A discussion about poverty

[Rolling Thunder]

It is my belief that the left has a symbiotic relationship with poverty and so the left does not actually want the problem to go away. They simply make too much money off of it while telling the poor they have no chance for a better future unless they keep the leftist elite in power and subsist on meager handouts.

You know what? You're right: the American Democrats and various European "leftist" movements have certainly relied on the underprivileged for electoral capital.

The "right" does it, too, though.

The "Southern strategy" that's been driving America's Republican party for something like forty years now is all about finding people who feel left behind by American privilege and prosperity and playing to their fading hopes and deepest fears. During the civil rights era, a lot of economically disadvantaged people stood behind the GOP because they felt threatened by oppressed blacks gaining new rights and opportunities. Nowadays, the anti-immigrant furor is based on exploiting the same feelings of being supplanted by people who are "supposed to" be beneath you.

And all that stuff with deathers and birthers and teabaggers, what's that all about? The exact same thing: "Oh, you've been left behind! You could be well-off if not for all these other people! Let us create a cult of victimhood that exults in exclusionary American purity and pursues internal cleansing by any means necessary!"

Democrats offer handouts to the poor. Republicans offer them scapegoats. Which is better?

-- Alex

I will partially agree with your comments about Republicans. While today's GOP has essentially been described as "The Wal-Mart Party", it is only because they're so badly fragmented they have no direction and a lot of actual conservatives (not neo-cons) have simply left the party out of disillusionment. This leaves only the low-brow "those damn foreigners are taking our jobs". However, I agree with what a lot of these "teabaggers" preach and that is financial responsibility, as in we shouldn't be spending money that we don't have.

I'll also agree with both sides playing off of people's victim mentalities, which is why I've chosen neither.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

 

[-Orgasmatron-]

It is my belief that the left has a symbiotic relationship with poverty and so the left does not actually want the problem to go away. They simply make too much money off of it while telling the poor they have no chance for a better future unless they keep the leftist elite in power and subsist on meager handouts.

Oh I'd love to know how I benefit from the suffering of the lower class as being in a white collar field (programming and software architecture) I have no need for masses of easily exploitable labour. (Yes I am aware that I indirectly benefit from others exploiting the lower class but what the hell do you want me to do about it? you won't give up your precious capitalism)

I probably should have clarified in the first part of my post what I said later but when I say "leftist" I meant "leftist elite" who in fact DO make money off of the suffering of others by simply sucking all the handouts dry and saying "we're not giving enough to the poor". So much money is lost in the beaurocratic process that by the time it trickles down to the poor, it just simply isn't enough so they ask for more.

It hardly matters because handouts ain't gunna make the slightest bit of difference.

 

[Seldon2639]

Wait, you mean that as standards of living increase in general, we raise the level of comfort at which we determine someone is "well off" or "poor"? I'm shocked. I'm also shocked, shocked, to find gambling in this establishment, but that's neither here nor there.

Let's ignore the argument (which Kawligia and I have had on about three different threads that I can recall) of whether people "don't want to be saved" from poverty or "lack the will". And let's ride right past whether there's a moral hazard to government subsidies for the poor, wherein we can houst back the old party lines and get nothing for it except ulcers.

Instead, let's focus on the primary question of this thread: given that the living standards for the 'poor' have gotten better, do we define poverty as beaten? Is poverty absolutely measured based solely on what one can acquire, with no broader context, or can poverty only be viewed as a relative measure, someone whose standard of living is far below the average for the time and place?

Do we compare our poorest to Africa's population, or to our own?

That's the question. The root causes of poverty is a question that has been studied and debated by people in my line of study for about as long as money has existed. The actual rate of "Welfare queens" or similar people "scamming" the system is relatively low. The only two arguments we have are (a) whether poverty is the "fault" of the impoverished (for whatever reason), and (b) what do we do about it.

 

[AssButt]

It is my belief that the left has a symbiotic relationship with poverty and so the left does not actually want the problem to go away. They simply make too much money off of it while telling the poor they have no chance for a better future unless they keep the leftist elite in power and subsist on meager handouts.

Oh I'd love to know how I benefit from the suffering of the lower class as being in a white collar field (programming and software architecture) I have no need for masses of easily exploitable labour. (Yes I am aware that I indirectly benefit from others exploiting the lower class but what the hell do you want me to do about it? you won't give up your precious capitalism)

I probably should have clarified in the first part of my post what I said later but when I say "leftist" I meant "leftist elite" who in fact DO make money off of the suffering of others by simply sucking all the handouts dry and saying "we're not giving enough to the poor". So much money is lost in the beaurocratic process that by the time it trickles down to the poor, it just simply isn't enough so they ask for more.

Ok that makes you sound reasonable, but who are the leftist elite? I've never heard of them. Do you mean the government? I'd hardly call them elite after seeing their paychecks.

For the most part, yes, I'm talking about the government. While money can buy you power you can also skip the money part if you've been given authority to regulate things and give kickbacks. Think of how many people get paid with your money to do pretty much nothing.

 

[AssButt]

It is my belief that the left has a symbiotic relationship with poverty and so the left does not actually want the problem to go away. They simply make too much money off of it while telling the poor they have no chance for a better future unless they keep the leftist elite in power and subsist on meager handouts.

Oh I'd love to know how I benefit from the suffering of the lower class as being in a white collar field (programming and software architecture) I have no need for masses of easily exploitable labour. (Yes I am aware that I indirectly benefit from others exploiting the lower class but what the hell do you want me to do about it? you won't give up your precious capitalism)

I probably should have clarified in the first part of my post what I said later but when I say "leftist" I meant "leftist elite" who in fact DO make money off of the suffering of others by simply sucking all the handouts dry and saying "we're not giving enough to the poor". So much money is lost in the beaurocratic process that by the time it trickles down to the poor, it just simply isn't enough so they ask for more.

Ok that makes you sound reasonable, but who are the leftist elite? I've never heard of them. Do you mean the government? I'd hardly call them elite after seeing their paychecks.

For the most part, yes, I'm talking about the government. While money can buy you power you can also skip the money part if you've been given authority to regulate things and give kickbacks. Think of how many people get paid with your money to do pretty much nothing.

a whole hell of a lot, I'm trying to figure out why you're blaming the libs specifically when it's the republicans that are most pro big business.

Neo-cons/Republicans elites of today are more align with fascists and could hardly give a shit about the poor. They're more direct with their goals of bullying other people/countries into giving us their lunch money.

IMO the political elite are just opposite sides of the same coin in that they both want control over everything, they're just divided on what to do with them afterward.

 

[AssButt]

It is my belief that the left has a symbiotic relationship with poverty and so the left does not actually want the problem to go away. They simply make too much money off of it while telling the poor they have no chance for a better future unless they keep the leftist elite in power and subsist on meager handouts.

Oh I'd love to know how I benefit from the suffering of the lower class as being in a white collar field (programming and software architecture) I have no need for masses of easily exploitable labour. (Yes I am aware that I indirectly benefit from others exploiting the lower class but what the hell do you want me to do about it? you won't give up your precious capitalism)

I probably should have clarified in the first part of my post what I said later but when I say "leftist" I meant "leftist elite" who in fact DO make money off of the suffering of others by simply sucking all the handouts dry and saying "we're not giving enough to the poor". So much money is lost in the beaurocratic process that by the time it trickles down to the poor, it just simply isn't enough so they ask for more.

Ok that makes you sound reasonable, but who are the leftist elite? I've never heard of them. Do you mean the government? I'd hardly call them elite after seeing their paychecks.

For the most part, yes, I'm talking about the government. While money can buy you power you can also skip the money part if you've been given authority to regulate things and give kickbacks. Think of how many people get paid with your money to do pretty much nothing.

a whole hell of a lot, I'm trying to figure out why you're blaming the libs specifically when it's the republicans that are most pro big business.

Neo-cons/Republicans elites of today are more align with fascists and could hardly give a shit about the poor. They're more direct with their goals of bullying other people/countries into giving us their lunch money.

IMO the political elite are just opposite sides of the same coin in that they both want control over everything, they're just divided on what to do with them afterward.

if you're referring to fascism and socialism (where the hell do you get the term political elite from anyway?) you'd be dead wrong. Fascism being something along the lines of a democratic dictatorship. Socialism is state which removes economic freedom. Economic freedom as I see it is unimportant. so what if I can't choose between 50 different types of shoes. that being said 1 size fits all is also a bad idea. the other two freedoms are personal freedom and political freedom, and are by far more important than the freedom to exploit the populace for personal gain.

I'm surprised you've never heard the term political elite. If you've noticed, some people have more power than others, some people also have a disproportionate amount of power and these people are considered to be the political elite.

As for fascism, a lot of people would argue that its modern evolution would be the alliance between government and big business, which we are. Your anti-capitalist argument is as much a strawman as if I were to say "socialists promote laziness and feelings of entitlement". Also, once you have government taking over the means of production, how do you plan to stop them from taking over your personal and political freedom?

 

[AssButt]

It is my belief that the left has a symbiotic relationship with poverty and so the left does not actually want the problem to go away. They simply make too much money off of it while telling the poor they have no chance for a better future unless they keep the leftist elite in power and subsist on meager handouts.

Oh I'd love to know how I benefit from the suffering of the lower class as being in a white collar field (programming and software architecture) I have no need for masses of easily exploitable labour. (Yes I am aware that I indirectly benefit from others exploiting the lower class but what the hell do you want me to do about it? you won't give up your precious capitalism)

I probably should have clarified in the first part of my post what I said later but when I say "leftist" I meant "leftist elite" who in fact DO make money off of the suffering of others by simply sucking all the handouts dry and saying "we're not giving enough to the poor". So much money is lost in the beaurocratic process that by the time it trickles down to the poor, it just simply isn't enough so they ask for more.

Ok that makes you sound reasonable, but who are the leftist elite? I've never heard of them. Do you mean the government? I'd hardly call them elite after seeing their paychecks.

For the most part, yes, I'm talking about the government. While money can buy you power you can also skip the money part if you've been given authority to regulate things and give kickbacks. Think of how many people get paid with your money to do pretty much nothing.

a whole hell of a lot, I'm trying to figure out why you're blaming the libs specifically when it's the republicans that are most pro big business.

Neo-cons/Republicans elites of today are more align with fascists and could hardly give a shit about the poor. They're more direct with their goals of bullying other people/countries into giving us their lunch money.

IMO the political elite are just opposite sides of the same coin in that they both want control over everything, they're just divided on what to do with them afterward.

if you're referring to fascism and socialism (where the hell do you get the term political elite from anyway?) you'd be dead wrong. Fascism being something along the lines of a democratic dictatorship. Socialism is state which removes economic freedom. Economic freedom as I see it is unimportant. so what if I can't choose between 50 different types of shoes. that being said 1 size fits all is also a bad idea. the other two freedoms are personal freedom and political freedom, and are by far more important than the freedom to exploit the populace for personal gain.

I'm surprised you've never heard the term political elite. If you've noticed, some people have more power than others, some people also have a disproportionate amount of power and these people are considered to be the political elite.

As for fascism, a lot of people would argue that its modern evolution would be the alliance between government and big business, which we are. Your anti-capitalist argument is as much a strawman as if I were to say "socialists promote laziness and feelings of entitlement". Also, once you have government taking over the means of production, how do you plan to stop them from taking over your personal and political freedom?

Why didn't you just say politically powerful/influential?

I made no strawman, capitalism is the freedom to make a profit, you can't make a profit without exploiting someone.

In socialism the means of production are owned by the people and appropriated by the government through the democratic process. How do you stop any government with any amount of power and an army from enslaving its people? I don't know that's why I don't fully endorse socialism, I endorse European socialism. cause that looks like it works.

You made a strawman because nobody who endorses capitalism actually argues for that, similar to my "strawman" regarding socialism. People argue for capitalism claim that other people are not entitled to the spoils of their labor and that thinking they are is tantamount to stealing. And yes, you can make profit without exploiting people because wealth is not a zero-sum game. The market is what determines the value of your labor, if you think you are worth more than that, you are free to do something else. As far as European socialism working, that's pretty debatable.

As for why I said political elite? Why does it matter what term I use, it means the same thing.

 

[Greyfall]

Personally, I define "poor" as having no home or living in a lean-to. Not too much else qualifies.

 

[AssButt]

It is my belief that the left has a symbiotic relationship with poverty and so the left does not actually want the problem to go away. They simply make too much money off of it while telling the poor they have no chance for a better future unless they keep the leftist elite in power and subsist on meager handouts.

Oh I'd love to know how I benefit from the suffering of the lower class as being in a white collar field (programming and software architecture) I have no need for masses of easily exploitable labour. (Yes I am aware that I indirectly benefit from others exploiting the lower class but what the hell do you want me to do about it? you won't give up your precious capitalism)

I probably should have clarified in the first part of my post what I said later but when I say "leftist" I meant "leftist elite" who in fact DO make money off of the suffering of others by simply sucking all the handouts dry and saying "we're not giving enough to the poor". So much money is lost in the beaurocratic process that by the time it trickles down to the poor, it just simply isn't enough so they ask for more.

Ok that makes you sound reasonable, but who are the leftist elite? I've never heard of them. Do you mean the government? I'd hardly call them elite after seeing their paychecks.

For the most part, yes, I'm talking about the government. While money can buy you power you can also skip the money part if you've been given authority to regulate things and give kickbacks. Think of how many people get paid with your money to do pretty much nothing.

a whole hell of a lot, I'm trying to figure out why you're blaming the libs specifically when it's the republicans that are most pro big business.

Neo-cons/Republicans elites of today are more align with fascists and could hardly give a shit about the poor. They're more direct with their goals of bullying other people/countries into giving us their lunch money.

IMO the political elite are just opposite sides of the same coin in that they both want control over everything, they're just divided on what to do with them afterward.

if you're referring to fascism and socialism (where the hell do you get the term political elite from anyway?) you'd be dead wrong. Fascism being something along the lines of a democratic dictatorship. Socialism is state which removes economic freedom. Economic freedom as I see it is unimportant. so what if I can't choose between 50 different types of shoes. that being said 1 size fits all is also a bad idea. the other two freedoms are personal freedom and political freedom, and are by far more important than the freedom to exploit the populace for personal gain.

I'm surprised you've never heard the term political elite. If you've noticed, some people have more power than others, some people also have a disproportionate amount of power and these people are considered to be the political elite.

As for fascism, a lot of people would argue that its modern evolution would be the alliance between government and big business, which we are. Your anti-capitalist argument is as much a strawman as if I were to say "socialists promote laziness and feelings of entitlement". Also, once you have government taking over the means of production, how do you plan to stop them from taking over your personal and political freedom?

Why didn't you just say politically powerful/influential?

I made no strawman, capitalism is the freedom to make a profit, you can't make a profit without exploiting someone.

In socialism the means of production are owned by the people and appropriated by the government through the democratic process. How do you stop any government with any amount of power and an army from enslaving its people? I don't know that's why I don't fully endorse socialism, I endorse European socialism. cause that looks like it works.

You made a strawman because nobody who endorses capitalism actually argues for that, similar to my "strawman" regarding socialism. People argue for capitalism claim that other people are not entitled to the spoils of their labor and that thinking they are is tantamount to stealing. And yes, you can make profit without exploiting people because wealth is not a zero-sum game. The market is what determines the value of your labor, if you think you are worth more than that, you are free to do something else. As far as European socialism working, that's pretty debatable.

As for why I said political elite? Why does it matter what term I use, it means the same thing.

the market the market the market. I swear if I hear that one more time. I know how supply and demand works, I also know how making a profit works. but guess what no matter what your good has a fixed cost of production.

let's say it costs $5/hour to get someone to assemble some gears. $10 per unit for other parts and $7/hour to assemble the gears and the other bits. let's assume it take 1 hour to assemble enough gears for 5 devices and 3/4 of an hour to assemble 1 such device. basic forumla it costs N*10 + (N/5)*5 + (3N/4)*7 dollars to make a batch of devices where N is the number of devices you want to make let's say you want 10 devices. that's $202.5 to make all 10 and you have to sell them at $20.25 to break even their absolute worth. but then you wouldn't be making a profit. so you can either raise the price exploiting the economic sector to make a profit or force down the wages and exploit the labour sector to make a profit. in the end some's getting shafted thus my argument stands and is not a strawman.

I hate to break it to you, but you're going to be hearing that a lot. Are you suggesting people should selflessly run businesses and not make money? Let's say you decide to sell it for $24, if that amount is deemed by the market to be too much, nobody will buy from you. If you sell it for $20.25 and drive down wages, your employees can choose to quit and work for a competitor who will pay them more. If all your competitors agree to pay their employees a certain wage, then all the employees can agree not to work unless that wage is increased. In a socialist market, what is the incentive for a businessman and his employees to be productive if they know they will be paid a certain wage? What is the motivation for creating advancement if you know you will be more handsomely rewarded in another country?

 

[AssButt]

It is my belief that the left has a symbiotic relationship with poverty and so the left does not actually want the problem to go away. They simply make too much money off of it while telling the poor they have no chance for a better future unless they keep the leftist elite in power and subsist on meager handouts.

Oh I'd love to know how I benefit from the suffering of the lower class as being in a white collar field (programming and software architecture) I have no need for masses of easily exploitable labour. (Yes I am aware that I indirectly benefit from others exploiting the lower class but what the hell do you want me to do about it? you won't give up your precious capitalism)

I probably should have clarified in the first part of my post what I said later but when I say "leftist" I meant "leftist elite" who in fact DO make money off of the suffering of others by simply sucking all the handouts dry and saying "we're not giving enough to the poor". So much money is lost in the beaurocratic process that by the time it trickles down to the poor, it just simply isn't enough so they ask for more.

Ok that makes you sound reasonable, but who are the leftist elite? I've never heard of them. Do you mean the government? I'd hardly call them elite after seeing their paychecks.

For the most part, yes, I'm talking about the government. While money can buy you power you can also skip the money part if you've been given authority to regulate things and give kickbacks. Think of how many people get paid with your money to do pretty much nothing.

a whole hell of a lot, I'm trying to figure out why you're blaming the libs specifically when it's the republicans that are most pro big business.

Neo-cons/Republicans elites of today are more align with fascists and could hardly give a shit about the poor. They're more direct with their goals of bullying other people/countries into giving us their lunch money.

IMO the political elite are just opposite sides of the same coin in that they both want control over everything, they're just divided on what to do with them afterward.

if you're referring to fascism and socialism (where the hell do you get the term political elite from anyway?) you'd be dead wrong. Fascism being something along the lines of a democratic dictatorship. Socialism is state which removes economic freedom. Economic freedom as I see it is unimportant. so what if I can't choose between 50 different types of shoes. that being said 1 size fits all is also a bad idea. the other two freedoms are personal freedom and political freedom, and are by far more important than the freedom to exploit the populace for personal gain.

I'm surprised you've never heard the term political elite. If you've noticed, some people have more power than others, some people also have a disproportionate amount of power and these people are considered to be the political elite.

As for fascism, a lot of people would argue that its modern evolution would be the alliance between government and big business, which we are. Your anti-capitalist argument is as much a strawman as if I were to say "socialists promote laziness and feelings of entitlement". Also, once you have government taking over the means of production, how do you plan to stop them from taking over your personal and political freedom?

Why didn't you just say politically powerful/influential?

I made no strawman, capitalism is the freedom to make a profit, you can't make a profit without exploiting someone.

In socialism the means of production are owned by the people and appropriated by the government through the democratic process. How do you stop any government with any amount of power and an army from enslaving its people? I don't know that's why I don't fully endorse socialism, I endorse European socialism. cause that looks like it works.

You made a strawman because nobody who endorses capitalism actually argues for that, similar to my "strawman" regarding socialism. People argue for capitalism claim that other people are not entitled to the spoils of their labor and that thinking they are is tantamount to stealing. And yes, you can make profit without exploiting people because wealth is not a zero-sum game. The market is what determines the value of your labor, if you think you are worth more than that, you are free to do something else. As far as European socialism working, that's pretty debatable.

As for why I said political elite? Why does it matter what term I use, it means the same thing.

the market the market the market. I swear if I hear that one more time. I know how supply and demand works, I also know how making a profit works. but guess what no matter what your good has a fixed cost of production.

let's say it costs $5/hour to get someone to assemble some gears. $10 per unit for other parts and $7/hour to assemble the gears and the other bits. let's assume it take 1 hour to assemble enough gears for 5 devices and 3/4 of an hour to assemble 1 such device. basic forumla it costs N*10 + (N/5)*5 + (3N/4)*7 dollars to make a batch of devices where N is the number of devices you want to make let's say you want 10 devices. that's $202.5 to make all 10 and you have to sell them at $20.25 to break even their absolute worth. but then you wouldn't be making a profit. so you can either raise the price exploiting the economic sector to make a profit or force down the wages and exploit the labour sector to make a profit. in the end some's getting shafted thus my argument stands and is not a strawman.

I hate to break it to you, but you're going to be hearing that a lot. Are you suggesting people should selflessly run businesses and not make money? Let's say you decide to sell it for $24, if that amount is deemed by the market to be too much, nobody will buy from you. If you sell it for $20.25 and drive down wages, your employees can choose to quit and work for a competitor who will pay them more. If all your competitors agree to pay their employees a certain wage, then all the employees can agree not to work unless that wage is increased. In a socialist market, what is the incentive for a businessman and his employees to be productive if they know they will be paid a certain wage? What is the motivation for creating advancement if you know you will be more handsomely rewarded in another country?

well let's see. if you stay here and work to the best of your ability you know you'll be well taken care of when you can no longer work or when you retire and you'll be able to enjoy those years along with the freetime you have atm. and again creating advancement benefits you and your fellowman. go to another country and create advancement, you could be handsomely rewarded or they could find a way to screw you out of your money and you'd be left with nothing.

and yah the companies could agree to pay a specific wage or they could keeping pushing wages lower to undercut each other.

You'd be taken care of even if you did a mediocre job, so why work to the best of your abilities? Some people will just because they enjoy their job, but a lot of people don't. As for creating advancement, these people tend to be ambitious and are willing to take risks such as investing everything and gaining nothing.

And if companies kept undercutting each other, they would eventually have no employees left.