3 ms·

Last time heads were rolling in France people were starving.

lm28469 4y ago
Well we have 10m people living under poverty, even armed with forks and spoons they'd take the Elysee in a day. Even the 42 000 homeless children living in France could take care of it
- ttoinou 4y ago
  Poverty definition is a relative definition. Hence you're measuring inequalities, not wealth
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - lm28469 4y ago
    Well that's what the discussion was about in the first place wasn't it ? The inequalities between CEOs and workers grew, one side lives in absolute poverty, the other in absolute opulence The poor are still too poor to live properly and the rich are too rich to count, that's not how they sold us capitalism is it ? Wasn't it supposed to even out inequalities ? Money trickling down to the poorest ? Why are there still people in ultra advanced countries who can't afford to heat their home ? > Poverty definition is a relative definition. Criteria such as: "can't afford clothes" "can't go out with friends/family at least once a month due to financial reasons" "not having access to internet" "can't pay water/electricity bills" "can't heat apartment above the minimum temperature determined by the law" "can't afford one week of vacation out of their own place" "can't afford meat/fish every other day"
    - Firmwarrior 4y ago
      Our patron saint has this to say about it > For example, let's attack poverty, and if necessary damage wealth in the process. That's much more likely to work than attacking wealth in the hope that you will thereby fix poverty. [9] And if there are people getting rich by tricking consumers or lobbying the government for anti-competitive regulations or tax loopholes, then let's stop them. Not because it's causing economic inequality, but because it's stealing. [10] > If all you have is statistics, it seems like that's what you need to fix. But behind a broad statistical measure like economic inequality there are some things that are good and some that are bad, some that are historical trends with immense momentum and others that are random accidents. If we want to fix the world behind the statistics, we have to understand it, and focus our efforts where they'll do the most good. http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html
      - lm28469 4y ago
        > And if there are people getting rich by tricking consumers or lobbying the government for anti-competitive regulations or tax loopholes, then let's stop them. Not because it's causing economic inequality, but because it's stealing. If we did that Bezos&co wouldn't have nearly as much money. A big part of the wealth of these individual is tax evasion or """optimisation""", taxes which are supposed to be used to fix these inequalities... Again, these people don't exist in a vacuum, these massive companies became what they are by squeezing as much as they're legally (and some time not so legally) allowed to squeeze, it's our collective job to set the boundaries. Not doing anything is letting them decide and their end goal is squeezing us and the planet dry You don't "attack poverty" with good intentions and nice speeches
        Firmwarrior 4y ago
        You also don't attack poverty by randomly trying and failing to lash out at everyone who isn't in poverty How about we talk about actually attacking poverty? Coincidentally, the way that Gates, Buffett, Bezos, etc seem to be doing with all their money and time
        lm28469 4y ago
        > Coincidentally, the way that Gates, Buffett, Bezos, etc seem to be doing with all their money and time What ? They do that once they absolutely milked the world for decades because they're approaching death and start to get worried about their karma. Too little too late, it's like burning a random house and going in to save the cat while the family is burning, you don't get to be applauded for that If they truly attacked poverty you wouldn't have a single homeless person in the west
        ttoinou 4y ago
        If we want to stop them from milking us we should stop with intellectual property and patents so that more companies can compete with their big companies
      - 4y ago
orwin 4y ago
If you mean the last revolution, this is wrong. The last successfull French revolution (1830) had nothing to do with starvation. Even the 1871 revolt didn't had much to do with what and how to eat. We killed factory owners for far less than an empty stomach. But at the time, we understood that the police was really representing the business owners (landowners, industrialists) more than the government and put their crimes not on the individual, but on the hand that lead them. I feel like this understanding is coming back in the US.

Well we have 10m people living under poverty, even armed with forks and spoons they'd take the Elysee in a day. Even the 42 000 homeless children living in France could take care of it

ttoinou 4y ago
Poverty definition is a relative definition. Hence you're measuring inequalities, not wealth
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lm28469 4y ago
  Well that's what the discussion was about in the first place wasn't it ? The inequalities between CEOs and workers grew, one side lives in absolute poverty, the other in absolute opulence The poor are still too poor to live properly and the rich are too rich to count, that's not how they sold us capitalism is it ? Wasn't it supposed to even out inequalities ? Money trickling down to the poorest ? Why are there still people in ultra advanced countries who can't afford to heat their home ? > Poverty definition is a relative definition. Criteria such as: "can't afford clothes" "can't go out with friends/family at least once a month due to financial reasons" "not having access to internet" "can't pay water/electricity bills" "can't heat apartment above the minimum temperature determined by the law" "can't afford one week of vacation out of their own place" "can't afford meat/fish every other day"
  - Firmwarrior 4y ago
    Our patron saint has this to say about it > For example, let's attack poverty, and if necessary damage wealth in the process. That's much more likely to work than attacking wealth in the hope that you will thereby fix poverty. [9] And if there are people getting rich by tricking consumers or lobbying the government for anti-competitive regulations or tax loopholes, then let's stop them. Not because it's causing economic inequality, but because it's stealing. [10] > If all you have is statistics, it seems like that's what you need to fix. But behind a broad statistical measure like economic inequality there are some things that are good and some that are bad, some that are historical trends with immense momentum and others that are random accidents. If we want to fix the world behind the statistics, we have to understand it, and focus our efforts where they'll do the most good. http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html
    - lm28469 4y ago
      > And if there are people getting rich by tricking consumers or lobbying the government for anti-competitive regulations or tax loopholes, then let's stop them. Not because it's causing economic inequality, but because it's stealing. If we did that Bezos&co wouldn't have nearly as much money. A big part of the wealth of these individual is tax evasion or """optimisation""", taxes which are supposed to be used to fix these inequalities... Again, these people don't exist in a vacuum, these massive companies became what they are by squeezing as much as they're legally (and some time not so legally) allowed to squeeze, it's our collective job to set the boundaries. Not doing anything is letting them decide and their end goal is squeezing us and the planet dry You don't "attack poverty" with good intentions and nice speeches
      - Firmwarrior 4y ago
        You also don't attack poverty by randomly trying and failing to lash out at everyone who isn't in poverty How about we talk about actually attacking poverty? Coincidentally, the way that Gates, Buffett, Bezos, etc seem to be doing with all their money and time
        lm28469 4y ago
        > Coincidentally, the way that Gates, Buffett, Bezos, etc seem to be doing with all their money and time What ? They do that once they absolutely milked the world for decades because they're approaching death and start to get worried about their karma. Too little too late, it's like burning a random house and going in to save the cat while the family is burning, you don't get to be applauded for that If they truly attacked poverty you wouldn't have a single homeless person in the west
        ttoinou 4y ago
        If we want to stop them from milking us we should stop with intellectual property and patents so that more companies can compete with their big companies
    - 4y ago

orwin 4y ago

If you mean the last revolution, this is wrong. The last successfull French revolution (1830) had nothing to do with starvation. Even the 1871 revolt didn't had much to do with what and how to eat. We killed factory owners for far less than an empty stomach. But at the time, we understood that the police was really representing the business owners (landowners, industrialists) more than the government and put their crimes not on the individual, but on the hand that lead them. I feel like this understanding is coming back in the US.