»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Interesting Margaret Thatcher Quote!
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Interesting Margaret Thatcher Quote! |
|
|
UniqueFreak Member
since 2004-01-09
Posts 62Scotland 
|
Hey i was reading some stuff from uni and came across this - "In the wolrd we now live in, divisions into class are meaningless. We are all working people now." - Margaret Thatcher, 1988. I find this quite bemusing. Even now, in the new millenium, there are still so much division and Differentiation between 'classes'. Althought they might not be as obvious or perhaps categorically apparent, class is still a big part in everyday life. I think its more ignored and because of a sense of arrogance from society, we try not to embrace the fact that as a society on a whole, there are still much to change etc. What confuses me more is that she said this in 1988, when surely there was a more obscure boundary between the classes in society?? And what does she mean by 'meaningless'?? I cant grasp her concept at all. Im not sure, i dont have any real knowledge on it to be quite honest, i was only alove for 3 years when she said this, so i cant really compare then to now, but i would like to know what everyone thinks. Stephanie |
||
| © Copyright 2004 Stephanie Hill - All Rights Reserved | |||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
hmmm... your name is kind of redundant isn't it? unique and freak are kind of synonyms. That has nothing to do with the post, just something I noticed. It makes your chosen name more "special" I guess.  your annoying pest, Stephen |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Stephanie, In Western Civilization over the last couple of hundred years the transformance from a totally classed system to a classless system has been under way. That doesn't mean that there isn't a division between the rich and poor. What it means is that being born rich or poor doesn't mean that a person IS rich or poor -- for life at least. We live in a mobile society now. A person can become wealthy, or poor, or just tread water. The really interesting thing is how this has changed the way that we think about poor people. When society was static the poor were termed 'unfortunates'. Particularly in America now the more common expression I think you would find would be 'loser'. This is indicative of the capitalist ethos and mindset of free market competition. Even in a mobile society though we do have to provide measures to ensure that unfortunates and losers do have a way up from the bottom, and that private wealth doesn't concentrate to the point that it becomes a drag on the mobility of the other 98% of society -- or become an undue influence on government and politics. Exactly where to draw that line is where the debate starts. The current statistics for the USA show that the divide between the wealthiest and poorest citizens is now more similar to a third world nation like Brazil than it is our Western cousins in Europe. But if you would ask most Americans they THINK they are middle class. Forgive a dumb yank... what does 'alove' mean? Or is it just a typo of 'alive'?  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: And this is a good thing? And while they may think that, I wonder how many think they've gotten a raw deal somewhere a long the way? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Not assigning any qualitative value to it right now Brad. It's just a function of the new Global Economy. The wealthiest countries will remain the wealthiest countries -- but the divide between the richest and poorest constituents of those sub-economies will deepen as the labor markets shift to the lowest cost producers of goods. It's an economic inevitability of free market thinking. How good is a free market? How good is a shrinking middle class? Is it better to be poor in America than poor in Mexico? Is it better to be middle class in China? Outsourcing has created this economy. High fuel prices are having another interesting effect in dampening further economic growth. What's the cause? Um... outsourcing. As our outsourcing of manufacturing and information technology jobs has created a boom in places like India and China -- it's also created a greater demand for energy in those places. It bites us twice. Is it a bad thing to have a growing middle class in India and China though? The USA has never been attacked by a nation with a McDonald's. Better question -- how many rich people think they've gotten a raw deal? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
"When society was static the poor were termed 'unfortunates'. Particularly in America now the more common expression I think you would find would be 'loser'.: My dad lives in a wealthy-ish suburb... it's funny, he worked in a factory his entire life and was born pretty low on the economic ladder... but I've hear him call poor people dogs and slime, and he recently told me that any apartment that costs you less than $700 a month is the slums (LOL). And so I simply take out loans for school without telling him and pretend I don't have any debt so he won't consider me slime. Just an example of how true that statement is. ". But if you would ask most Americans they THINK they are middle class." It's because of our credit system. I couldn't afford my schoolbooks... know what I did? Charged 'em. I'm also charging the repairs done on my car this week, and I also charge dinner or that cute outfit when I don't have the cash. Oh, and my internet connection? Automatically paid on my card. But I just figure that I'm in college and there's a light two years down this tunnel and when I graduate I can laugh about all this debt as I gleefully roll around in my piles and piles of money... that's it... I think we all have a light at the end of our credit-card and loan tunnel... whether or not it's a realistic light. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
