Tag Archives: köyhyys

Forming Motions out of Tabloid Billboards


Viikko 27


Tällä viikolla tarkoitus on ensimmäistä kertaa harjoitella aloitteiden tekoa jonkin muun kuin sähköisten mallien ja internetin avustuksella, siltä varalta että sähköä ei ole saatavilla. Olen valinnut tarkoitusta varten analogiajan ikonin: lööpin. Lööpeistä saa ”nopeaa energiaa”; niiden sanamäärä on tunnetusti rajallinen (1 päälause tai lauseke) mutta aihemäärä melko rajaton ja yhteiseksi oletetun tiedon määrä suuri. Väittelyissä yhteiseksi oletetusta voi sitten laajentaa omaan erityisempään tietoon.

Ensimmäinen lööppi on satunnaisesti valittu arkistolööppi tältä vuosikymmeneltä:

Tämän lööpin aihemäärästä olisi tarjoitus pystyä muovaamaan ainakin 2 motionia, koska edellisessä postauksessa se määrä (2) olisi yleisöltä saatava. Lisäksi kaikista otsikoista ei hyvälläkään tahdolla voi saada järkevää motionia aikaiseksi (esim. yksittäisestä kuolinuutisesta).

Kokeillaan ensimmäiseksi otsaketta ”Ei varaa edes jäätelöön — köyhät perheet kertovat kesistään”. Tästä voisi kokeilla tehdä motionit

  • THW raise social welfare subsidies for the summer
  • THB that Finns ruin their health by their excessive ice-cream habit

Kokeillaan toiseksi otsaketta ”Näin lääkärit väistelevät palkkaveroa”. Tästä voisi kokeilla tehdä motionit

  • THW mandate GPs to serve 8 years at the NHS or other public surgery before a private clinic
  • THB that tax progression should form a curve like the letter V when it comes to income tax
  • THB that tax progression should follow the shape of one of the letters on the issue of taxation

Ja viimeisenä otsikko ”Asiantuntija varoittaa riskeistä: syötkö sinäkin liikaa lihaa?” Tästä tulisi motionit

  • THB that people should eat less beef and pork (i.e. red meat)
  • THW make eaten berries, fruit and vegetables free from VAT/tax-deductible

Minkä motionin puolesta itse äänestäisin käsiäänestyksessä, väittelyyn ottamista varten?
Ottaisin joko vaihtoehdon 1, 4 tai 7. Niissä on kaikissa hieman epäortodoksista tai anomaalista yhteiskunnallista ajattelua taustalla, ja siksi niistä voisi sukeutua kiintoisia väittelyitä.


Not Five a Day But for a Fiver a Day


Viikko 27

: THB that the underclass can’t be taught how to cook meals
Role: Rep. (opp.)

People are today somehow anxiously ambivalent about food. Some would like us to believe that the food industry forces such nosh down our throats we don’t like, suffer from and fall ill with. This is an erroneous assumption. Good eating is just a few decisions, determinations and insights away.

First of all, I would spend some time with the person who wants to change his or her eating habits, eking it out on a small allowance, benefit or pension. I would first try to figure out how much that person is spending on nutrition all things summed up, counting in such consumables as alcohol, crisps, dinners in front of the TV, microwave meals, peanuts, popcorn, snuff, tobacco and so on, not forgetting anything that passes for foodstuffs or secondary digestibles. That way, a budget could be set at an expendable sum of money. We could spend together, as a mentor and a protegé, the same amount on sane, sound and healthy eating as on insane, depraved and vain eating.

(A footnote to this is if we could and should also count medicine into the equation. It would be tempting, as medicinal expenditure could raise the budget considerably due to its costliness in some people’s cases. Besides, it’s swallowed and ingested usually as pills. Nonetheless, I’ve decided to exclude medicine from this discussion, as it has no nutritional value and no calories.)

The key is to spend money on things that are as close to the primary-production chain as possible. I would shun any food that comes from a factory, as a rule of thumb. I would allow, though, spice, condiments and prefab sauces, and such things that are a necessary aid in cooking food and preparing meals. Even then, I’d keep an eye on the (E) numbers listed on the tin (i.e. food additives). I would not buy anything supplementary that has more than 5 (E) numbers blended in.

Then, I would come to an understanding with my protegé about what kind of food (s)he likes to eat that is easy to have as a platform for making food in a hurry, disorganised, from ingredients shelved and fresh. It could be cold or warm when served, as long as it was a kind of tuttifrutti dish that tolerates many flavours to add, methods to use and end results to achieve without becoming inedible.

The main thing would be to steer clear of a diet that is high in fats, salts and sugars. They are added to TV dinners and micromeals, mainly because they are chemical substances that are a) cheap to produce, b) preservatives in their own right and c) appealing to our central nervous systems and Stone Age brain circuits. They are the means of food manufacturers and marketers by which they got the upper hand in supermarkets, conquering people’s fridges and freezers and getting into the business in the first place. Without these ambivalent ingredients, factory-food manufacturers wouldn’t be in business, as their wares would be too expensive to produce with too small a profit margin.

Food is like culture, education and friends. They all should be raw, unadulterated and inexpensive. If kept organic and/or natural, food will nurture us and keep us healthy and sanguine. For this reason, it is absurd to claim that a poor person cannot afford to eat on a healthy diet. On the contrary, a poor person can’t afford not to, because (s)he will still have to fulfil other missions and needs besides eating.

Arvio: Puheen lineaarinen rakenne sisältää johdonmukaisen etenemisen ja yhden kolmen kohdan kiteytyksen ilman väliotsikoita. Jos aiemmat puhujat ovat keskittyneet aloitteen avainsanaan ”alaluokka”, ”alaluokan jäsenet”; teen työni hyvin, jos puolestani keskityn avainkohtaan ”valmistaa ruokaa” / ”kokata”.

Leftist Levy Won’t Break


Viikko 24


Date: Apr 4th, 2013
: THW have dividends doled out of private and holding companies taxfree for the duration of one year 
Role: Rep. (opp.)

The Cause and Effect of Taxation

The government wants to give tax breaks to those who want quick cash as capital income from their holding companies and family-operated LLCs.

We have to remember that in this situation…. our duties are…. (pun intended)…. varied and multiple. We have to take care of our young, handicapped, retarded and old, while oiling at the same time the machine that takes care of these people and their needs.

Giving cheap money on the cheap to money-grabbers won’t help the system or the machine. No amount of tax-exempt money will benefit the needy, because they don’t — generally speaking — supply goods or services to the very rich. What a tax reform would amount to would be a pay-day for the piggy-bank-hoarding giga-rich and other well-off people.

Why is this so? It is like this, because at the present money is being shovelled onto and past the sidelines beyond taxation and consumption. This money, if it isn’t taxed at the source or en route of transfer, won’t be taxed in consumption either, because it is not consumed but stashed. None of this money will benefit anyone, save for the marginal banking fees some tiny-nation island banks collect, in return for stashing this money away.

Mechanization and globalization take care of two things:
a) Unemployment will rise and b) Those who are well off will do nothing to solve that problem. It is up to those who have fiscal or financial money to solve dilemmas that bear on employment. Fiscal money is money with a Conscience. Cheap dividends, to the contrary, mainly benefit the private purses or briefcases of individuals; and in some cases, institutions, when they act as stakeholders. That is money without a conscience.

Triple Glazing
What taxation in this country is alike is triple glazing. Namely, money is taxed a) when it being created, b) when it is being transferred and c) when it is being spent. Thanks to this triple-pane window principle, we have our Nordic socially oriented Welfare system that we would like to keep and maintain. What the Government tries to do is make the glazing thinner for those, who own property, shares, stock and the like (capital income) — but the problem is that a window is and should be — transparent. We don’t need dim, dirty, obscure windows. We need standard translucent windows as taxpayers and recipients and beneficiaries of the thankful effects of fiscal money. Even rich people benefit from tax money; they just don’t want to encourage others’ acknowledging that, as they want to make it understood that they are self-made and that they made their own Fortunes (in two senses of the word; ¹ fate and ² lucre), while in fact it was their family who made that fortune decades or centuries ago, with the help of a slew of other families.

Tax cuts to the mega-rich? No thanks. Medium taxation for everyone, or high taxation for everyone. That’s how fair, transparent money systems of merit and credit are built.

Arvio: Puhe tuntuu aluksi vähän lyhyeltä verrattuna joihinkin aikaisempiin puheisiini, mutta sen edetessä lauserytmi on niin ytimekästä, että täytelauseiden värkkääminen eteen tai taakse tuntuisi keinotekoiselta ja väkinäiseltä. Olkoon puhe siis tällainen, joka tiivistää vasemmistolaisen talouspolitiikan perushengen. Ainakin mielipide tulee selväksi.

Matter Triumphs Over Spirit


Viikko 14


Date: Apr 5th, 2017
Motion: THB that greed stands in the way of self-realization
Role: PM (gov.)

One may ask oneself why the world is in constant economic turmoil.

I think I’ve got the answer for that. The simple reason is that everyone is taking more and giving less. This happens across the board, and that’s why the world is in constant state of economic flux.

Let us take a closer look.

There are those who are able to achieve a Big Thing. When someone is able to do something unique, this world rewards the individual in question lavishly. Basically, (s)he can rake home however big a sum (s)he pleases. This is not even a question of age. The youngest self-made millionaires are barely out of their teens. This group of people includes but isn’t restricted to F1 drivers, star football players, start-up entrepreneurs who get the public’s attention (and money, in some cases), patent holders, TV hosts, big industry leaders, big service-industry leaders, chairmen of the board, CEOs, CFOs, CCOs, CTOs, actors, directors, producers, and so on, and so on. All of them contribute something valuable to the economy, but the contribution is often lopsided to the amount of money they make while they’re doing so. The worrisome aspect is not the money per se, as if it was somehow corruptive, but the fact that the incentive to improve and go on working for a living may have vanished after the initial success, as it has brought in so much money that working beyond that point would be futile as seen from a layman’s point of view.

Then there are those who are able to do Something. These people have a far lower profile in society, and they cannot usually be categorised as celebrities or even any kind of ”concealebrities”, as they usually make a lot less dough than the aforementioned and don’t get recognised by the media. A lot of times the earning power of these people is tied up to holding some kind of a coveted, prestigious degree. They may not be able to even do their work properly, but as they get a position holding that degree, the workplace coalesces around them, and then they can delegate the actual work to their underlings and bask in the warmth of having generated something ”together”. This group of people includes but isn’t restricted to administrators, principals, lawyers, doctors, middle management, clergymen (priests, ministers, bishops, archbishops), consultants, day traders, high-paid journalists, diplomats and so on, and so on. I’m not saying that they all are useless, but having hundreds of thousands of analysts and experts on a payroll with a salary is a very expensive business.

Finally, there are some (and it’s a growing number) who can do Nothing. These people have a varying background. Some come from well-off families but most come from working-class or underclass parents. These people blame just about everything in their lives (that is wrong) on society. That they’re fat is society’s fault. That they don’t know how to run a business is society’s fault. That they don’t have offspring is society’s fault. For all that, towards and until the end of their lives they will be dependent on social-security subsidies and transfers, such as a pension or unemployment benefit. Other taxpayers fund their way of life. The amount of money they get is paltry compared with what others get, but the point is that it extends very far in time and it has not been earned in any way. Because they live like that to the end of their lives, the sum total won’t be nearly as big as the sum total of what a well-off person has spent during one’s life, but it is still going to be something astonishing as a tally.

What unites people (unless they’re really really good, and really cool) is that they tend to take more than give. This is universal. This is ingrained. The sense of entitlement runs very deep through the marrow of Western Society. And it has also its counterparts in Russian, Indian, Arabic and Asian societies. If we have something to give, we tend to take fourfold. And why the heck do we do this?

Going after the Fat of the Land is sensible and understandable to some extent. People have needs. People’s families have needs. I understand and accept that people want to

  1. have a fast car (as it’s not merely aesthetic to look at but also convenient)
  2. throw a sumptuous wedding
  3. live in a villa on a hill (as it’s not merely convenient but also healthy)
  4. be able to fund all of their children’s education at a most expensive foreign university
  5. pay for their own funerals with the biggest tombstone and the most comfortable coffin

Many people, in any event, could pay for all of this after having earned about 10 million. Still, many more go out of their way to earn sums way above and beyond that kind of a sum.

Why, oh why?
There’s my question.

Arvio: Pääministeri lataa päälinjaukset pöytään tällä puheella. Jos ajatellaan, että hän puhuisi taloudellisesta näkökulmasta, tiimikaveri ja seuraava puhuja poliittisesta ja edustaja kenties psykologisesta, tämän puolen henkinen anti olisi aika lailla taputeltu. Puhe loppuu hienosti kysymykseen, joka hiillostaa molempia puolia eteenpäin.

Happiness Is a Warm Wallet


Viikko 44


Motion: THB that there is no limit to how happy money can make a person, even if (s)he had a lot of it already
Role: Secretary (opp.)

Money has become a sacred cow, literally, of our times. Recently, a research group declared that money is instrumental in raising happiness. In the following, I state why this is so, but why the state of things is also artificial, detrimental and false.

First of all, the result was reached in the USA by a male-dominated team, who are working within the confines of the contemporary world. We know that these days money dominates everything, unlike in the past when there were counterforces at play. If the research had been conducted by female-led teams during the Cold War in Europe, the results could (and most probably would) have looked very different if not the opposite. Namely, the USA is known to put emphasis on monetary values, males tend to be bullish about money, and today is greedy, vacuous and competitive. The research team was headed by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers at the University of Michigan.

Second, their team came to the conclusion and declaration that ”when the highest income class was $500,000+ a year, all respondents claimed that they were ’very happy’.” This is qualitative research, not quantitative, and even a single suicide among the highest earners might have revealed cracks in the armours of the bold and the rich; that not all was alive and well under the facade.

Namely, I can imagine why an income of over half a million a year brings happiness.
– The beneficiary can literally buy anything (s)he fancies in an ordinary store. Most items cost moderately, otherwise the poor couldn’t buy any of them.
– Because of wealth, any complaint others may have about the wealthy one will be aimed at things other than poverty, penury and misery. This would enhance one’s self-esteem.
– Thanks to a high income, the beneficiary may buy things such as guns, water, electricity generators, canned foods en masse and so on, giving an illusion of becoming emancipated from the intrusions in one’s life of the state, taxation and infrastructure. This kind of living can be practised at one’s summer or winter cabin, for example.

The latter reinforces a feeling of self-sufficiency and independence while helping to forget that usually most income-generation happens through the contributions of poor people. When the poor give their money to rich beneficiaries and through taxation to an infrastructure that enables all kinds of things, ”society” happens, as a matter of fact. Therefore, incomes of the highest orders of magnitude will just create a socio-cognitio-physical bubble that is especially contagious to the American mindset for entertaining a dream of a holistic rich independence. Elsewhere, it would be less appealing. Communist revolutions have happened everywhere else than on the North American continent. And it’s a matter of taste whether the Caribbean is part of North or Central America.

We, in Europe, have a more versatile perspective. Namely, one does not need €500K a year nor that warm bubble it creates to be and feel happy. The true sum is about a tithe of that, 50K. After that limit, our own talent, time and social relations with each other come to limit how we exist, interact and enjoy ourselves in this world. Our health, both mental and physical, is also affected by the lack of things of value other than money. No man is an island. The contrary caricature is the rich, AD/HD-riddled, autistic dilettante in any nation, North or South, East or West.

Puheen kesto: 5 min 5 sek
Arvio: * * ½. Puhe alkaa hyvin, mutta sitten se vajoaa omaan hieman vaikeasti avautuvaan ja tajuttavaan virtaansa. Erityisesti keskellä tehtävä koukkaaminen ns. tuomiopäivään varautuviin tyyppeihin on oikeastaan aiheesta harhautuminen tai aiheen vaihtaminen. Lopussa puhe taas paranee ja napakoituu. Lopputulos saa huonot pisteet mainitusta syystä, koska monet muut puheet ovat saaneet käänteisestä syystä hyviä pisteitä.