty failures get that into your thick heads, you might, just might, start to realise long term welfare just lead to poverty traps.

TUS knows it is true. Since you choke on my words just read his instead.

As for

“The hypocrisy of the neo-liberal ideology is illustrated by their refusal to see that there is an obvious power differential between the consumer and the marketer.”

We have lots of “marketeers” wooing consumers, I have yet to find a consumer “wooing” a particular supplier, excepting the possibly producers of Harley Davidsons motorcycles or Morgan autos but I guess you mean the average consumer, concerned with the overwhelming force imposed upon them to buy “Heinz baked beans”, simple solution buy “Watties”.

Your misguided and deluded misrepresentation of reality and promotion of the "nanny state" ignores the presence of competitors in the market.

What you describe is a monopoly supply market.

The best example of that would be Telstra before Optus & Co.

A circumstance where consumers were held to ransom by an unassailable monopoly run by unions for the benefit of the employees, not consumers.

That is why we are better off without government ownership of commercial organisations.

Umpires are supposed to be neutral. Government ownership is like the umpire owning one of the competing teams. It tends to lead to ethical issues and “conflicts of interest”.

Consumers are not incompetent. We do not need the government to tell us what toilet paper to buy nor how to use it.

Then your moving house rubbish, I have moved continents 3 times now. I suggest if you think moving house is disruptive try doing a real move.

Finally, you have a friend. Bragging? From what you say, he/she is equally recluse from reality but it does confirm “birds of a feather flock together”

Let me assure you I am real. Your feeble attempts at flaming fails, as surely as the demented and debunked socialist theories you bore us with.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 25 August 2005 11:05:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Molly, You seem to be (and I say seem, so I don't get flamed down for puttign words in your mouth) arguing that poverty is a state of mind and just because you feel poor, you are. If so, what is the solution to poverty. Extra money won't help.

Maybe the Government can appoint everyone a personal shrink so they can be cured of their poverty with some time on the couch.

Better yet, seeing as though everyone is an idiot ready to be led astray by evil marketeers, the government could just run ads non stop telling everyone they are rich. Instant cure.

I don't know how many times I have to say it Molly - people have to learn to live within their means. If that means wearing Volleys instead of Nikes and copping some flak from the jocks at school so be it. The government cannot change that.

And as for Col, there is no way he could be a Labor or Green stooge. They are incapable of making coherent, reasonable arguments, something Col does in spades.

t.u.s.
Posted by the usual suspect, Thursday, 25 August 2005 2:45:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tus - the short answer is I don't have the answers but some ideas I have are that training and education are necessary and using the stick rather than the carrot is counter-productive. I also object to the whole value system of the neo-liberals and the idea that more economic success will continue to make us more happy.

But I will run out of words for this post and I do want to have some more fun with Col.

Col I note that you have come across Maslow in your wide ranging reading. I predict you see yourself as a ‘self-actualised’ person.

Here are some of Maslow’s words about the behaviour of self-actualised people that I wonder if you think apply to you?

“Able to learn from anyone, humble. Friendly with anyone …”

“can laugh at themselves, never make jokes that hurt others”

“Painfully aware of own imperfections”

LOL I don't think so!

Maslow believed that people have basic, (biological and psychological) needs that have to be fulfilled in order to be free enough to feel the desire for the higher levels of realization.

He believed that all people have an internal, natural, drive to become the best possible person they can be. I am surprised that you like Maslow's ideas because they are very socialist ideas - you know that idealistic perfectability of mankind that the socialists believe in.

Do how do you reconcile this idea of human nature with your view of the bludging welfare recipient?
Posted by Mollydukes, Thursday, 25 August 2005 6:40:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"My life experiences prove Atman to be a complete idiot. Or maybe just has'nt faced much adversity.

So when people say people in poverty don't work hard enough, in my present state of mind, I will smack 'em out!"

Your "life experiences" is that you don't have the job you want when you want it. Join the club!

I think you're misinterpreting what was said.

I said people who lack motivation, interest etc are more likely to be in poverty.

And BTW have a good look at the NEWS, people in Australia really don't face much adversity compared to 90% of the world.

You should be happy for your mates not annoyed at them.
Posted by Atman, Thursday, 25 August 2005 8:23:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem with excessive welfare is that it can be a disincentive to work and, unfortunately, it is work which produces the wealth. It is apparent that those who support socialist principles don't understand that if someone is not working AND COULD WORK they are stealing the benefits of someone elses labour.

Therefore working people have to work harder to provide for themselves PLUS others.

The more people who work the LESS poverty.
Posted by Atman, Thursday, 25 August 2005 8:44:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mollydukes, from your comments regarding your claimed insight into Maslow -

I suggest if you want to analyse me, you get better (more substantial) data than the scraps you will glean from these posts and be prepared for a full response in kind.

I will quote from one “Maslow” source regarding

“Self Actualisers”–
“… they resisted enculturation, that is, they were not susceptible to social pressure to be "well adjusted" or to "fit in" -
- they were, in fact, NONCONFORMISTS IN THE BEST SENSE”

All those darn “non-conformists” – they sure mess up the “uniform ranks of the proletariat” and debunk any claim you can make to Maslow’s theories offering any qualitative support for your silly notions of “socialism”.

Further, since you have been so presumptuous as to attempt an analysis of me, I feel at liberty to make similar conjecture regarding your own “progression” through the "hierarchy".

I would observe you seem to scurry among the “psychological”, maybe stretching up to the “safety”, never to achieve “belonging” nor experience “esteem” and leaving “self actualisation” as something completely beyond your comprehension, let alone aspiration.

This can easily be explained, you are likely held back (retarded) by “past deprivations still salient”, which cripple you as a person and as is confirmed by your posts.

Hope you find that as “amusing” (you did say “I do want to have some more fun with Col.”) as I did writing it!
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 26 August 2005 4:01:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy