Chart: The 80% fall in absolute poverty globally thanks to capitalism between 1970 and 2010

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2014 3:58 PM GMT
    I think the portrayal is a bit too pro-American here - but I'd say that the Americans got there first in large part because of what many in the world ironically see as their dysfunctional political system and constitution.

    http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/chart-of-the-greatest-and-most-remarkable-achievement-in-human-history-and-one-you-probably-never-heard-about/

    worldpoverty.jpg

    It turns out that between 1970 and 2010 the worst poverty in the world – people who live on one dollar a day or less – that has decreased by 80 percent (see chart above). You never hear about that.

    It’s the greatest achievement in human history, and you never hear about it.

    80 percent of the world’s worst poverty has been eradicated in less than 40 years. That has never, ever happened before.

    So what did that? What accounts for that? United Nations? US foreign aid? The International Monetary Fund? Central planning? No.

    It was globalization, free trade, the boom in international entrepreneurship. In short, it was the free enterprise system, American style, which is our gift to the world.

    I will state, assert and defend the statement that if you love the poor, if you are a good Samaritan, you must stand for the free enterprise system, and you must defend it, not just for ourselves but for people around the world. It is the best anti-poverty measure ever invented.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2014 4:01 PM GMT
    Is "one dollar a day" a useful measure? Surely inflation alone over 40 years would account for most of the difference. One dollar in 1970 is worth $5.72 now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2014 4:31 PM GMT
    Ohno saidIs "one dollar a day" a useful measure? Surely inflation alone over 40 years would account for most of the difference. One dollar in 1970 is worth $5.72 now.


    It's inflation adjusted:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2014 4:40 PM GMT
    Ohno saidIs "one dollar a day" a useful measure? Surely inflation alone over 40 years would account for most of the difference. One dollar in 1970 is worth $5.72 now.


    and...

    http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2014 5:08 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    Ohno saidIs "one dollar a day" a useful measure? Surely inflation alone over 40 years would account for most of the difference. One dollar in 1970 is worth $5.72 now.


    and...

    http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats


    And yet, if you look at any of those stats in context, there have been massive declines over time in each case. Something to be celebrated but there is still much to do.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 01, 2014 5:47 PM GMT
    Congratulations to the US. Imperialism has worked!! Btw, what kind of jobs are they working at to afford so much bling?
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 01, 2014 5:56 PM GMT
    I think the US is in the business of buying/destroying land (for the fossil fuels, metals, and other gems underground) in exchange for plastic beads.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2014 5:57 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidCongratulations to the US. Imperialism has worked!! Btw, what kind of jobs are they working at to afford so much bling?


    They're global stats.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 01, 2014 5:59 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidCongratulations to the US. Imperialism has worked!! Btw, what kind of jobs are they working at to afford so much bling?


    They're global stats.

    Yeah, I know. Factory workers in Bangladesh are stats.

    #Capitalism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2014 6:00 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidI think the US is in the business of buying/destroying land (for the fossil fuels, metals, and other gems underground) in exchange for plastic beads.


    And you'd be wrong. Wealth is the physical manifestation of ideas that people are willing to buy and pay for. Wealth is not in stuff - otherwise a piece of gold or iron would be just a rock and not a car. It's why wealth can keep growing when physical resources do not - and it's an idea that many people have difficulty understanding.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2014 6:01 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidCongratulations to the US. Imperialism has worked!! Btw, what kind of jobs are they working at to afford so much bling?


    They're global stats.

    Yeah, I know. Factory workers in Bangladesh are stats.

    #Capitalism.


    Whereas socialists would see them as slaves or worse while pretending they wield power over these factory workers for their own benefit.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 01, 2014 6:02 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidI think the US is in the business of buying/destroying land (for the fossil fuels, metals, and other gems underground) in exchange for plastic beads.


    And you'd be wrong. Wealth is the physical manifestation of ideas that people are willing to buy and pay for. Wealth is not in stuff - otherwise a piece of gold or iron would be just a rock and not a car. It's why wealth can keep growing when physical resources do not - and it's an idea that many people have difficulty understanding.

    Right. And CO2 levels are just an idea in my head, so I should ignore science, like you do?
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 01, 2014 6:04 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidCongratulations to the US. Imperialism has worked!! Btw, what kind of jobs are they working at to afford so much bling?


    They're global stats.

    Yeah, I know. Factory workers in Bangladesh are stats.

    #Capitalism.


    Whereas socialists would see them as slaves or worse while pretending they wield power over these factory workers for their own benefit.

    The US was built on slavery and sweatshops. It's only been in the latter half of the 20th century that workers were treated well, and it didn't last... as the stats will show.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2014 6:04 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidI think the US is in the business of buying/destroying land (for the fossil fuels, metals, and other gems underground) in exchange for plastic beads.


    And you'd be wrong. Wealth is the physical manifestation of ideas that people are willing to buy and pay for. Wealth is not in stuff - otherwise a piece of gold or iron would be just a rock and not a car. It's why wealth can keep growing when physical resources do not - and it's an idea that many people have difficulty understanding.

    Right. And CO2 levels are just an idea in my head, so I should ignore science, like you do?
    I haven't as I've pointed out that the US has done more to reduce emissions than any other industrialized nation - which you repeatedly ignore while decrying nuclear and fracking. You're the one who ignores science as you repeatedly prove.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 01, 2014 6:11 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidI think the US is in the business of buying/destroying land (for the fossil fuels, metals, and other gems underground) in exchange for plastic beads.


    And you'd be wrong. Wealth is the physical manifestation of ideas that people are willing to buy and pay for. Wealth is not in stuff - otherwise a piece of gold or iron would be just a rock and not a car. It's why wealth can keep growing when physical resources do not - and it's an idea that many people have difficulty understanding.

    Right. And CO2 levels are just an idea in my head, so I should ignore science, like you do?
    I haven't as I've pointed out that the US has done more to reduce emissions than any other industrialized nation - which you repeatedly ignore while decrying nuclear and fracking. You're the one who ignores science as you repeatedly prove.

    Nuclear and fracking aren't clean.... They are responsible for extremely high cancer rates and endless swaths of wasteland.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2014 6:27 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidI think the US is in the business of buying/destroying land (for the fossil fuels, metals, and other gems underground) in exchange for plastic beads.


    And you'd be wrong. Wealth is the physical manifestation of ideas that people are willing to buy and pay for. Wealth is not in stuff - otherwise a piece of gold or iron would be just a rock and not a car. It's why wealth can keep growing when physical resources do not - and it's an idea that many people have difficulty understanding.

    Right. And CO2 levels are just an idea in my head, so I should ignore science, like you do?
    I haven't as I've pointed out that the US has done more to reduce emissions than any other industrialized nation - which you repeatedly ignore while decrying nuclear and fracking. You're the one who ignores science as you repeatedly prove.

    Nuclear and fracking aren't clean.... They are responsible for extremely high cancer rates and endless swaths of wasteland.


    I thought you claimed earlier that you listen to the science? Instead repeatedly you show that you are more interested in hysteria, nimbyism and impractical solutions.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 01, 2014 6:33 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidI think the US is in the business of buying/destroying land (for the fossil fuels, metals, and other gems underground) in exchange for plastic beads.


    And you'd be wrong. Wealth is the physical manifestation of ideas that people are willing to buy and pay for. Wealth is not in stuff - otherwise a piece of gold or iron would be just a rock and not a car. It's why wealth can keep growing when physical resources do not - and it's an idea that many people have difficulty understanding.

    Right. And CO2 levels are just an idea in my head, so I should ignore science, like you do?
    I haven't as I've pointed out that the US has done more to reduce emissions than any other industrialized nation - which you repeatedly ignore while decrying nuclear and fracking. You're the one who ignores science as you repeatedly prove.

    Nuclear and fracking aren't clean.... They are responsible for extremely high cancer rates and endless swaths of wasteland.


    I thought you claimed earlier that you listen to the science? Instead repeatedly you show that you are more interested in hysteria, nimbyism and impractical solutions.

    In 2013, the world's oceans became an acidic stew inhospitable to marine life. It's estimated that by 2050 all the coral reefs in the world will be dead, and jellyfish will take over as a singular invasive species. You're just going to dismiss the death of ocean life as hysteria???

    You've also said that the technology for green energy doesn't exist. Somebody better send a memo to Scotland, since they are slated to be 100% green by 2020.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2014 6:38 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidI think the US is in the business of buying/destroying land (for the fossil fuels, metals, and other gems underground) in exchange for plastic beads.


    And you'd be wrong. Wealth is the physical manifestation of ideas that people are willing to buy and pay for. Wealth is not in stuff - otherwise a piece of gold or iron would be just a rock and not a car. It's why wealth can keep growing when physical resources do not - and it's an idea that many people have difficulty understanding.

    Right. And CO2 levels are just an idea in my head, so I should ignore science, like you do?
    I haven't as I've pointed out that the US has done more to reduce emissions than any other industrialized nation - which you repeatedly ignore while decrying nuclear and fracking. You're the one who ignores science as you repeatedly prove.

    Nuclear and fracking aren't clean.... They are responsible for extremely high cancer rates and endless swaths of wasteland.


    I thought you claimed earlier that you listen to the science? Instead repeatedly you show that you are more interested in hysteria, nimbyism and impractical solutions.

    In 2013, the world's oceans became an acidic stew inhospitable to marine life. It's estimated that by 2050 all the coral reefs in the world will be dead, and jellyfish will take over as a singular invasive species. You're just going to dismiss the death of ocean life as hysteria???

    You've also said that the technology for green energy doesn't exist. Somebody better send a memo to Scotland, since they are slated to be 100% green by 2020.


    Oh how accurate have those forecasts been historically? I'm going to dismiss your hysterical predictions as well, hysterical. Further, I'm also going to point out that the climate on earth has always been changing as well - meanwhile all you can do is flail pointing fingers at the US when its actually been doing the most to reduce its greenhouse emissions.

    I've pointed out that green technologies are not yet practical and you've now pointed to Scotland... but again, this is the extent of your ability to reason here. Have you looked at the environment Scotland has? High persistent winds are helpful. Further, how green are those batteries and how long do they last? I suppose to you though, these details aren't "science".
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 01, 2014 6:46 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidI think the US is in the business of buying/destroying land (for the fossil fuels, metals, and other gems underground) in exchange for plastic beads.


    And you'd be wrong. Wealth is the physical manifestation of ideas that people are willing to buy and pay for. Wealth is not in stuff - otherwise a piece of gold or iron would be just a rock and not a car. It's why wealth can keep growing when physical resources do not - and it's an idea that many people have difficulty understanding.

    Right. And CO2 levels are just an idea in my head, so I should ignore science, like you do?
    I haven't as I've pointed out that the US has done more to reduce emissions than any other industrialized nation - which you repeatedly ignore while decrying nuclear and fracking. You're the one who ignores science as you repeatedly prove.

    Nuclear and fracking aren't clean.... They are responsible for extremely high cancer rates and endless swaths of wasteland.


    I thought you claimed earlier that you listen to the science? Instead repeatedly you show that you are more interested in hysteria, nimbyism and impractical solutions.

    In 2013, the world's oceans became an acidic stew inhospitable to marine life. It's estimated that by 2050 all the coral reefs in the world will be dead, and jellyfish will take over as a singular invasive species. You're just going to dismiss the death of ocean life as hysteria???

    You've also said that the technology for green energy doesn't exist. Somebody better send a memo to Scotland, since they are slated to be 100% green by 2020.


    Oh how accurate have those forecasts been historically? I'm going to dismiss your hysterical predictions as well, hysterical. Further, I'm also going to point out that the climate on earth has always been changing as well - meanwhile all you can do is flail pointing fingers at the US when its actually been doing the most to reduce its greenhouse emissions.

    I've pointed out that green technologies are not yet practical and you've now pointed to Scotland... but again, this is the extent of your ability to reason here. Have you looked at the environment Scotland has? High persistent winds are helpful. Further, how green are those batteries and how long do they last? I suppose to you though, these details aren't "science".

    Climate change is just a symptom of a decaying environment. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are unprecedented, times ten, and the oceans absorb that carbon and turn the water into acid stew. What exactly is hysterical about taking measurements and reporting them?

    I think we are headed for global hysteria. By 2030, half the world's population is expected to run out of drinking water.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2014 7:00 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidI think the US is in the business of buying/destroying land (for the fossil fuels, metals, and other gems underground) in exchange for plastic beads.


    And you'd be wrong. Wealth is the physical manifestation of ideas that people are willing to buy and pay for. Wealth is not in stuff - otherwise a piece of gold or iron would be just a rock and not a car. It's why wealth can keep growing when physical resources do not - and it's an idea that many people have difficulty understanding.

    Right. And CO2 levels are just an idea in my head, so I should ignore science, like you do?
    I haven't as I've pointed out that the US has done more to reduce emissions than any other industrialized nation - which you repeatedly ignore while decrying nuclear and fracking. You're the one who ignores science as you repeatedly prove.

    Nuclear and fracking aren't clean.... They are responsible for extremely high cancer rates and endless swaths of wasteland.


    I thought you claimed earlier that you listen to the science? Instead repeatedly you show that you are more interested in hysteria, nimbyism and impractical solutions.

    In 2013, the world's oceans became an acidic stew inhospitable to marine life. It's estimated that by 2050 all the coral reefs in the world will be dead, and jellyfish will take over as a singular invasive species. You're just going to dismiss the death of ocean life as hysteria???

    You've also said that the technology for green energy doesn't exist. Somebody better send a memo to Scotland, since they are slated to be 100% green by 2020.


    Oh how accurate have those forecasts been historically? I'm going to dismiss your hysterical predictions as well, hysterical. Further, I'm also going to point out that the climate on earth has always been changing as well - meanwhile all you can do is flail pointing fingers at the US when its actually been doing the most to reduce its greenhouse emissions.

    I've pointed out that green technologies are not yet practical and you've now pointed to Scotland... but again, this is the extent of your ability to reason here. Have you looked at the environment Scotland has? High persistent winds are helpful. Further, how green are those batteries and how long do they last? I suppose to you though, these details aren't "science".

    Climate change is just a symptom of a decaying environment. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are unprecedented, times ten, and the oceans absorb that carbon and turn the water into acid stew. What exactly is hysterical about taking measurements and reporting them?

    I think we are headed for global hysteria. By 2030, half the world's population is expected to run out of drinking water.


    Again with your changing goal posts. As I've pointed out the US has done more in this regard than any other G7 country. Your hysteria is also not unprecedented - and in fact there have been concerns ever since we've had resources that we would run out, global cooling, run out of food, run out of water, etc. The reason none of these things have happened is because markets have resolved problems because they're optimized around creating resources and solutions far better than clumsy government (and environmentalist) interventions.
  • topathlete

    Posts: 882

    Jan 01, 2014 7:11 PM GMT
    Good article in yesterday's WSJ

    Stephens: Obama's Envy Problem
    Inequality is a problem when the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. That's not happening in America.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304591604579290350851300782?mod=ITP_opinion_0

    1835 Alexis de Tocqueville
    "Democratic institutions awaken and foster a passion for equality which they can never entirely satisfy," Tocqueville wrote. "This complete equality eludes the grasp of the people at the very moment they think they have grasped it . . . the people are excited in the pursuit of an advantage, which is more precious because it is not sufficiently remote to be unknown or sufficiently near to be enjoyed."

    One result: "Democratic institutions strongly tend to promote the feeling of envy." Another: "A depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom."


    The moral greatness of capitalism rests in the fact that it is the only economic system where one person's gain can be another's also—where Steve Jobs's billions are his shareholders' thousands. Capitalism cultivates a sense of admiration where envy would otherwise rule in a zero-sum economic system. It's what, for the past 60 years, has blunted the democratic tendency toward envy in the U.S. and distinguished its free-market democracy from the social democracies of Europe. It's what draws people to this country.

    Somewhere in the rubble of Mr. Obama's musings on inequality there was a better speech on economic mobility. Then again, under Mr. Obama the median income of the poorest Americans has declined in absolute terms, to $11,490 in 2012 from $11,552 in 2009, at the height of the recession. Chalk it up as another instance of Mr. Obama being the cause of the very problems he aspires to address.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 01, 2014 8:01 PM GMT
    topathlete saidGood article in yesterday's WSJ

    Stephens: Obama's Envy Problem
    Inequality is a problem when the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. That's not happening in America.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304591604579290350851300782?mod=ITP_opinion_0

    1835 Alexis de Tocqueville
    "Democratic institutions awaken and foster a passion for equality which they can never entirely satisfy," Tocqueville wrote. "This complete equality eludes the grasp of the people at the very moment they think they have grasped it . . . the people are excited in the pursuit of an advantage, which is more precious because it is not sufficiently remote to be unknown or sufficiently near to be enjoyed."

    One result: "Democratic institutions strongly tend to promote the feeling of envy." Another: "A depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom."


    The moral greatness of capitalism rests in the fact that it is the only economic system where one person's gain can be another's also—where Steve Jobs's billions are his shareholders' thousands. Capitalism cultivates a sense of admiration where envy would otherwise rule in a zero-sum economic system. It's what, for the past 60 years, has blunted the democratic tendency toward envy in the U.S. and distinguished its free-market democracy from the social democracies of Europe. It's what draws people to this country.

    Somewhere in the rubble of Mr. Obama's musings on inequality there was a better speech on economic mobility. Then again, under Mr. Obama the median income of the poorest Americans has declined in absolute terms, to $11,490 in 2012 from $11,552 in 2009, at the height of the recession. Chalk it up as another instance of Mr. Obama being the cause of the very problems he aspires to address.

    These are lies. The US has a history of slavery and sweatshops, regardless of who's president, and here we have someone saying, it's okay, because at least some of us are rich, and it would be worse if you lowered us to your level. But, hey, you might get rich, (but you'll probably end up poor with cancer, because either way we'll pollute the planet to death). They honestly don't care if poor people have healthcare or if they die. They think there are plenty more where that came from. Talk about not seeing people as individuals. We live in an Oligarchy, and we have no control, because the government is owned by the wealthy elite.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2014 8:05 PM GMT
    topathlete saidGood article in yesterday's WSJ

    Stephens: Obama's Envy Problem
    Inequality is a problem when the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. That's not happening in America.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304591604579290350851300782?mod=ITP_opinion_0

    1835 Alexis de Tocqueville
    "Democratic institutions awaken and foster a passion for equality which they can never entirely satisfy," Tocqueville wrote. "This complete equality eludes the grasp of the people at the very moment they think they have grasped it . . . the people are excited in the pursuit of an advantage, which is more precious because it is not sufficiently remote to be unknown or sufficiently near to be enjoyed."

    One result: "Democratic institutions strongly tend to promote the feeling of envy." Another: "A depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom."


    The moral greatness of capitalism rests in the fact that it is the only economic system where one person's gain can be another's also—where Steve Jobs's billions are his shareholders' thousands. Capitalism cultivates a sense of admiration where envy would otherwise rule in a zero-sum economic system. It's what, for the past 60 years, has blunted the democratic tendency toward envy in the U.S. and distinguished its free-market democracy from the social democracies of Europe. It's what draws people to this country.

    Somewhere in the rubble of Mr. Obama's musings on inequality there was a better speech on economic mobility. Then again, under Mr. Obama the median income of the poorest Americans has declined in absolute terms, to $11,490 in 2012 from $11,552 in 2009, at the height of the recession. Chalk it up as another instance of Mr. Obama being the cause of the very problems he aspires to address.


    Just again reinforcing the idea that the very policies some activists advocate do the exact opposite of what they say they want to happen... on the other hand, they've been very successful at making some companies and people very rich. Al Gore after all is worth over $200 million in no small part because of his advocacy for companies he's invested in.
  • PolitiMAC

    Posts: 728

    Jan 02, 2014 12:43 AM GMT
    This is my conversation ;) Love the Leftist HottJoe being utterly devoid of any common sense and believing that he is the repository of all wisdom. Nuclear makes wastelands? Please. I bet you'd say CHERNOBYL!

    But of course, that was a 1st Gen reactor that, by today's standards, was the shittiest thing ever. That's not the case anymore.

    It's all the same here in Australia. Renewable energies offer nothing. They don't lower temperatures, they make energy even MORE expensive, the windmills kill birds.

    But all this doesn't matter, does it? It's all about being hysterical and ridiculous for no real purpose except to hate one's own country.

    Bangladesh workers have it hard? Get off your high horse. Life isn't fair. As unfair as it is, they can actually live. Sure, it needs to get better, but what the fuck are you or I gonna do about that? This is an interior, domestic problem that only Bangladesh can fix for itself. I wonder how much of your clothes come from workers in South East Asia, HottJoe.

    Riddler is making plenty of good points here based on actual observed scientific data rather than the bullshit spin of how we're all warming up to die. As I said in another post, a psycho Lefty Warmist ship sent to Antarctica to prove how Antarctica is melting because of humans is FROZEN there. Yeah, really backing up that claim of global warming icon_razz.gif

    Socialists only exist because they parasitically leech of the fruits of capitalism. If we look at Socialist countries allover the world, they invariably fail with death abounding.

    But Lefties won't see that. They will conveniently ignore all of that and sneer at anyone who says anything different.

    Makes for good entertainment icon_razz.gif
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 02, 2014 1:36 AM GMT
    PolitiNerd saidThis is my conversation ;) Love the Leftist HottJoe being utterly devoid of any common sense and believing that he is the repository of all wisdom. Nuclear makes wastelands? Please. I bet you'd say CHERNOBYL!

    But of course, that was a 1st Gen reactor that, by today's standards, was the shittiest thing ever. That's not the case anymore.

    It's all the same here in Australia. Renewable energies offer nothing. They don't lower temperatures, they make energy even MORE expensive, the windmills kill birds.

    But all this doesn't matter, does it? It's all about being hysterical and ridiculous for no real purpose except to hate one's own country.

    Bangladesh workers have it hard? Get off your high horse. Life isn't fair. As unfair as it is, they can actually live. Sure, it needs to get better, but what the fuck are you or I gonna do about that? This is an interior, domestic problem that only Bangladesh can fix for itself. I wonder how much of your clothes come from workers in South East Asia, HottJoe.

    Riddler is making plenty of good points here based on actual observed scientific data rather than the bullshit spin of how we're all warming up to die. As I said in another post, a psycho Lefty Warmist ship sent to Antarctica to prove how Antarctica is melting because of humans is FROZEN there. Yeah, really backing up that claim of global warming icon_razz.gif

    Socialists only exist because they parasitically leech of the fruits of capitalism. If we look at Socialist countries allover the world, they invariably fail with death abounding.

    But Lefties won't see that. They will conveniently ignore all of that and sneer at anyone who says anything different.

    Makes for good entertainment icon_razz.gif


    You're grossly underestimating the dangers of nuclear energy. People who live near nuclear reactors have higher rates of cancer, because nuclear facilities leak, especially the older ones, and then there is the byproduct of nuclear waste, which we will be lugging around with us forever. Anything could go wrong, and things will go wrong, leading to inevitable future nuclear meltdowns. It's only a matter of time before the next one. The dangers outweigh the benefits immeasurably, considering a natural event or accident could lead to devastating, lasting consequences that money can't fix.

    I get that you hate the lefties and would rather ignore the workers in Bangladesh, but if you think the CO2 levels in the atmosphere aren't going to effect you in Australia then you're in denial. Australia has been hit, and will continue getting hit, by water shortages, atmospheric changes, prolonged drought, death of coral reefs, etc. At this point, denying the truth is just going to stop people from doing anything about it, or preparing to adapt.

    There is green technology. Why the lies? Your attitude toward anyone who would show concern for people other than yourself or the environment is nasty, self centered, and sick.