! B) f7 Y/ }; Z+ h1 _+ d; D 其實，每個國家都有自己的貧富計算準則，以當地的收入對支出再看儲蓄多少來定貧富。一個社會運動者拉森，他沒資格拿紐約或美國的貧富狀況來強套全世界。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb' ^# z$ p7 y" v/ R5 c
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb6 s& E! v' B6 `! g" G# ~! X4 V ~0 j
再說，美國或任何國家，都不存在國民99%全是窮人的情況。 * @+ ^# J5 d: R* K; ?8 _1 Htvb now,tvbnow,bttvb ) W- o+ l; \6 C9 y" K% S5.39.217.76 1%是有錢人，這話說得過去，不過，任何社會都有介于富有與貧窮之間的中間層，這個不是大富大貴也不致窮困的階層，可能佔40%，至少也不少于20%。我們的社會裡，這個不算富但也沒列入窮列的人就不止40%，中國的貧富差距非常大，也有20%人不算窮。 9 D8 V! Y- N# V- e% Q, F 5.39.217.76 F0 ]/ I+ h# c' Y
佔領運動用了我們是99%窮人這個口號，其實美國窮人不會超過30%、70%或更多的人，不列入窮籍。作者: felicity2010 時間: 2012-1-12 07:27 AM
本帖最後由 felicity2010 於 2012-1-12 08:40 AM 編輯 ) J" A. b' @& v2 V( D; ^7 d
公仔箱論壇* X1 c8 I( R9 n
Let's not getting too pedantic about the argument. The definition of the poor and the wealthy are never clearly defined, and its exact delineation is not exactly the quintessence of the whole movement. The global replication of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement may shed some light on the cause of the movement that is shared by many people. The tilting of the policy towards the rich culminates in the anguish today that finally erupted into such happened in both developed nations as well as developing nations. In US, the belief of trickle-down economy would ultimately prove to be wrong when taking human selfishness into consideration. In developing nations as China when the powerful meets the rich, it often presents a more sinister picture. The often repeat arguments of the rich against the poor are as follows: ! P3 r; z4 _4 R4 o) [& O7 ] 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. ! E3 d `: R5 F3 C' u. ? 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.5.39.217.76* K" Y3 U) M* v; u
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb& Q7 l; K" B% M7 D( W9 Q8 p) {' z
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb1 X, f% Z$ p5 {
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation. ! }' g9 E7 u" v0 {+ q 6. Maggie Thatcher: Socialism fails when it runs out of other people’s money!公仔箱論壇) [2 F" F6 D4 `' n
9 c# ^- o4 _) V! T0 B) W7 ~5.39.217.76A cry for a level playing field in terms of opportunities in work, education and other important aspect of life is probably the main drive behind all these movements. When you give more thought to this global movement, the six points above would look more and more like cliches, empty of any justification. Perhaps a better explanation is offered by this article, Joseph Stiglitz:Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% http://www.vanityfair.com/societ ... -one-percent-201105
