Maybe if they sorted out their own shitty political systems and made their politicians and beaurocracy, public sector, what have you accountable they would be able to enjoy the fruits of modern civilisation along with the rest of us.

Have you ever lived in a developing country? As soon as anyone pokes their head above the crowd there's a queue of plebs with pieces of paper in their hands stretching around the corner looking for bribes, their cut, their piece of the pie, and before too long there's no pie left at all. This is the reality.

Which has already been explained to you three times.

Yes capitalism is harnessed greed and that's a good thing. I rejoice to see corporations battling it out, I weep to see a single clear winner.

I'm none too happy with the banks myself, property bubbles completely loot middle class wealth and that needs to never happen again, but look at all the posters in this story gibbering about equality of income - do they have any understanding of how insane that is? Clearly not.

So they indulge in masturbatory fantasies about the indefinable paradise that awaits humanity after all the bourgeoise are killed off. Or was that the jews. No, wait, the intellectuals. White men?

Better they use their minds instead of parroting the delusions of a nineteenth century habitual drunk.

"Our" resource distribution system, capitalism, has regulations to prevent corruption from doing too much damage. It's a bit hit and miss but overall things have been steadily improving for the average person.

The distribution systems in poor countries may or may not have similar regulations, but they aren't enforced if they are in place. Having lived in many such countries I know whereof I speak.

I wasn't aware you'd been elected king of the economists. Apologies your royal spokesperson for Mises and Keynes, perhaps someday someone will do communism right and not end up killing 100 million people to achieve nothing. The congratulatory coronation fruitbasket shall be along in the post presently.

Ahahaha! I swear you marxists live in as much of a fairy tale world as any conspiracy nut.

The reason poor countries are poor is because of their shitty corrupt politicians. See for reference what happened to Zimbabwe, or the President of South Africa looting all of the UK foreign aid to build his palace, or the way that the government in the Philippines can't account for over 90% of the aid it received for Haiyan.

"Derived directly from our resource-limited past" my ass, the only thing that matches the zeal of the marxist is their ignorance.

So, in your world all the money in the banks is owned by a few super rich people, and they can just take it with them and go to New Zealand.

Maybe Huey, Dewey, and Louie will save the day?

Ahahaha you people. Seriously, which do you think is more important to the 99% or whatever, the fact that their standard of living is continually improving, or that someone is shopping for her third sports car, somewhere out there.

Moral panic mongers are finding this whole information age thing quite the botherance, aren't they.

Not really no, for example during the French revolution which supposedly directly targeted the wealthy, the majority of those that went to visit Madame were not nobles.

I'm not entirely sure what the fixation is with income equality anyway, shouldn't people be thinking more about a continually improving standard of living? I mean surely that's what matters most to almost everyone. I know I don't wake up every morning bitterly jealous that someone else is richer them myself, or upset that I can't buy a Lear jet, seems like a pretty sorry way to go through life.

I don't have a problem with people being richer than me as long as they aren't using their wealth to fuck with people, like the banks did with their artificially inflated property bubble. Yes, when one party is providing 90+ % of the price for a good or service, that party controls the price. So, fuck the banks basically. But not due for ideological reasons.

You could say the same about almost any skilled labour though, good enough is often good enough. I agree with what you're saying but it doesn't make what I'm saying less true.

Nope, let's not even justify it to that extent. Coding is a job description, and an increasingly blue collar one like plumber or electrician at that. This whole push by giant corporations to get into schools (!) is simply a means for them to reduce future worker salaries and ensure a steady supply of bright young idiots all fresh'n'ready to be abused and burned out.

End of.

Why stop there, the vast majority of rapes take place within a 30 year window, according to your calculations 100% of women have been violently raped. Hell, let's push it up to 40, women who don't even exist have been raped.

The point you're missing is that the numbers used were exaggerated to illustrate the lunacy of feminist statistics, they don't resemble anything anyone sane might imagine as real.

And feel free to ignore the rest of the comment while you're at it, including the linked paper. Call that axe grinding if you like.

Look at the actual crime reporting figures, locally rape convictions stand at around 8 per 100,000. Now let's get crazy and say only one in twenty rapes and or sexual assault charges result in a conviction. Let's get even crazier and say one in twenty people who are raped even report the matter. That leaves us with 3200 per 100,000, or about one in thirty. Still almost an order of magnitude smaller than feminist figures and almost certainly still a gigantic exaggeration.

So where do they come up with these moral panic inducing mountains of statistical tripe?

To understand this we have to look at the methods they use to take these surveys. Look at the technical reports. You'll find lots of stuff like:

Drafting the questionnaire, it was important to avoid terms such as ‘rape’, ‘violence’ or ‘stalking’, because different women might have different preconceived ideas on the types of violence usually associated with these terms, and the types of perpetrators involved.

Terms such as rape are left out of questionnaires and it's left to the researchers (all of whom happen to be feminist trained) to decide whether or not rape took place. So if someone answered that they were verbally abused using a sexual slur or had sex while drunk, it's the researcher who decides if the women was sexually attacked.

And take a look at California's shiny new feminist inspired affirmative consent laws if you want to know whether having sex after a drink is rape or not.

This gets further distorted by the public mouthpieces, who translate these numbers into 25% of all women were raped. No, they weren't. That one in four women in modern western democracies, one in forty was raped is not a prospect that the rational mind can entertain.

This is a technique that was pioneered by Mary Koss, a feminist researcher who decided that the official unbiased government reports weren't giving her the answers she wanted, so she set up her own surveys in order to amend the statistics accordingly.

Post survey examination of the outcomes however revealed that around three quarters of the women she identified as having been raped did not consider themselves victims of rape, and almost half of them had sex with their supposed attackers after the event identified as a rape had occurred, and continued dating them.

So, having internalised that, now you'll have to start asking questions like "how did these flim flam artists manage to pull the wool over everyone's eyes for 40 years" and "why are people in power listening to them" and so on. These are good questions to ponder. While you're pondering them some light reading for you:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/...

One random guy being sent photos does not a gender issue make. If you want to talk about gender issues maybe we can talk about the actual epidemic of female teachers raping male and female students in high schools, how about that for a conversation we need to have. Because that's what happens when you create a narrative that puts people into jobs based on their genitalia instead of their merit. You sanctimonious little pricks speak only, and I do mean only, for your revolting little cult.

Nobody's ever said harassment didn't exist. It does, as does rape, murder, fraud, and pickpocketing. Usually perpetrated by psychos and disturbed individuals.

Psychos and seriously disturbed people also exist, of course - unfortunately some of them seem to think that there's an enormous epidemic of rape and harassment.