九十九巴仙的誤導

elvin88

——對抗的一年（四）
6 W. j6 R9 S5 c9 s" x( ^公仔箱論壇
' O) \- I- l& X" Y- q5 T  L8 {0 \& |* s5.39.217.76去年，從紐約掀起的“佔領華爾街”運動，后來各國各地都有共鳴回應，甚至受到過度的評價，抬高為新一輪社會改革運動。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb% K; W! v! K' D. U' Q+ I

% d. U+ J( {$ {3 h; G8 k　佔領的這項行動，越過年關，過度到今年來，更是加深了這一年對抗的不良氣氛。
3 ?( {3 U3 i3 ]TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。
4 S/ q8 c1 x0 M" rtvb now,tvbnow,bttvb　佔領華爾街這項窮人向富人抗議的行動，是一名叫拉森的艾莎尼亞人的主意，他移居加拿大，辦雜誌也搞社會運動。去年，他把握了世界當前的經濟困境，技巧的煽動了苦悶的低入息或不得志的階層，向有錢人家抗議，指一切罪惡由華爾街搞出來的，于是掀起了佔領華爾街的民眾行動。3 _: H. F$ t; F; n/ S7 g

) S/ D6 ~  h8 m/ w0 n9 t8 X' N　佔領行動，掌握了大眾情緒，而且口號是1%人佔據99%的財富，我們是99%的窮人。5.39.217.760 A+ q5 l& K: n% B! X1 _/ L9 k0 v
公仔箱論壇, M7 q3 |  h& T# f
　這口號很煽情，誰要是說99%是窮人這話說錯了，都會受到圍攻和毒罵。我們是99%的窮人這句製造出來的口號，在誰也不敢說不對的情況下，在全世界正當化了，好像這世界真是1%人有錢，99%人挨窮。
8 I3 @8 A7 t( L( V) Z% U5.39.217.76 tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb* o2 C7 {  ~- q
　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。TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。  \4 r9 \) U2 P
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb( F9 o9 T8 ?* C
　再說，美國或任何國家，都不存在國民99%全是窮人的情況。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb$ L; V! T+ U+ Y4 `/ @: v

/ p: G+ w  F8 p3 ?" ^" @$ l/ B5.39.217.76　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。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb6 g; H/ Q9 z" x3 g! J' b

$ F0 D  D, W0 P- K0 l' kTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。　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。

felicity2010

9 W5 [$ O) f7 x4 Q8 ~: w5.39.217.76
1 D  [8 x0 f. M# b6 R/ X: F  i公仔箱論壇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:5.39.217.763 L9 Q* ~0 P' _' {1 }6 L
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
& O* x/ M% N2 J7 x. z公仔箱論壇 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。9 t2 ~' \; K5 @
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.. a( M. u+ }. l" y
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!公仔箱論壇/ x, y- x# m7 u2 a% g
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. 5.39.217.76$ O) G- K5 W& ]; r
6. Maggie Thatcher: Socialism fails when it runs out of other people’s money!TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。/ T4 a" m2 ^; ]( }% Y1 z

& `% y: v' Y2 y. N  @% p9 V" m5.39.217.76A 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