But as I'm sure you noticed, clever person that you are Coleman, my main point was "But, you saying the objective of the American system is to produce an underclass is just BS." Perhaps you could defend that, in the context I laid out, as the intention of Americans or their policies is to produce an underclass (please refer to original post), without resorting to archives.
don't have time to respond right now to the meat of that comment,
See that bit? Means I don't have time right now. I will do.
The site doesn't exist for half a year, idiot. You could have checked just about any thread on domestic or EU issues for criticism of EU leaders. Recent threads touching on European poverty include the one on the EU Commission's hilarious call for a decrease of wages to increase GDP growth, and threads on Poland or Hungary.
And yes, the American economic system has the production and maintainance of an underclass as a central part, always had. Be them slaves or 'illegal' immigrants, hired harvesters or members of the new service class. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
No, intention would mean that the poverty was the deliberate goal. The goal is wealth. The policies that are enacted to produce wealth inevitably produce poverty. The poverty is more than a mere side-effect, it is beneficial to their goal. These policies are enacted and sold to the public without mentioning the poverty creation aspect. So, pushing a system that creates a symbiotic relationship between poverty and wealth and ignoring or denying the poverty outcome is perhaps not the intention or sole intention, but it is very close to fitting the accusation. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
I'm not sure the relationship is that innocent. but I have to marshall my thoughts after wading through the rest of this epic and excellent thread. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
