You're actually right, apples. I have a relative high up in the European Commission, and he always joked when we talked about Khadafi, saying "Nah, he's a good guy, now, we get along". Guess he wasn't good enough
The difference is that this is inserted in a context. All hell is breaking loose in North Africa. If they (NATO, UN, whatever you wanna insert here) allow soldiers to start killing civilians indiscriminately, it could trigger a chain reaction that'll be hard to stop. I have no doubt that if this was happening in Algeria, we'd see an intervention as well (and they don't really have oil).
But this is just speculation, as none of us really knows anything.
^^Mate, seriously....you are completely and utterly wrong. All you have to do is look south of your borders. Look at Central and South America. Look at the percentage of those populations that are fully native or part native. Any European nation would've done it? Sure. That's why North American natives are almost gone, while in places like, say, Brazil (a former colony of my own country), you can walk in any city and see a ton of people with native heritage. You can't just write walls of text about something of which you know nothing.
Yet Britain and France has done a far poorer job of integrating their immigrant population than the U.S. has.
That's because the US has (almost) always needed more manpower, it was big country with few people in it (except for the natives, but we all know that story). Europe's been filled to the brim for a long, long time, now, so yes, I think accepting so many immigrants from some countries/regions has a lot to do with guilt.
And I don't think this failure has anything to do with the degree of guilt we feel toward Central America. Maybe I missed your point. I don't know.
That's what I'm saying, you DON'T feel that guilt (in my opinion). Whether that's a good or a bad sign, I'll leave up to you (and others). But, for example, I don't think you feel any guilt towards Native americans. And they're barely around, anymore...
I was not attacking the United States in any way. European countries obviously done it as well, but that's also why a lot of countries have especially lenient immigration laws towards certain countries, like the UK towards India and Pakistan, or Portugal towards former African colonies (and, to a lesser extent, Brazil). In the case of the U.S., I would argue that it meddled a lot in Central/South American national politics during the 20th century, for example.
If your minimum wage is high, business people just won't be able to do anything about creation of new job places
Won't be able to, or won't want to? Big difference. You really think they'll go out of business if they pay their employees more? Yeah, sure, if you're a very small business, that might be true. You think Walmart'll go out of business if they pay their employees good wages? (the current ones are unbelievable...)
I'm just a hardcore realist (opposed to being an idealist). I think making the cake bigger is a better goal opposed to making sure that everyone has an equally sized slice -- when there is more cake to go around, everyone gets a bigger slice naturally.
That is absolute and utter bollocks. It is because you're talking about things from a GDP standpoint, while I'm talking about inequalities. Speaking about the U.S., as an example: its GDP has been going up tremendously throughout the last decades, but the inequalities have not gone down, on the contrary: they have increased. And the tendency is for it to continue that way. Less and less people controlling more and more of the money. It's a bigger cake, in general, but it's mostly gobbled up by a handful of people.
That's exactly his point though. If YOU get out of the lowest 10%, someone HAS to fall down below you. If everyone in a country is placed on a list, ranking from richest to poorest, then if you go up from 43,003 to 43,002, then whoever was in place 43,002 will not be in 43,003. You will always have a 10% poorest.
Yeah, of course there's always going to be a 'ranking' of sorts. The problem is that right now it sucks major nuts to be on the bottom half of the ranking. And not in relative terms...in absolute terms. If you equate not being able to feed your kids to not having a private spaceship, that's your problem.
This gap can be large or small, and moving it in either direction brings with it certain problems. Too large a gap and you create inequality and a privileged elite. Make it too small, for example through higher minimum wages, and you remove potential jobs, because it will cost too much to hire people.
Cost too much? Yeah, maybe for very small businesses, but they're not the problem. The problem is the people that already make a million euros a month, but nonetheless fire people because "it costs too much". Who the fuck cares? I think you can afford to make, let's say, 800.000 euros a month instead, and keep those jobs. That's the problem. People don't care a rat's arse.
Yeah, but you're talking about it from an individual perspective, as in "I got out of that 10% poorest, so screw everyone else". Plus, you're only talking about the most developed countries. Most of the people on this planet are piss poor, and that's not relative. Your solution to that is "get educated, so you can swap places with someone that is not poor". To me, the problem is one of paradigm. Your entire way of thinking was shaped by decades upon decades of a heartless plutocratic philosophy that has been king in most of the western hemisphere. Until people (all people) don't realise that it's NOT ok for some people to make tens and hundreds and thousands of millions (not billions, nobody has REAL billions, there are no billionaires) while most of the world starves to death, then you're right, we'll always have people that don't have the most basic dignity.