• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan

RightinNYC said:
That's not just an implication, that's a direct statement. You're free to characterize that as a failure, but given that there is only one nation with a higher median income, I think that's a bit ridiculous.
Click to expand...
here was the statement you took exception to:
The US has vast riches but only 1% of the population gets much from them except to work their asses off for the barons of industry.
Click to expand...

Taking facts that are already well understood and putting them in a colorful graph doesn't affect whether the position asserted is more valid.
Click to expand...
actually, i was assembling facts and using them to show the position you criticize, that the wealth of our nation is not well distributed ... which is a valid argument you have been unable to refute

Are you saying that a median household income of $50k is something to be ashamed of? Are you saying that we should be angry that 98% of people make less than $250k? What percent would make you happy?
Click to expand...
what that graph depicted was that the wealth of our nation is concentrated among 2% of our population
which is what was being presented as a likely scenario for the distribution of wealth resulting from the natural mineral deposits found in afghanistan
and my standard of success is not $50,000. what i would find a more legitmate international benchmark is the happiness index, where the residents of the country indicate their degree of satisfaction with their lives. note the descending order of responses to the following question:
"All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?"
Click to expand...
1. Puerto Rico
2. Mexico
3. Denmark
4. Colombia
5. Ireland
6. Iceland
7. N. Ireland
8. Switzerland
9. Netherlands
10. Canada
11. Austria
12. El Salvador
13. Venezuela
14. Luxembourg
15. U.S.
16. Australia
17. New Zealand
18. Sweden
19. Nigeria
20. Norway
21. Belgium
22. Finland
23. Singapore
24. W. Germany
25. France
26. Argentina
27. Vietnam
28. Chile
29. Indonesia
30. Philippines
31. Taiwan
32. Brazil
33. Spain
34. Israel
35. Italy
36. Portugal
37. E. Germany
38. Slovenia
39. Japan
40. Czech Rep
41. S. Africa
42. Croatia
43. Greece
44. Peru
45. China
46. Morocco
47. S. Korea
48. Iran
49. Poland
50. Turkey
51. Bosnia
52. Uganda
53. Algeria
54. Bangladesh
55. Egypt
56. Kyrgyzstan
57. Hungary
58. Slovakia
59. Jordan
60. Estonia
61. Serbia
62. Tanzania
63. Azerbaijan
64. Montenegro
65. India
66. Lithuania
67. Macedonia
68. Pakistan
69. Latvia
70. Albania
71. Bulgaria
72. Belarus
73. Georgia
74. Romania
75. Moldova
76. Russia
77. Armenia
78. Ukraine
79. Zimbabwe
Click to expand...
Happiest Countries in the World

recognize that the USA is not prominent in that rating despite the annual income data you have trotted out to prove nothing
 
justabubba said:
here was the statement you took exception to:



actually, i was assembling facts and using them to show the position you criticize, that the wealth of our nation is not well distributed ... which is a valid argument you have been unable to refute


what that graph depicted was that the wealth of our nation is concentrated among 2% of our population
which is what was being presented as a likely scenario for the distribution of wealth resulting from the natural mineral deposits found in afghanistan
and my standard of success is not $50,000. what i would find a more legitmate international benchmark is the happiness index, where the residents of the country indicate their degree of satisfaction with their lives. note the descending order of responses to the following question:

Happiest Countries in the World

recognize that the USA is not prominent in that rating despite the annual income data you have trotted out to prove nothing
Click to expand...

There is a very good reason for wealth to not be equally distributed.

People who generate wealth continue to do so over their life time by innovating and investing.
On the other hand, people who do not generate wealth continue to invest in things that lose value and they do most of their life.

The vast majority of wealthy people earned it through hard work and personal discipline, contrary to popular opinion.
If you can't do the same, you have no one to blame but yourself.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
There is a very good reason for wealth to not be equally distributed.

People who generate wealth continue to do so over their life time by innovating and investing.
On the other hand, people who do not generate wealth continue to invest in things that lose value and they do most of their life.

The vast majority of wealthy people earned it through hard work and personal discipline, contrary to popular opinion.
If you can't do the same, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Click to expand...

i read that and laughed, because it underscores how little you know, both about me and about the subject of wealth accumulation (besides being totally off topic ... as is this reply)
so, thanks for the laugh ... but it wasn't with you
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
here was the statement you took exception to:
Click to expand...

That statement was wrong then and it's wrong now. The author was clearly unaware of the median income figures, as demonstrated by his further statements on that.

actually, i was assembling facts and using them to show the position you criticize, that the wealth of our nation is not well distributed ... which is a valid argument you have been unable to refute
Click to expand...

I don't particularly care whether income is distributed in a fashion that you personally think would be nice, as it's irrelevant to my point. If you want to have a discussion on optimal income distributions, start a thread on it and I'll join you there.

what that graph depicted was that the wealth of our nation is concentrated among 2% of our population
Click to expand...

No, it actually didn't show anything of the sort. Setting aside the fact that you're confusing income and wealth, it showed absolutely nothing about the characteristics of that 2% other than that the threshold is approximately $250k.

which is what was being presented as a likely scenario for the distribution of wealth resulting from the natural mineral deposits found in afghanistan
Click to expand...

So your argument is that the discovery of minerals in Afghanistan will lead to a wealth distribution resembling that of the US because....?

and my standard of success is not $50,000. what i would find a more legitmate international benchmark is the happiness index, where the residents of the country indicate their degree of satisfaction with their lives. note the descending order of responses to the following question:
Click to expand...

recognize that the USA is not prominent in that rating despite the annual income data you have trotted out to prove nothing
Click to expand...

I truly don't give a **** about the "happiness index," nor do I give a **** about the result of a subjective opinion question posed to citizens of various countries. I'm sure I don't need to go through all the reasons why such a question is essentially useless for making country to country comparisons on any meaningful issue.
 
RightinNYC said:
That statement was wrong then and it's wrong now. The author was clearly unaware of the median income figures, as demonstrated by his further statements on that.



I don't particularly care whether income is distributed in a fashion that you personally think would be nice, as it's irrelevant to my point. If you want to have a discussion on optimal income distributions, start a thread on it and I'll join you there.



No, it actually didn't show anything of the sort. Setting aside the fact that you're confusing income and wealth, it showed absolutely nothing about the characteristics of that 2% other than that the threshold is approximately $250k.



So your argument is that the discovery of minerals in Afghanistan will lead to a wealth distribution resembling that of the US because....?I truly don't give a **** about the "happiness index," nor do I give a **** about the result of a subjective opinion question posed to citizens of various countries. I'm sure I don't need to go through all the reasons why such a question is essentially useless for making country to country comparisons on any meaningful issue.
Click to expand...

sure you don't


because you can't
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Ouch!

Did you mostly stay with in the major cities or did you travel to more remote areas?
I'm more interested in the country side and less inhabited areas.
Click to expand...
I feeled asleep so sorry for not getting to you earlier.

I was in Gujarat which is a state near the Pakistani border and in Mumbai and Deli and the city Agra I think where the Taj Mahal is located. I think though that the Taj Mahal is closed now to all tourists. Also remember that there is no less inhabited areas in India. I think like each state has over 10million people or at least it feels like it. A lot of people everywhere you go.

So I guess it was a little of both. But more then anything we stayed in Gujarat it was a nice place and remember that the infrastructure is not the same as here. There is nothing as bad as the traffic in Deli and the roads too. It took 8 hours back from the Taj when we returned at night. I think the majority of the time on the road spent was less then 20miles. Very bad road system in India. And then there are the animals on the roads and that ranchers allow for their cattle to go around the cities at least in the less popular places. There were cows everywhere and water buffalo as well.
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
i read that and laughed, because it underscores how little you know, both about me and about the subject of wealth accumulation (besides being totally off topic ... as is this reply)
so, thanks for the laugh ... but it wasn't with you
Click to expand...

You're defining wealth as an arbitrary income number which underscores how little you know about what wealthy really is.

People like yourself assume that the lifestyles of the super wealthy are the equivalent of the lower income versions of wealthy.

Whether you like it or not, the vast majority of wealthy people earned their wealth.
There is a mantra of the community of personal wealth accumulation that tells the complete story of how to live in order to build wealth.

"Live like no one else now, so you can live like no one else later."

Just to put the icing on the cake of my argument.

"Two economics professors have already blown a hole through your theories. Steven Venti of Dartmouth and David Wise of Harvard studied the issue of income versus wealth for the National Bureau of Economic Research a few years ago, using Social Security lifetime earnings and net income assessments for 3,992 households whose heads were near retirement age. Among their conclusions:"

"* Theres a huge variation in wealth at every income level. Many low-income families have almost nothing. But the same is true of many high-income families.
* Income alone doesnt explain wealth disparities. Some of the lowest-earning households had managed to accumulate significant wealth.
* In fact, income differences explain just 5% of the wealth dispersion the researchers found.
* What the researchers called chance events -- inheritances, medical bills, marital status, number of children -- explained about 4% of the dispersion.
* Investment choices explained about 8% of the variations."

"In other words, the vast majority of the differences in wealth had nothing to do with income, chance events or investment choices."

"What did explain most of the differences in wealth? Venti and Wise concluded it was this: How much the families chose to save. Those who made it a priority to save built wealth, regardless of their income level, individual circumstances or choice of investments."

An easy, 3-step wealth score - MSN Money

Ru Roh shaggy, you got some splaining to do now.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You're defining wealth as an arbitrary income number which underscores how little you know about what wealthy really is.

People like yourself assume that the lifestyles of the super wealthy are the equivalent of the lower income versions of wealthy.

Whether you like it or not, the vast majority of wealthy people earned their wealth.
There is a mantra of the community of personal wealth accumulation that tells the complete story of how to live in order to build wealth.

"Live like no one else now, so you can live like no one else later."

Just to put the icing on the cake of my argument.

"Two economics professors have already blown a hole through your theories. Steven Venti of Dartmouth and David Wise of Harvard studied the issue of income versus wealth for the National Bureau of Economic Research a few years ago, using Social Security lifetime earnings and net income assessments for 3,992 households whose heads were near retirement age. Among their conclusions:"

"* Theres a huge variation in wealth at every income level. Many low-income families have almost nothing. But the same is true of many high-income families.
* Income alone doesnt explain wealth disparities. Some of the lowest-earning households had managed to accumulate significant wealth.
* In fact, income differences explain just 5% of the wealth dispersion the researchers found.
* What the researchers called chance events -- inheritances, medical bills, marital status, number of children -- explained about 4% of the dispersion.
* Investment choices explained about 8% of the variations."

"In other words, the vast majority of the differences in wealth had nothing to do with income, chance events or investment choices."

"What did explain most of the differences in wealth? Venti and Wise concluded it was this: How much the families chose to save. Those who made it a priority to save built wealth, regardless of their income level, individual circumstances or choice of investments."

An easy, 3-step wealth score - MSN Money

Ru Roh shaggy, you got some splaining to do now.
Click to expand...

ok, let's do focus on wealth accumulation instead of income and see if that will make your case. and by looking at this graph you will recognize that it makes mine and undermines your own. the wealth of this country - like the income - is not well distributed
wealthdistributiongraph.gif

and if we apply our own approach to wealth accumulation to extract the wealth of mineral resources found in afghanistan, i would reasonably expect the same outcome. very few afghanis will realize much of the wealth available from the mineral resources of their nation
 
RightinNYC said:
And I'm asking you what you think that means, because it's certainly not a rebuttal to my point.



I buy my groceries online and have them delivered to the door of my Manhattan apartment. I pay 69 cents/cucumber and 99 cents/lb for onions. I find it hard to believe that you're paying 90/2.29 at a Walmart.
Click to expand...

I am just saying that using a median is theoretical and has not been proven to be accurate. It's only a guess.

That's fine, you don't have to believe me about the prices but you are welcome to call the norfolk, Va walmart on Military Highway and try to prove that I am lying. The onion price is a per pound price.

BTW, that does not include a 5% sales tax cost.

Here is an excerpt concerning "median" wikipedia" "The median can be used as a measure of location when a distribution is skewed, when end values are not known, or when one requires reduced importance to be attached to outliers, e.g. because they may be measurement errors. A disadvantage of the median is the difficulty of handling it theoretically"
 
Last edited:
LiberalAvenger said:
I am just saying that using a median is theoretical and has not been proven to be accurate. It's only a guess.

Here is an excerpt concerning "median" wikipedia" "The median can be used as a measure of location when a distribution is skewed, when end values are not known, or when one requires reduced importance to be attached to outliers, e.g. because they may be measurement errors. A disadvantage of the median is the difficulty of handling it theoretically"
Click to expand...

The quote you reference does not mean that "using a median is theoretical and has not been proven to be accurate. It's only a guess." I don't really know how else to say this.


That's fine, you don't have to believe me about the prices but you are welcome to call the norfolk, Va walmart on Military Highway and try to prove that I am lying. The onion price is a per pound price.

BTW, that does not include a 5% sales tax cost.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to call and compare onion prices, I'm simply noting that I pay less than half of that for delivery to my door in one of the highest QOL places in the country. I would be very surprised if you could not find them cheaper near you.
 
RightinNYC said:
The quote you reference does not mean that "using a median is theoretical and has not been proven to be accurate. It's only a guess." I don't really know how else to say this.





I'm not going to call and compare onion prices, I'm simply noting that I pay less than half of that for delivery to my door in one of the highest QOL places in the country. I would be very surprised if you could not find them cheaper near you.
Click to expand...

Nobody is cheaper than walmart.

Example, One bag of eight O'clock coffee at Food Lion: $5.98, Walmart: $3.88. On the average wal mart is about 40% cheaper on most of their items.

Then there are the ghetto supermarkets where the poor shop who have no transportation. Their prices are off the wall.
 
Last edited:
LiberalAvenger said:
Nobody is cheaper than walmart.

Example, One bag of eight O'clock coffee at Food Lion: $5.98, Walmart: $3.88. On the average wal mart is about 40% cheaper on most of their items.

Then there are the ghetto supermarkets where the poor shop who have no transportation. Their prices are off the wall.
Click to expand...

FreshDirect

FreshDirect

If food prices in Northern VA are really 2X food prices in Manhattan, something is drastically wrong with NoVA.
 
RightinNYC said:
FreshDirect

FreshDirect

If food prices in Northern VA are really 2X food prices in Manhattan, something is drastically wrong with NoVA.
Click to expand...

It's not available in this area.

Virginia is a right to work state. Unions are nearly non existent here. The wages are the same as they were ten years ago for the blue collar trades. There are a few exceptions such as government jobs but even they are below the national level. Also, we have a Confederate governor and state attorney general. He is a good friend of Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network.

It's basically pro business and anti labor.
 
justabubba said:
ok, let's do focus on wealth accumulation instead of income and see if that will make your case. and by looking at this graph you will recognize that it makes mine and undermines your own. the wealth of this country - like the income - is not well distributed
wealthdistributiongraph.gif

and if we apply our own approach to wealth accumulation to extract the wealth of mineral resources found in afghanistan, i would reasonably expect the same outcome. very few afghanis will realize much of the wealth available from the mineral resources of their nation
Click to expand...

All that graph tells me is that 1% of people manage their money better than 99% of people.

Why am I not surprised.
You can't make people manage their resources well, if they don't want to.

On the other side of that though, many Afghans will have the opportunity to realize a higher standard of living, as well as, the possibly of building community resources like water purification plants and a national electric grid.

Both of those are good things for everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom