Blaming poverty on the poor...

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Blaming poverty on the poor...

Post #1

Post by 2ndRateMind »

Fact is, there is just so much money in the world. The more of it you have, the less there is for everyone else. The absolutely poor (2 billion people on an income less than $1.25 per day) are the victims of the economic system, not the architects of it. That privilege is the preserve of the rich west. I think we should change the status quo.

Do you?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Blaming poverty on the poor...

Post #11

Post by Bust Nak »

bluethread wrote: Fair enough, as long as one realizes that when the government does it, it requires extorting the funds from the public, which creates many externalities. Personal and/or community based voluntary charity is the best.
The best for what purpose / under what criteria?
One the other hand, the socialist wealthy expect to stave off critical mass by extorting the funds from the populous and distributing them according to their own personal value systems.
Which means it is the best according to said value system.
It increases the eventual flow to critical mass, because it breeds resentment on the part of the paying populous...
As opposed to resentment against the rich?
undermines the pressure on the poor to innovate...
Earning just enough to start paying tax is still a better quality of living than living off wellfare. Surely you underestimate human determination to advance.
and even breeds resentment among the poor, as the largess given to them is not according to their personal value systems.
That depends on how different their personal value systems is from the socialist elite's systems.
This is felt most acutely by the poor who do innovate, because they see the confiscation of their wealth should they advance, largess if they regress, and their personal value systems ignored, if not undermined, in either case. This causes the economy to slow as the productive poor decrease and the nonproductive poor increase.
How often do you think people would settle for the bare minimum verse working for a bit higher standard of living? Sure there will be the lazy who exploit our generosity, but the safety net is worth it.
Therefore, the best solution is for social welfare to be handled by individuals or local communities using their own funds in accordance with their own values systems.
Resulting in instances where food banks that discriminate against certain minorities, that is very much against my value system.

TSGracchus
Scholar
Posts: 345
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:06 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #12

Post by TSGracchus »

The inevitable result of unrestricted capitalism is the concentration of wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. This means more and more of the population falls into poverty. The capitalist does not work for his money, his money works for him. He bribes judges and legislatures to ensure that the laws favor his interests. Environmental and social damage is ignored in the pursuit of profit. Force is used against those who oppose the system whether these be foreign or domestic "enemies". As wealth becomes ever more concentrated, war and insurrection become permanent.
This is not "just theory". To be sure, theory explains the phenomenon, but it is observable fact.
When the wealth becomes too concentrated, social instability leads to a breakdown of the system, and the royals go to the guillotine or meet their fates in a dark cellar. This "revolution" almost never leads to lasting reform.
It is one function of government to stabilize society by regulating the drift to extremes of wealth and poverty. This can be done by a system of progressive taxation and a forced redistribution of wealth.

:study:

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Post #13

Post by shnarkle »

bluethread wrote: Your premise is incorrect. There is not a limited amount of money in the world. There may be a limited amount of a given form of currency or of a commodity. However, money is anything one can use as a means of exchange. Anything can be money, therefore, there can not be a limited amount of it.
You're conflating money with currency. Currency is a medium of exchange. It must be portable, durable, divisible and fungible. Money is all of those things as well, but money is also a store of value over a long period of time.

There can be an unlimited amount of currency which will make it essentially worthless as a medium of exchange.

Post Reply