Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

SirTripAlot said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

This website references a lot of studies that show the rich save more than the poor:

Do the Rich Save More?

---

Which begs the question, if the middle class received more money, would it be spent in the economy or saved?

---

How is that even a question?  If the rich save more money, then of course giving the middle class more would lead to more spending.

relic's post further confirms this. 

---

viktor said:

ballsalsa said:

Given that context, Is it a surprise that africa is run-down and full of nations that have a hard time governing themselves and managing their resources in a positive way for their citizens while china is rapidly expanding it's consumer (middle) class?  Not to me.  Seems like an continuation of policies that have been in place for more than a century.

---

Average Chinese IQ = 103
Average Sub-Saharan African IQ = 72

That's the difference. Blaming the West doesn't need to come into it at all.

---

ballsalsa said:

viktor said:

ballsalsa said:

Given that context, Is it a surprise that africa is run-down and full of nations that have a hard time governing themselves and managing their resources in a positive way for their citizens while china is rapidly expanding it's consumer (middle) class?  Not to me.  Seems like an continuation of policies that have been in place for more than a century.

---

Average Chinese IQ = 103
Average Sub-Saharan African IQ = 72

That's the difference. Blaming the West doesn't need to come into it at all.

---

not big on nuance are you viktor?
I'll not ask you to source those numbers, but why do you think that is?

---

Hunternicus said:

the left  are liars and can’t meme.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

That's a great idea because most African countries don't have minimum wage laws. 

---

Because that's the solution to most of the world living in poverty relative to the Western world. Even you don't believe in such nonsense.

---

You haven't seen me argue in favor of minimum wage, or show evidence that the places that raised the minimum wage above the national minimum are doing better than the rest of the country?

I think you HAVE seen the evidence and bury your head in the sand to justify your irrational hatred towards immigrants.

---

I thought we were discussing mandating a minimum wage in the poorest areas of the world to combat their poverty, why are you changing the subject?

---

Yes, we were discussing mandating a minimum wage in the poorest areas of the world.  I'm saying Africa SHOULD impose a minimum wage (obviously start small and gradually increase it as people become wealthier).

qman said:

Since when did we starting debating the merits to US minimum wage mandates and what does that have to do with illegal/legal immigration?

---

Since you asked why things aren't working out in Africa.

qman said:

You're not trying to suggest that any success in the US minimum wage is universal in nature and the rest of the world would have the same outcome, are you?  You do realize it's apples and oranges.

---

Yes, I am suggesting that.  If it's successful wherever it's been tried, why do you think it wouldn't be successful elsewhere?

qman said:

I'm not denying the massive disproportional amount of wealth that currently exists today, my point it's tied up in over-inflated assets prices such as real estate, cash, stocks and bonds. That's perceived wealth that isn't being used for consumption, that's a huge different from the peasants spending it in a matter of hours.

---

If "peasants" got real estate, cash, stocks, and bonds, they could liquidate it to spend on the economy.

qman said:

This isn't about immigrants, it's about believing there's unlimited wealth to extract from the wealthy, so much so that there's enough for all US citizens PLUS tens of millions of poor migrants, that's pure economic fantasyland.

---

I just showed you chart of how extremely little it would take to DOUBLE the wealth of the bottom 50%.  It's not fantasy, it's looking at real data rather than make believing.

qman said:

The US and most of the world is in massive debt at every level of government, business and personal. We are not taxing our way of this mess, at this point our current form of consumption is not even sustainable for much longer.

---

But we can and should tax our way out of debt.  Democrats get this which is why debt/gdp always goes down under Democratic presidents:



You don't seem to get that taxes reduce the deficit.

---

"If it's been successful wherever it's been tired, why wouldn't it be successful elsewhere?"

There's minimum wage mandates in poor countries and it's done nothing to very little to reduce poverty, economic prosperity allows for a higher minimum ages, it doesn't create it.

And yes, I understand what the peasants would do with more money, they would spend it.  What happens when they spend more money?  Demand increases and prices rise, that's the current reason why policymakers refuse to stimulate this economy, we can't live without ultra low interest rates today.

"we can and should tax our way out of debt"

More economic fantasyland, there's no taxing our way out of this mess without massive currency devaluation.

"Democrats get this"

It's not a R vs D issue, Obama DOUBLED the DEBT in 8 YEARS!!!

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Exactly. 

And what's better for the economy?  Ten rich guys goings out to eat $1000 dinner, or 1,000 middle class guys going out to eat a $10 dinner?  I'd argue the latter, as it requires more restaurants, more servers, more cooks...

And even if you think both examples above are equal for the economy, I'd definitely argue that 1,000 people being able to afford going to go out is better than only 10 people being able to afford it.

---

ballsalsa said:

it doesn't have to be either.  Any method of more fairly distributing wealth will lead to more jobs through more demand.  In addition, giving access to capital (in whatever form, including land) to the public allows for a much greater talent pool to get to work on creating those jobs that everyone raves about.

---

viktor said:

ballsalsa said:

viktor said:

ballsalsa said:

Given that context, Is it a surprise that africa is run-down and full of nations that have a hard time governing themselves and managing their resources in a positive way for their citizens while china is rapidly expanding it's consumer (middle) class?  Not to me.  Seems like an continuation of policies that have been in place for more than a century.

---

Average Chinese IQ = 103
Average Sub-Saharan African IQ = 72

That's the difference. Blaming the West doesn't need to come into it at all.

---

not big on nuance are you viktor?
I'll not ask you to source those numbers, but why do you think that is?
why do you think the flynn effect is in full force in the third world while rapidly diminishing in the developed world?

---

Warm, often humid climate in Africa ideal for growing food, meant that people didn't evolve to think very far ahead. Same thing with Abos in Aussie. Survival is primarily a function of just cruising around and reacting quickly.

The smartest people in the world are from Britain, Scandinavia, Russia, Mongolia, China, Korea and Japan: all cold countries where survival is a matter of learning things and thinking ahead.

---

xzylocybin said:

There is about a hundred years worth of IQ testing from around the world backing that up, and mountains of medical records showing the Muslim inbreeding.

And it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint as well. The most ambitious of the Africans would have been the ones to brave the colder norths, and the most adaptive and inventive would have been the ones to survive the cold winters and resource scarce environments, they were forced to invent new tools and structures and clothings and technologies, the africans never had any reason to advance that far so they didn't, makes perfect sense when you think about it.

---

ballsalsa said:

xzylocybin said:

There is about a hundred years worth of IQ testing from around the world backing that up, and mountains of medical records showing the Muslim inbreeding.

And it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint as well. The most ambitious of the Africans would have been the ones to brave the colder norths, and the most adaptive and inventive would have been the ones to survive the cold winters and resource scarce environments, they were forced to invent new tools and structures and clothings and technologies, the africans never had any reason to advance that far so they didn't, makes perfect sense when you think about it.

---

how do you feel about the flynn effect?

---