RE: The sting of poverty

RE: The sting of poverty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

seeksfemslave -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 6:11:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave those of a Left Wing view are at heart authoritarians tho' they certainly dont realise it. For example we must pay a fair days pay for a fair days work, things like that. I don't understand how paying a fair wage is authoritarian, or where massive government expenditure would come into it. A fair day's pay for a fair day's work means that taxpayers don't have to keep subsidizing crappy wages.. The reason is that you think that you know what a fair wage is when in fact you dont. There would be no agreement on the matter and to implement the policy would require massive govnt expenditure covering assessment and appeals. What for example is a fair wage for riveting a saucepan together in plants in say Mississippi and Minnesota? Add the complication of different family conditions requiring different levels of family income to remove the tax subsidies you complain about and I hope you see its a bit more difficult than you appear to think. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Alternatively what will be produced will have to be decided by a Ministry of Production, which actually happens in wartime. quote: MmeGigs Why? No one is suggesting that government run the economy and decide what is produced. I would think that the effect would be the opposite - that govt. would have less reason to be involved in labor issues. When taken to its logical conclusion it follows that in the ultimate, Left Wing economics requires the state, ie federal govnt, to run things to allegedly improve everybody's quality of life and eliminate poverty from society. That is the pipe dream of Socialism. I dont have a knee jerk hatred of Socialism I just notice that when govnt bureaucrats control the saucepan industry you get inferior saucepans and a mismatch between supply and demand. plus massive admin. costs to allocate resources to the saucepan and all other metal bashing industries. Costs rise, saucepans are neither as cheap nor of the quality that they might be, and people are not free to excercise their own ingenuity. If the East Germans couldnt make it work, nobody can.

camille65 -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 6:15:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Get your handerchief out, my father was a miner too and I started work at the local mine at 15. I now work for myself and only need to work around 20 hours per week to live comfortably but I'm not stupid enough to think everyone can get into the comfortable niche I have managed to get into. Capitalism requires losers, it requires people in poverty, poverty is punishment for not living the capitalist way and refusing to accept that exploiting people is a positive virtue. Communism had gulags for desenters, capitalism has ghettoes for desenters or people who are not ideologically pure enough to succeed. I have hesitated since this thread began, hesitated on whether or not I should share this. It won't make a difference in the long run, as I posted earlier I really believe that some are just too entrenched in their own views.My father was the youngest of 17. Yes.. 17. His father was the town drunk, his mother the town washerwoman. He worked in a coal mine at the age of 6, pulling a cart that was strapped to him through the tunnels lugging food for the miners. The house had no electricity or running water, it was a 3 room house for 17 children. They did have an outhouse lol.I'm talking Applachian poverty here folks. He made it through highschool then decided on college. In order to go to college he had to work a full time job in an auto factory at night, school during the day. No scholarship stuff here. After college he worked 2 full time jobs then decided the only way to succeed is to be his own boss. So he did that. Without too much detail at the age of 30 he was a multi-millionaire.My father is a rare man I know and it has colored how I see poverty. Few can do what he did I do understand that, but I don't think enough even try. Why try when they can rely on welfare? To hear people say that because he is uber wealthy.. he must be a criminal. He must have trampled people. Or he doesn't deserve reward for his horrifically hard work.That angers me. I hear so much jealousy in this thread. I hear so much 'me me me' stuff, how 'I' can't afford X so others have to give me their earned monies so that 'I' can get X. Poor? Jesus I am seriously poor. Scary poor. I have to decide between food and medication each month. The only reason I have internet is that being in a rural area there is no tv reception without it, it is my single luxury.I do not qualify for any assistance even though according to my doctor I am permanently disabled. If I were to have had kids yeah then I could get help. If I knew how to abuse the system... then yeah I could be one of those waiting on the porch for their monthly money from da gov. But I'm not. I have to struggle depending only on myself. My family does not help but yes they give hugely to public charities. My father gives more per year than most on CM make per year. The wealthy will never ever permit redistribution.So another way has to be found. How can someone be expected to excel if they cannot be rewarded?If everyone becomes equal there will still be those that want that free ride, and we will still be picking up that tab.If we eliminated welfare for even 50% then I bet we would see people suddenly able to work.... eliminate it for those that can work but bullshit about not being able to.

Floggings4You -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 6:21:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: charmdpetKeira Do you realize how much money is wasted one the concept “someone might buy this”? Would costs go down if we were more geared toward supply and demand instead of, “I need things to sell, to get money”? So, are you saying that I should not be allowed (and who are you going to appoint to stop Me, and using what means?) to paint a $6K painting, until I have a buyer lined up? Painting is both self-expression, and a source of income, for Me. It's not something I can set aside, until the market improves, or until you think that My time would be well-spent. This is My life, and I have the right to use it however I see fit, provided I don't infringe on anyO/one else's right to do the same, in the process of pursuing My own interests (that's what freedom means!) quote: How much more would cost go down if we were geared toward the people's needs; instead of self-serving businesses and government. But, businesspeople and government employees are part of 'the people', and they have their needs, just like the rest of U/us. quote: And if costs would go down, how much might we have for fun things, for everyone? You seem to want everyO/one to enjoy the same things as You. Not everyO/one does...making luxury/quality items is what some people call 'fun'. quote: My thoughts toward how this would work are similar to what Merc suggested; only instead of working for someone else; we’d be working for ourselves. In other words, the people are the corporation. It seems to me, if being productive towards the needs of the people in some way, was all that is necessary to be eligible for acquiring ones basic needs, then a lot more people would be willing to work. More people working; less work load; less work load, more free time. So someone who is an artist might choose to teach art for a few hrs, or something else, and then have the rest of their time for themselves. As far as things like the Ferrari and yacht; maybe there would be enough left over that anyone who was responsible enough, and wanted to have one, could. The objective is to, not nescessarily eliminate money all together, but to lesson how much power it holds, so that no one gets thrown under the train in an attempt to acquire it. Whether you call it 'money', or 'time', or whatever, the end result is the same. I have to have certain things in order to live and enjoy My life. For Me, it's a home, a studio, a car, decent (occasionally elaborate) food, plenty of art supplies, books, movies, an occasional concert, new toys on a regular basis, good cigars, etc. I either make those things Myself (in which case I'd still have to trade something for the raw materials) or I can trade My time with those who make those things. The way we've chosen to account for the value of one's time is money, but it could just as easily be beads, credits, shells, or whatever. As long as the money I have represents a portion of My time (meaning, an irreplacable portion of My life), I'm going to take My money very seriously. And it's no wonder that others do, too.

Floggings4You -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 6:23:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: camille65 How can someone be expected to excel if they cannot be rewarded? Damn straight.

seeksfemslave -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 6:27:48 AM)
Camille, can you really mean your FATHER worked in a mine at 6 years of age ?

QuietlySeeking -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 6:37:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtee None of this is really about the "sting" of poverty. The person who is deciding if he/she should give the kid a birthday party for once or instead fix the furnace feels the sting. The person whose "treat" is to take the fam to the Pizza Hut buffet for quality family time feels the sting when later they keep driving on the spare tire because of their "splurge." The person that you see with hotdogs and Oreos in the cart and then pays with food stamps and feels the attendant judgment feels the sting. But really, we are most of us doing the best we can. We can all look at others and take on the Horatio Alger attitude that everyone ELSE should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and change what we perceive they can change, but honestly, most of us don't stray too far from our socio-economic comfort zone...so why do we insist that "they" should? I never insisted that anyone should pull themselves from any socio-economic comfort zone. What I have said, is that it is possible to do so, if you choose to something different than you/your parents/your grand-parents have always done. Apparently meatcleaver thinks I am daft to think it, but I believe that people can choose to leave a socio-economic status in the US without cheating other people. I believe each of us has the potential to achieve, but the lack of hope/drive/whatever-situation-it-is keeps some people from doing it. I do believe in helping other people; however, each person makes a choice to see above the circumstances they are in or get mired down by them. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Capitalism requires losers, it requires people in poverty, poverty is punishment for not living the capitalist way and refusing to accept that exploiting people is a positive virtue. Poverty is a punishment? Wow, I thought it was a lack of money. I knew a couple that received a $250,000 settlement on which they could have lived comfortably for the rest of their lives. In two years, they had spent all of it. They were poor before the settlement; two years later, they are poor after the settlement. When they received it, I tried to sit down with them and help them plan a financial strategy to make the money last. It's simple....really, really simple, that's why it is so difficult. Some people will have more stuff. Some people will have less stuff. Nothing we do will change that fact.

Real_Trouble -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 6:37:58 AM)
quote: I can not agree with you here.... Personaly I think the bloody death tax should be abolished. The money they owed the govt on the death of the realtive was staggering. These folks were Farmers and ranchers.. I used to muck out thier stalls as a teen ager. They had to sell every last bit of thier farm, and land to pay the govt the death tax. The IRS got involved and hit them for everything. by the time the govt was done they had no money for thier children, or them selves.. and couldnt hardly afford to live in the same town. A large developer raped them on the price.. then developed these $500,000+ a pop homes on thier land. ( The land I knew like the back of my hand from horse back ) it made me sick. They got screwed here because of the illiquidity of their assets, not because of the death tax. I do concur the current death tax is poor with regard to farming estates, and could be fixed. The situation I am concerned with is something like the daughter of a famous sportsman inherting 350 million dollars when all she has ever done is party. Why does she deserve that money? I'm not against allowing people to keep something, but if you have to pay a 100% tax and are left penniless, something is wrong; however, I suspect the economic handling of the situation by these people was quite poor, as I've dealt with many, many estate tax cases, and I've seen people have to pay a lot or sell business, but I've never seen anyone wiped out and left with zero. quote: If your family has worked and earned thier money they should keep it. So sorry your family didnt have the planning. Make your start.. First, I'll ignore the childish attack, given that you know absolutely nothing about my family, but I'll say this: Watch where you step on things where you are not in the know. You might end up looking pretty stupid if the truth ever comes out. Second, why should their kids get it? Do we pick our Olympic teams by taking the kids of the winners twenty or thirty years ago? Should our government always be the children of current representatives and senators? Should your job get passed to your kid, always? Dynastic behavior leads to incredibly inefficient systems in the end, and should never be encouraged. I'm not for leaving kids destitute (cap inheritance at, say, $2 mil or some number and index it to inflation), but you shouldn't be passing half a billion to some drooling retard, either. That fucks our economy in the long run, and everyone loses. quote: My ideas would mean, no one would need to bust their ass, if they did not choose to; everyone would be able to prosper; therefore, no need to be rich. No rich; no poor. Two questions: First, how do you intend to accomplish this given scarcity of resources? There is not an infinite store of everything to simply hand out to everyone; if we have 20 people and only enough food for 15 of them, no amount of hope or guidance is going to magically create more food. The simple fact is that we compete for resources; until you find a way to produce infinite resources, this will always be true. Also, if everyone has the same amount, why should I ever work? Shouldn't I just do whatever I want and know I'll be looked out for regardless? Second, human nature conspires entirely against you. Yes, some people submit by choice, but there are many nations where people are given the choice of submitting or being shot in the head after being tortured. I am not exaggerating in the slightest; have a look at Myanmar, for instance, to see what I'm talking about. This is the kind of government you end up with when you put something together based on hope and idealism. There will always be power-hungry and dangerous humans willing to end your life if you do not bow down to them. This must be accounted for somehow, and hoping to guide and mentor them isn't going to do jack shit. How would you solve that? I see you also say you haven't worked out the details - that is because the details cannot be worked out. The painting example previously (nice example, by the way) lays this out nicely. You are trying to create a system that alters reality; this can't be worked out. If you really want to refine your theories, you need to start learning some economics. quote: Hereditary wealth is not only supported by capitalist governments but aided and abetted by them too, I suspect that most wealth held by the rich is inherited. Compared to...? We do the best job of taking away dynastic wealth, or are you seriously going to argue that feudal governments, despotisms, or the rigged constructs that try to pass as communist regimes have done a better job of redistributing wealth? On the whole, the US does the best at breaking this up (minus a few european countries), and see my comments above for more. quote: The point is that people can earn fortunes because they are allowed to earn fortunes by society so they owe society something in return. As for your fascistic proffessor who sounds as if he bought his creditation rather than studied for it, on the whole rocket scientists don't get rich, pop stars, sportsmen and morally corrupt businessmen and politicians tend to get rich. Wealth has nothing to do with anyone's contribution to society or the human race as a whole. Derman. Black. Scholes. Merton. Taleb. Gates. Allen. I'll stop, but I could go on. There are plenty of very smart individuals, many of whom have quantitative PhDs, who have made a ton of money for themselves. There are others, who through the social recognition they received and the status they held, have led incredibly wealthy lives because people paid for the privilege of having them come to talks, travel, research, and the like (Feynman, Pauli, Pais, etc). You are wrong about this; rocket scientists can and do get rich. But likewise, if society is willing to pay for pop stars, sportsmen, etc, why should they not get their money? Nobody makes someone pay for a basketball ticket or CD. Nobody holds a gun to someone's head at the checkout counter. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

QuietlySeeking -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 6:39:52 AM)
I would suggest a book by the name of Commune 2000 AD by Mack Reynolds. It's an interesting look at a fictional socialist society.

kittinSol -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 6:42:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Camille, can you really mean your FATHER worked in a mine at 6 years of age ? Why not? If Camille is one of the youngest of a brood of seventeen, it's very possible her father worked in a mine at the age of six. What's so surprising here?

SugarMyChurro -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 6:51:09 AM)
Camille65: Everything we achieve in the context of modern civilized life is predicated on the social contract. Everyone is standing on the shoulders of giants. No man is an island. Frankly, if you are going to raise his example in this discussion I'd like to know what your father did to become so well off. I think if we dig into the story you will see how he used government benefits to his advantage. Starting from the few things you have given us already I'd say that without a socialized grades 1-12 education your father had no escape. If you end up telling me he plays stocks well, say no more - I've already discussed that elsewhere. ----- Interesting comparison (a little old now, maybe someone else feels like googling something newer?) on CEO pay: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/politics_pop/index.html What explains the differences in pay between U.S. Execs and say those in Japan? Workers are being screwed. Investors are being screwed. We have a club at the top that makes money hand over fist. Everyone else is screwed. Steve Jobs was at some points on the board of 3-4 corporations at once. Can anyone really provide enough on the job input spread so thinly to justify whatever compensation he was receiving? That's just CEOs exchanging favors in my view. It's great for the CEOs thusly favored, but it costs people raises, jobs, investor dividends, etc...

Real0ne -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 6:58:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave those of a Left Wing view are at heart authoritarians tho' they certainly dont realise it. For example we must pay a fair days pay for a fair days work, things like that. That situation can only be brought about in practice by massive costly wasteful central government expenditure. I don't understand how paying a fair wage is authoritarian, or where massive government expenditure would come into it. A fair day's pay for a fair day's work means that taxpayers don't have to keep subsidizing crappy wages. The only government expenditure would be to pass and enforce the laws establishing a fair wage. Huge chunks of county social service agencies would be unneeded. Government would shrink. I thought that's what folks wanted. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Alternatively what will be produced will have to be decided by a Ministry of Production, which actually happens in wartime, but in a peacetime economy it requires too much interference in peoples lives. Why? No one is suggesting that government run the economy and decide what is produced. I would think that the effect would be the opposite - that govt. would have less reason to be involved in labor issues. I suppose that depends on what you mean by "governemnt". This country has not "really" been run by the government in close to 100 years. Does anyone think the federal reserve is government? It not. Its no more federal than federal express. People always put blam in the wrong place because they do not understand our monetary system. Min wage may have been a step above welfare 5 years ago as an example but its not today. Has anyone asked themselves why? Since 2001 the amount of goods that you can buy with a dollar has been cut in half for the same amount of money. Does it cost more to milk a damn cow? Plant a seed in the ground for corn? Does it cost more to build a car? Hell no. BUT WE PAY MORE EVERY YEAR FOR IT DONT WE? WHY??? To the contrary it costs less to plant a seed build a car etc today than it did for my father. The problem is that our wages are controlled by the IMF or the world bank when its all said and done, ie a small group of who SET THE VALUE OF OUR MONEY. Has minimum wage dounbled since 2001? The price of milk has! SO THE PRICE OF MILK DOUBLED BUT MIN WAGE HAS NOT!!! WELCOME TO INFLATION!!! Oh yeh and those of us sitting here will a million in our 401k fat dumb and stoopid.... well dream on boys and gurls cuz its only worth 1/2 million now LOLOL The government as in we the people do not control our money and have not controlled our money for nearly 100 years. A few strokes of a pen and a dumb assed citizenry who let these asswipes stage financial war with each other and then turn around and bail them out (corporate welfare) are getting precisely what we deserve for being STOOPID. Since 2002 the criminal syndicate running this country has cut our wages in 1/2. Oh dont believe me? Well the Canadian dollar was 55cents a few years ago now we pay what? 1.10? Dont have to be a financial wizard to figure that out and any money ya all got that aint tied up in specie is chopped right in half. That is how the middle class is wiped out and poor become poorer and the gap is slowly over time increased between the super wealthy and the poor. Then instead of fixing the monetary system we ask for federal hand outs from the very people who fucked us over in the first place. Such as universal health care as a "hand out" rather than forcing the bastards to fix the monetary system so we can earn enough to afford to pay for health care ourselves. INFLATION = THE COST OF BEING STOOPID!!!

meatcleaver -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 7:09:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Capitalism requires losers, it requires people in poverty, poverty is punishment for not living the capitalist way and refusing to accept that exploiting people is a positive virtue. Poverty is a punishment? Wow, I thought it was a lack of money. I knew a couple that received a $250,000 settlement on which they could have lived comfortably for the rest of their lives. In two years, they had spent all of it. They were poor before the settlement; two years later, they are poor after the settlement. When they received it, I tried to sit down with them and help them plan a financial strategy to make the money last. It's simple....really, really simple, that's why it is so difficult. Some people will have more stuff. Some people will have less stuff. Nothing we do will change that fact. QuietlySeeking, I'm assuming you are pretending to be stupid. Capitalism needs its gulags too, to keep people in line, poverty is capitalism's gulag. If you don't conform to the ideolgy of capitalism, you will end up in poverty which is capitalism's gulag. You obviously see the world through the eyes of capitalists without a modicum of questioning which is exactly how capitalists want you to view the world. Work, consume, work, consume. There is no greater meaning to life than to work and consume, work and consume. Anecdotes are meaningless, we can all draw on an anecdote to prove our point.

kittinSol -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 7:12:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Anecdotes are meaningless, we can all draw on an anecdote to prove our point. Thank you - about time somebody said that. Anecdotes can illustrate a point, but they can't make one.

seeksfemslave -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 7:20:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Camille, can you really mean your FATHER worked in a mine at 6 years of age ? Why not? If Camille is one of the youngest of a brood of seventeen, it's very possible her father worked in a mine at the age of six. What's so surprising here? I'm old enough to actually be Camille's Father I was in WV about 40 years ago and I do like a drink so who knows what really happened. I suspect Camille actually meant her father worked in a mine when she was 6 or her Grandfather was 6 when he worked underground. By the way, you've got your facts wrong. Please try harder !

cjan -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 7:25:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: cjan I'd like to recommend a book by Bill Bradley that addresses all of the issues in this thread and more. The problems in society that we are discussing here are very complex and will be hard to solve. Bradley presents practical suggestions for addressing these problems. Things all citizens can do to effect a change. Bradley takes a balanced view, neither liberal nor conservative, simply pragmatic. I realize that many folks across the political spectrum are attached to their opinions. I admit I'm one of them. But I urge all interested sincere folks to read this book. Make the effort, it's worth it. http://books.google.com/books?id=x_jtGQAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:Bill+inauthor:Bradley&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=1_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_American_Story Thanks for the link, Cjan, I'm a big fan of Bradley. My pleasure, Level. Unfortunately, probably very few, if any, will bother to borrow the book from their library and read it. One thing that saddens me is that, it seems, many people would rather engage in circle jerk political discussions that change nothing instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting involved in finding and working to apply solutions.Many say,"Well, make some practical suggestions for how we can improve things". Bradley does just that in this book. As I said, Bradley's book is not about theoretical issues and solutions. It is full of figures and data and pragmatic solutions to these complex, yet solvable problems. That is, imo, the reason why his presidential campaign went nowhere. His ideas and suggestions are not "sexy". However, what Bradley suggests is resisted by many special interests, including his own political party. It makes me wonder how sincere people are, regarding wanting change, rather than maintaining the staus quo. I don't have any such doubt about the politicians and their masters in both parties. They prefer to keep blowing smoke up our collective ass and keep us divided in useless debate while they decide things for us.

kittinSol -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 7:27:18 AM)
For crying out loud, Seeks... do you remember the meaning of the word 'if'? Sheeesh...

meatcleaver -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 7:27:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: camille65 How can someone be expected to excel if they cannot be rewarded? You seem to assume that all rewards worth having are financial, how capitalistic. Beyond certain material needs, the rest is just excess, a distraction, instant gratification and waste. We destroy our habitat so capitalists can flourish, we produce far more than we need but a certain amount of people still have to do with out because capitalism requires poverty to function. Beyond certain material needs, the rest is just excess, a distraction, instant gratification, an unfullfillable desire so people with excess still require more because the system we have has instilled in them a need to chase something that doesn't exist. I do my best to excel at what I do because I enjoy what I do, the reward is not financial but the satisfaction of doing something well.

Real0ne -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 7:44:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real_Trouble Dynastic behavior leads to incredibly inefficient systems in the end, and should never be encouraged. I'm not for leaving kids destitute (cap inheritance at, say, $2 mil or some number and index it to inflation), but you shouldn't be passing half a billion to some drooling retard, either. That fucks our economy in the long run, and everyone loses. That is actually a good idea and I have also thought along those lines. Once someone has enough that they have no need to do anything but manage an account with a few strokes of a pen once in a while I think we can say they are very well off. I would place the cap at that point, then how ever far they go with it throughout their life is fine. The problem however is that they will just give it away so that they circumvent the tax man. Likewise I am talking about the same people who are up in the 350mil etc as you put in your example. It would create a huge middle class with opportunity for those who want to own the world which in my opinion would make a great society. People work for 3 reasons, survival, passion, greed. Greed and power being synonomous.

QuietlySeeking -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 7:46:11 AM)
As I read cjan's last post (#154), I realized....this is much ado about nothing. meatcleaver doesn't have the answers, nor do I. Since you suggested it, I'll put it on the reading list, okay? quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver QuietlySeeking, I'm assuming you are pretending to be stupid. Capitalism needs its gulags too, to keep people in line, poverty is capitalism's gulag. If you don't conform to the ideolgy of capitalism, you will end up in poverty which is capitalism's gulag. Poverty is a state...not a punishment, not a prison, not the ultimate goal of any -ology or -ism (unless you count some religious orders). Poverty can be solved with money/stuff. Money/stuff are resources which are limited. There isn't enough money/stuff to solve each person's poverty, according to each person's desire to have enough money/stuff. What I've found about local/state/federal/world economic systems is summed up in an earlier post. I resubmit it for your pleasure. quote: ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking It's simple....really, really simple, that's why it is so difficult. Some people will have more stuff. Some people will have less stuff. Nothing we do will change that fact. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Anecdotes are meaningless, we can all draw on an anecdote to prove our point. And yet you relied on them in an attempt to rebut one of my earlier points? quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver You seem to assume that all rewards worth having are financial, how capitalistic. Beyond certain material needs, the rest is just excess, a distraction, instant gratification and waste. We destroy our habitat so capitalists can flourish, we produce far more than we need but a certain amount of people still have to do with out because capitalism requires poverty to function. Beyond certain material needs, the rest is just excess, a distraction, instant gratification, an unfullfillable desire so people with excess still require more because the system we have has instilled in them a need to chase something that doesn't exist. I do my best to excel at what I do because I enjoy what I do, the reward is not financial but the satisfaction of doing something well. From the post above, I begin to realize that your ideology revolves around some fictitious "material needs" argument. The reality is: each person's poverty is determined solely by their own view of their own world. Your "material needs" argument revolves around the same thing (your view of your world). Any world-view that opposes yours is wrong. Have I finally got it?

seeksfemslave -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 7:47:27 AM)
By and large Free Enterprise has produced Lovely automobiles. Sexy Aeroplanes. Beautiful steam diesel and electric Locomotives. mass communication etc etc etc. I hope you see that my list could be made enormously large. Yes? I know there are downsides to excessive production but who is taking them more seriously. The Chinese or the nasty West.? I intend to form a Political Party whose main policy plank will be to severely limit access to all of the advances that large numbers take for granted. Enterprise on the part of anyone will be a capital crime and everybody will have to spend one day a week reading poetry to the Chimps at the local Zoo. Can I expect to get many votes? I can almost hear the Chimps larfing at me. By the way Meatcleaver, capitalism does NOT require poverty because if it did no one would have any money to purchase the goods and services that are produced in such abundance. Henry Ford, who apparently was a bit of a barstard, knew that was true.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875