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.
Blaming poverty on the poor...
Moderator: Moderators
- 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
-
- 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 #11The best for what purpose / under what criteria?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.
Which means it is the best according to said value system.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.
As opposed to resentment against the rich?It increases the eventual flow to critical mass, because it breeds resentment on the part of the paying populous...
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.undermines the pressure on the poor to innovate...
That depends on how different their personal value systems is from the socialist elite's systems.and even breeds resentment among the poor, as the largess given to them is not according to their personal value systems.
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.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.
Resulting in instances where food banks that discriminate against certain minorities, that is very much against my value system.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.
-
- Scholar
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #12
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.
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.
Post #13
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.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.
There can be an unlimited amount of currency which will make it essentially worthless as a medium of exchange.