there will be poor always, pathetically suffering

[GreecePwns]

A little late to this party, but

[Army of GOD]

ITT: huamulan attempts to impose his own morality on others

[pmchugh]

Communism anyone?

Communism as westerners imagine it is just socialism, which is another theory on the best way of farming humans, maximizing their productive capacity and taking their resources. Westerners don't include the destruction of the state itself within the vocabulary of communism.

Intellectually dull, lumpenproletariat slogans like "Tax the Rich" is a three word description of the seizure of resources by one group to maximize the food access and breeding opportunities of a second. The poor are predators, too, just unsuccesfull ones. The Brazilian man, Cosmo, is no more morally pure than Bernie Madoff, he's just weaker. Giving him Madoff's chain mail and sword does not result in a net increase of good.

Whatever you think of some communistic adaptations or implementations you must admit the general underpinning concepts of "Communism" (inb4 someone dictionaries me) have a far greater chance of removing the poor in society than capitalism. Assuming that here we mean poor in a relative sense to other humans within the society.

I think it unlikely this would work in practice but it is at least possible, which I do not think it is in capitalism.

[saxitoxin]

Communism anyone?

Communism as westerners imagine it is just socialism, which is another theory on the best way of farming humans, maximizing their productive capacity and taking their resources. Westerners don't include the destruction of the state itself within the vocabulary of communism.

Intellectually dull, lumpenproletariat slogans like "Tax the Rich" is a three word description of the seizure of resources by one group to maximize the food access and breeding opportunities of a second. The poor are predators, too, just unsuccesfull ones. The Brazilian man, Cosmo, is no more morally pure than Bernie Madoff, he's just weaker. Giving him Madoff's chain mail and sword does not result in a net increase of good.

Whatever you think of some communistic adaptations or implementations you must admit the general underpinning concepts of "Communism" (inb4 someone dictionaries me) have a far greater chance of removing the poor in society than capitalism.

So, in a communist state, Cosmo the Brazilian bartender could spend $100 per month on cologne and have four children and not fall into poverty? Could he spend $1000 per month on cologne and have ten children and not be poor?

[pmchugh]

Communism anyone?

Communism as westerners imagine it is just socialism, which is another theory on the best way of farming humans, maximizing their productive capacity and taking their resources. Westerners don't include the destruction of the state itself within the vocabulary of communism.

Intellectually dull, lumpenproletariat slogans like "Tax the Rich" is a three word description of the seizure of resources by one group to maximize the food access and breeding opportunities of a second. The poor are predators, too, just unsuccesfull ones. The Brazilian man, Cosmo, is no more morally pure than Bernie Madoff, he's just weaker. Giving him Madoff's chain mail and sword does not result in a net increase of good.

Whatever you think of some communistic adaptations or implementations you must admit the general underpinning concepts of "Communism" (inb4 someone dictionaries me) have a far greater chance of removing the poor in society than capitalism.

So, in a communist state, Cosmo the Brazilian bartender could spend $100 per month on cologne and have four children and not fall into poverty? Could he spend $1000 per month on cologne and have ten children and not be poor?

He'd be rich in cologne... which is what he wants to spend his money on.

[huamulan]

I'm not attempting to impose my values on anyone. I'm just explaining why there will always be poor people. It is because 99.99% of people feel that it is acceptable for some individuals to hold more wealth than others - this 99.99% will, therefore, not see anything wrong with the existence of inequality. And so will make no attempt to strive for equality.

[huamulan]

Stalin: this thread is about material inequality (hence 'there will always be poor...'), not inequality in level of skill or inequality in level of mortal peril. I was talking specifically about material inequality.

You have quite definitely stated that you think asking for money after rescuing someone would be fair. To quote: 'rescue operations are risky and do deserve some form of compensation'. Maybe you aren't asking the person you rescued for money, but you're asking someone to pay you.

[Phatscotty]

"I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observe that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

—Benjamin Franklin

[huamulan]

Taking Western Europe as an example: someone from a Western European country who 'doesn't give a f*ck about anything' is still guaranteed a personal wealth above the global average (automatically given by their Government). On the other hand, there are plenty of people in DR Congo who very much do give a f*ck yet still have a personal wealth significantly below the global average.

Lack of motivation does not correlate with relative level of wealth.

Edited: Phatscotty originally said that there will always be people who don't give a f*ck about anything, and that those people will most likely end up poor. This is what I was replying to.

[saxitoxin]

You have quite definitely stated that you think asking for money after rescuing someone would be fair. To quote: 'rescue operations are risky and do deserve some form of compensation'. Maybe you aren't asking the person you rescued for money, but you're asking someone to pay you.

In Europe you have to pay to be rescued if you're stranded in the Alps, while in the U.S. the government provides free, universal rescue to those stranded in the Rockies without regard to income ( http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 21,00.html).

The European system is probably more pragmatic. (Someone ultimately has to pay- the fuel, equipment and spare parts don't just magically appear.) As a result, Europe has higher quality rescue services using modern Eurocopters with no waiting while the U.S. rescue services often operate vintage UH-1s and can take longer to provide aid.

Should there be high quality rescue services but guided by brutal capitalism like in Europe, or low quality rescue services with long queues and delays but guided by compassion as in US?

[huamulan]

I wasn't intending to launch a debate on the ethics of search and rescue missions.

Would you care to consider secret option C: leave them in the jungle until they've chewed their own leg off, hoping that they have an epiphany? Our careless adventurer might find that some isolation and the chance to reflect on their lifestyle brings all manner of spiritual bounty (forty days in the desert certainly seemed to give Jesus a buzz).

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Communism anyone?

Communism as westerners imagine it is just socialism, which is another theory on the best way of farming humans, maximizing their productive capacity and taking their resources. Westerners don't include the destruction of the state itself within the vocabulary of communism.

Intellectually dull, lumpenproletariat slogans like "Tax the Rich" is a three word description of the seizure of resources by one group to maximize the food access and breeding opportunities of a second. The poor are predators, too, just unsuccesfull ones. The Brazilian man, Cosmo, is no more morally pure than Bernie Madoff, he's just weaker. Giving him Madoff's chain mail and sword does not result in a net increase of good.

Whatever you think of some communistic adaptations or implementations you must admit the general underpinning concepts of "Communism" (inb4 someone dictionaries me) have a far greater chance of removing the poor in society than capitalism.

So, in a communist state, Cosmo the Brazilian bartender could spend $100 per month on cologne and have four children and not fall into poverty? Could he spend $1000 per month on cologne and have ten children and not be poor?

He'd be rich in cologne... which is what he wants to spend his money on.

So... he would be partaking of a system where a person can spend their money how they want? Wouldn't that be, like, capitalism or something?

It is because 99.99% of people feel that it is acceptable for some individuals to hold more wealth than others - this 99.99% will, therefore, not see anything wrong with the existence of inequality.

That seems to be the norm among any species.

-TG

[Lootifer]

I voted yes; but I firmly believe nature can be overcome

Obviously this is a religion, then ... a belief in the supernatural guided by faith. This is a non-deity based religion (like Buddhism) without a clergy (like Mormonism), but a religion.

No offense, but atheists are a slighlty bigger joke than theists. The religious nuts at least acknowledge their delusion at some level.

Im not an athiest

[saxitoxin]

I voted yes; but I firmly believe nature can be overcome

Obviously this is a religion, then ... a belief in the supernatural guided by faith. This is a non-deity based religion (like Buddhism) without a clergy (like Mormonism), but a religion.

No offense, but atheists are a slighlty bigger joke than theists. The religious nuts at least acknowledge their delusion at some level.

Im not an athiest

YOU SURE SEEM LIKE ONE, NANCY.

[BigBallinStalin]

Stalin: this thread is about material inequality (hence 'there will always be poor...'), not inequality in level of skill or inequality in level of mortal peril. I was talking specifically about material inequality.

So, how would you explain the discrepancy across groups regarding materials, or more accurately, goods?

You can't just point to differences in goods between groups of people and damn inequality at face value. The causes matter.

You have quite definitely stated that you think asking for money after rescuing someone would be fair. To quote: 'rescue operations are risky and do deserve some form of compensation'. Maybe you aren't asking the person you rescued for money, but you're asking someone to pay you.

"Some form of compensation" can include money, nice shoes, a hug, or even patting oneself on the back. I'm not asking anyone to pay anyone; I'm just saying that the act of rescuing someone deserves some form of compensation. In short, I favor "just deserts." Some people don't.

As to what form of compensation should be given, that's an issue ideally settled by independent judges, through private orderings, or in courts through common/tort law, as this would be more in tune with the preferences of a community. (Notice, I'm advocating a more spontaneous order approach, and not a centrally planned approach, which is a method favored by some egalitarians).

[BigBallinStalin]

You have quite definitely stated that you think asking for money after rescuing someone would be fair. To quote: 'rescue operations are risky and do deserve some form of compensation'. Maybe you aren't asking the person you rescued for money, but you're asking someone to pay you.

In Europe you have to pay to be rescued if you're stranded in the Alps, while in the U.S. the government provides free, universal rescue to those stranded in the Rockies without regard to income ( http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 21,00.html).

The European system is probably more pragmatic. (Someone ultimately has to pay- the fuel, equipment and spare parts don't just magically appear.) As a result, Europe has higher quality rescue services using modern Eurocopters with no waiting while the U.S. rescue services often operate vintage UH-1s and can take longer to provide aid.

Should there be high quality rescue services but guided by brutal capitalism like in Europe, or low quality rescue services with long queues and delays but guided by compassion as in US?

bumped.


Saxitoxin mentions one of the ultimate trade-offs between production in the market or through the government.

[huamulan]

Like I said. The main reason inequality exists is because most people are happy to live in wealth while other people stay poor.

Go to any truly poor country. You can wander around the capital city and buy $60 shirts from a clean and modern shopping center. You can then drive to a poor, rural district and meet people whose yearly income is no more than $300. I have a friend (in another country) whose brother died because his family could not find the $200 they needed for life-saving medical care. Their president has stayed in hotels that cost more than that per night.

As I said before, it's a simple question: would you be happy to pool your wealth with the wealth of a Sudanese farmer and split the pot equally? No. I wouldn't either. Almost no one wants their living standard to drop. Forget the farmer: there are people on this forum who would not be prepared to pay slightly higher taxes in order to provide health care for their fellow countrymen.

Poverty will continue to exist for as long as people horde resources in this manner. Which is the foreseeable future.

[Lootifer]

bumped.


Saxitoxin mentions one of the ultimate trade-offs between production in the market or through the government.

Whats the rush?

[BigBallinStalin]

bumped.


Saxitoxin mentions one of the ultimate trade-offs between production in the market or through the government.

Whats the rush?

Decreased interest rates from their natural rate via government monopoly on the nation's currency. ....

Before I continue, are you implying that investment in production is growing too rapidly? What'dya mean, you Kiwi of Bi-Cycle Steel?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Poverty will continue to exist for as long as people horde resources in this manner. Which is the foreseeable future.

How do you get this conclusion?

I can envision many scenarios in which (absolute) poverty is eradicated without the fundamental change in human nature that you are proposing. A couple of them have already been mentioned in this thread.

[BigBallinStalin]

Like I said. The main reason inequality exists is because most people are happy to live in wealth while other people stay poor.

Go to any truly poor country. You can wander around the capital city and buy $60 shirts from a clean and modern shopping center. You can then drive to a poor, rural district and meet people whose yearly income is no more than $300. I have a friend (in another country) whose brother died because his family could not find the $200 they needed for life-saving medical care. Their president has stayed in hotels that cost more than that per night.

As I said before, it's a simple question: would you be happy to pool your wealth with the wealth of a Sudanese farmer and split the pot equally? No. I wouldn't either. Almost no one wants their living standard to drop. Forget the farmer: there are people on this forum who would not be prepared to pay slightly higher taxes in order to provide health care for their fellow countrymen.

Poverty will continue to exist for as long as people horde resources in this manner. Which is the foreseeable future.

I'll recommend to you one book: White Man's Burden.

A former World Bank employee explains how all these efforts to solve poverty (or inequality in wealth) failed miserably.

Why does the wealth of nations differ? It's a problem of institutions--especially political institutions being mismatched with social institutions, thus creating perverse or inefficient economic institutions. The process can be self-reinforcing, thus difficult to absolve.

That's one side of the story. I could write a general paper on this, but I'll stop there.

...

So far, with my posts, especially my previous one, do you understanding where I'm coming from? Do you see how my positions syncs yet differs from yours? At this point, we can clarify our stances if you'd like.

[huamulan]

As far as I can tell you're talking about 'the markets vs. central planning'. Am I right?

Isn't your debate more relevant to the quality of services than it is to the eradication of poverty? People paying for more expensive rescue helicopters are giving money to receive a service. People giving their wealth to the impoverished are giving money and receiving nothing.

[saxitoxin]

People paying for more expensive rescue helicopters are giving money to receive a service. People giving their wealth to the impoverished are giving money and receiving nothing.

It's the same thing. In the helicopter example, Americans who pay more taxes (the wealthy) are giving their wealth (or, rather, having it taken from them) so the impoverished can receive free, universal rescue services. Whereas, in Europe, everyone has to pay for their own rescues, even if they're poor.

The European system produces better results but is less compassionate. The U.S. system ends up with more people abandoned on mountaintops because they can't get the right equipment there on time - or it's broken or out-of-date - but everyone feels better about themselves (except the people abandoned on the summit of Petit Grepon).

[GreecePwns]

Odds are if you want your life to be rescued, you're willing to pay for it to be rescued.

[saxitoxin]

Odds are if you want your life to be rescued, you're willing to pay for it to be rescued.

What about people who need to be rescued from terminal cancer?