Thread: Why do only fools and horses work?

Originally Posted by Smartmouthwoman

You can't disprove my explanation... guess that leaves you right back where you started.

Actually, we can design away (official) poverty, what we cannot do is design away simply being poor if a person chooses not to improve their money management skills in our money based markets.

Originally Posted by Reiver

South Africa certainly isn't a developed country. Hit the townships and have a look around! The rest are irrelevant to the discussion. This is about a comparison of forms of capitalism. Try relevancy as your posts really are becoming a bore!

Hong Kong and Singapore aren't capitalistic countries.

Why don't you just post your complete list of criteria you want to limit the conversation to, so you can win your point.

Originally Posted by Not Amused

Hong Kong and Singapore aren't capitalistic countries.

Why don't you just post your complete list of criteria you want to limit the conversation to, so you can win your point.

I've made it terribly clear: the evidence separates our economies into 3 broad categories: liberal democratic, social democratic and anglo-saxon. The evidence finds that the last category is characterised by high incone inequality. The important question is 'why?'

So far you've essentially indicated that newly industrialised countries are distinct from mature economies. Save your typing Sherlock, you're missing out on violin practice
Posted via Mobile Device

Originally Posted by Reiver

Anglo-Saxon countries are characterised by severe wage inequality and high working poverty. Typically there will be commentary about the use of minimum wages and how such wage protectionism can reduce such problems. Whilst we cannot deny that Anglo-Saxon countries have had relatively low minimum wages, we also know that such protection doesn't provide a significant mechanism to reduce poverty. So the question remains...

What is behind the Anglo-Saxon inequalities and how can it be 'improved'?

Lets look at their GINI index, Australia 35, Canada 33, new Zealand 36 and the US 41. Compared to Angola 59, Argentina 46, belize 54, Bolivia 57, Brazil 54, Bulgaria 45, China 42, Columbia 58 etc etc......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ncome_equality

Im not seeing near the income inequality in the Anglo Saxxon countries as I am the others. Would seem your perception is in contradiction to reality. Same case in regards to poverty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_by_country

Originally Posted by Reiver

I've made it terribly clear: the evidence separates our economies into 3 broad categories: liberal democratic, social democratic and anglo-saxon. The evidence finds that the last category is characterised by high incone inequality. The important question is 'why?'

So far you've essentially indicated that newly industrialised countries are distinct from mature economies. Save your typing Sherlock, you're missing out on violin practice
Posted via Mobile Device

Do you have trouble maintianing a straight face when you type this nonsense?

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Lets look at their GINI index, Australia 35, Canada 33, new Zealand 36 and the US 41. Compared to Angola 59, Argentina 46, belize 54, Bolivia 57, Brazil 54, Bulgaria 45, China 42, Columbia 58 etc etc......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ncome_equality

Im not seeing near the income inequality in the Anglo Saxxon countries as I am the others. Would seem your perception is in contradiction to reality. Same case in regards to poverty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_by_country

Your trying to compare mature economies with developpping or newly industrialised countries. A worthless comparison! This has all been clarified! So why do you think anglo saxon counties have greater income inequality compared to liberal and social democratic countries?

In the US, it is a simple moral failure to bear true witness to our own laws.

Originally Posted by Reiver

Your trying to compare mature economies with developpping or newly industrialised countries. A worthless comparison!

Im still commenting upon your original statement, "Anglo-Saxon countries are characterised by severe wage inequality and high working poverty." I havent yet got through all your qualifiers youve added since then in later posts to back away from your original claim you cant defend.
And both Canada and France are mature. Canada with a Gini index of 33 and France with a Gini of 33. Both the UK and Italy are matured, both with a Gini of 36. Both Australia and Spain are mature, both with Gini index of 35. Both the US and Russia are mature, US with a Gini of 41 and Russia a Gini of 42.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Im still commenting upon your original statement

No, you're dodging because you haven't got a response.

And both Canada and France are mature. Canada with a Gini index of 33 and France with a Gini of 33. Both the UK and Italy are matured, both with a Gini of 36. Both Australia and Spain are mature, both with Gini index of 35. Both the US and Russia are mature, US with a Gini of 41 and Russia a Gini of 42.

Russia isn't a mature economy. One would expect continued industrialisation, reflecting its history and the problems faced. We certainly wouldn't call it social democratic or liberal democratic. Stop with the inane dodge. Its already been done to death. Why do Anglo-Saxon countries (in particular the US and the UK) have high income inequality compared to what experienced by liberal and social democratic countries?

Originally Posted by Not Amused

Why don't you just post your complete list of criteria you want to limit the conversation to, so you can win your point.

Really, hes been running from his original claim ever since he made it.