freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2026 at 10:28am:


The point is the trend.

In 1980, the Western world had high consumption levels and  poverty rates c.10-20%, without the increasing extremes in wealth evident today, whereas in 1980, with China's population soon to reach 1 billion people, extreme povery affected over 90% of the population:

(google)

In 1980, China's average income varied by sector, with rural per capita net income around 155 to 191 yuan (c. 2 USD) while GDP per capita was approximately $195 USD, reflecting a largely agrarian economy just beginning its market reforms under Deng Xiaoping, a stark contrast to later decades.

Today Western  nations still typically have poverty rates c. 5-10% (but with unaffordable housing for average wage earners in Oz), while in China the poverty rate has decreased from 90% to around 17% today.

(google)

China has drastically reduced extreme poverty, declaring rural extreme poverty eliminated by its official $2.30/day (2017 PPP) standard in 2021, though using higher World Bank lines reveals lingering poverty, with around 17% below $6.85/day (2017 PPP) in 2021

Which nation is likely to reach common prosperity sooner - Oz (or the US) or China?

Let's have a look in a decade, the answer should be clearer by then. 


 

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2026 at 2:10pm:


Wrong on both counts, poverty is decreasing at a faster rate in China than in the West, while Jobseeker payment is increasingly sinking below the poverty-line in Oz, so any comparison with the mean wage in China is irrelevant - which IS the point.

Meanwhile, given the thread's topic, you refuse to discuss the tension between individual and universal 'rights', demonstrating your mental incompetence. 

fyi:

1. 'rights' don't exist except as defined in law.

2. eg, the'right' to pursue happiness (preamble to the US Constitution) is little more than a desire possesed by all individuals; personal desires aren't 'rights'. 

3 The UN Universal Declaration of Human (ie the collective) Rights envisions and defines the conditions required for peace and prosperity for all.

3. 'Communism' was born out of a desire for a better life for all, amid the social injustices of the Industrial Revolution.

You can discuss all these propostions, or confirm your mental incompetence to address these fundamental issues underlying the impetus to international law.    

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2026 at 1:02pm:


Your mental incompetence confirmed; you can't  discuss international law even when a discussion plan is laid out for you.

Deplorable. 

For 200 years, US law ruled South America.
'The Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed by U.S. President James Monroe in 1823, was a foundational U.S. foreign policy warning European powers against further colonization or interference in the Americas, asserting the Western Hemisphere's separate sphere of influence, while the U.S. pledged not to meddle in European affairs, establishing a policy of non-intervention and a principle of distinct New World and Old World political systems. It declared the Americas closed to new European colonies and viewed any such attempts as hostile acts, becoming a cornerstone of American strategy for asserting dominance in the hemisphere.'

It has moved forward to real US colonies with Cuba, Colombia and Mexico next in line.  The police are the Pentagon and the judge is Mr President.

"I thought it was very rude and disrespectful," Trump told reporters before leaving. "None of the other speeches people gave were funny at all, quite frankly. They should be ashamed of their speeches. My speech was very funny. Probably the funniest speech ever given here at Davos, from what people are saying. It really was something. All of the smart people were laughing. The leaders who laughed will be rewarded, but the people who didn't laugh will pay a heavy price, believe me. America will remember."

Trump's speech, which interlaced clever humor with scathing attacks against European leaders, made the rounds on social media, drawing a mixture of praise and criticism. The White House later made it clear that refusal to laugh would bring consequences. "The president is seeing who his allies are," said Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. "Nations with leaders who are not willing to laugh at perfectly delivered jokes will learn an important lesson."

At publishing time, Trump had stated that seizing any territory controlled by leaders who didn't laugh at his jokes was vital to the U.S.'s national security.