The Poor Abuse the Rich (not the other way around)
- Thread starter ben---neb
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Can't say you're wrong, though your logic seems a bit flawed. I'm not the smartest man in the world but something is telling me something is off, perhaps the title? The rich are not being abused by the poor, because in your example it is actually the market abusing the company. Richard has very little to do with that. Competitors are the ones always upping the ante by consistently trying to top the competitor's offer. Because consumers are fairly gullible, through some fault of their own for not being very conscious consumers businesses have their ways of getting theirs, through ways of contracts (Keep in mind even though you are paying $50 for a $500 they have you paying for their service for 2 years, breaching this results in penalties and fees.) and ALWAYS if there is any cost to them, it is passed along to the consumer. It wouldn't be business if there wasn't a profit friend. Aside from that your argument has no basis.
The rich however do have the most say in politics (Not sure about the rest of the world but in at least the US we have a continuing problem of Lobbyists and special interests influencing decisions that are not in the interests of the people but of small sectors with the money to look after themselves. Also obscene costs to actually have any say in our offices i.e. Campaign Funding make it all but impossible for the little man). There are probably more examples but I can't be bothered to research them just for the sake of a discussion in a forum. (Pure laziness, that's all
) This in turn goes back to your first argument. You are correct that we do assign a value to certain objects and our willingness to pay for that value in terms of monetary value. However its not so simple of an argument, say for instance a person who is living paycheck to paycheck, only buying necessities. (i.e. a good 80% of the world) Employers are looking to only pay the bare minimum that they need to keep their employees happy, and have lobbyists in Washington looking out for minimum wage reforms that they can stop. Inflation inevitably rises from time, you're making the same amount of money, and prices for your products go up. You end up in a situation where you have to pay for food without earning anything higher than perhaps a 25 cent raise. Its not so simple as us assigning value and that in turn must be my problem with your logic.
The rich however do have the most say in politics (Not sure about the rest of the world but in at least the US we have a continuing problem of Lobbyists and special interests influencing decisions that are not in the interests of the people but of small sectors with the money to look after themselves. Also obscene costs to actually have any say in our offices i.e. Campaign Funding make it all but impossible for the little man). There are probably more examples but I can't be bothered to research them just for the sake of a discussion in a forum. (Pure laziness, that's all
) This in turn goes back to your first argument. You are correct that we do assign a value to certain objects and our willingness to pay for that value in terms of monetary value. However its not so simple of an argument, say for instance a person who is living paycheck to paycheck, only buying necessities. (i.e. a good 80% of the world) Employers are looking to only pay the bare minimum that they need to keep their employees happy, and have lobbyists in Washington looking out for minimum wage reforms that they can stop. Inflation inevitably rises from time, you're making the same amount of money, and prices for your products go up. You end up in a situation where you have to pay for food without earning anything higher than perhaps a 25 cent raise. Its not so simple as us assigning value and that in turn must be my problem with your logic.
Take your example of the phone, and apply to to food, gasoline, and water, and shelter, electricity, etc
You may value gasoline at $1.50 a gallon, yet the price is $2.80 a gallon. Yet you REQUIRE gasoline in order to get to work, to make money in the first place. If I choose to simply not buy, I cannot get to work and lose my job, further removing me from the economy.
The price of gasoline is not set by the customer, its set by others who simply GUESS on how difficult it may or not be to obtain, and are usually wrong.
Food is the same way, you may not value your food at a certain set price, but if you aren't willing to pay that price, you starve. Same with clean water.
I don't value ANY place to live at $800+ a month, I think those prices are insane, but even a 1-room studio in my area goes for at least that much. If I don't want to pay that price, I live on the street.
I am kept poor by the prices set on REQUIRED items just to keep myself alive and in a even remotely comfortable living condition.
The proper way to run Capitalism is to have competition, which attempts to sell a better product at a equal or lower rate, forcing the others within that industry to do the same to them, benefiting everyone with better and less expensive goods.
Instead, Large companies buys out the competition, raises their rates and says "screw you, take it at this price or starve/freeze to death". Meanwhile they go golfing on their yachts.
The rich will always exploit the poor in order to make themselves more rich, always.
You may value gasoline at $1.50 a gallon, yet the price is $2.80 a gallon. Yet you REQUIRE gasoline in order to get to work, to make money in the first place. If I choose to simply not buy, I cannot get to work and lose my job, further removing me from the economy.
The price of gasoline is not set by the customer, its set by others who simply GUESS on how difficult it may or not be to obtain, and are usually wrong.
Food is the same way, you may not value your food at a certain set price, but if you aren't willing to pay that price, you starve. Same with clean water.
I don't value ANY place to live at $800+ a month, I think those prices are insane, but even a 1-room studio in my area goes for at least that much. If I don't want to pay that price, I live on the street.
I am kept poor by the prices set on REQUIRED items just to keep myself alive and in a even remotely comfortable living condition.
The proper way to run Capitalism is to have competition, which attempts to sell a better product at a equal or lower rate, forcing the others within that industry to do the same to them, benefiting everyone with better and less expensive goods.
Instead, Large companies buys out the competition, raises their rates and says "screw you, take it at this price or starve/freeze to death". Meanwhile they go golfing on their yachts.
The rich will always exploit the poor in order to make themselves more rich, always.
First and foremost, I'll admit I read far enough into this thread to see this comment and chose to reply, so if this has been addressed heavily already, I apologize.Akai Shizuku said:
Now, to piss people off...
Is it ok for a man who runs a company and has been successful to buy a mansion and have a king size bed to be comfortable, while half way around the world people starve?
Yes. Yes it is.
That man had a goal (or even if he was born into a rich family) and sustained the goal. Capitalism is about being able to make money by trading goods and services, and having that economic force driven by the people. This person is handling his money in a way that allows him to have these nice things. He has taken risks, accepted returns, and reached a point in his life allowing a mansion and cushy couch.
Now for the starving people across the world, is it right that they starve? No, it isn't. However that rich guy isn't at fault. If you are so poor that you can't afford a home over your head, and you can't find enough food for yourself, why the hell are you having multiple children that will have to grow up in the same environment? When you do that, you are putting yourself before the children you will bear, dooming another to a life of potential poverty for a night of sex.
Now I will not generalize a group across the world who suffer. I honestly feel bad for them, but having been poor, hungry, and near homeless myself in my life and now having a college education and excellent job in my industry, I can say that if you truly drive to be out of that situation, you can do so. Leave the town (or country) that holds you back if that is the problem. Learn a skill, from scratch if you have to. Hell, join the military and have the state take care of you and train you in a skill. Even in third world countries, the militia are better taken care of than the people.
Now someone will bring up that the rich are rich by underhanded means. This isn't always true. Actually most rich people are rich by hard work, just they don't get publicized. Saying all rich people are evil (essentially the argument being made) is the same as saying all those poor people in a third world country are evil terrorists. Both are bull.
I'll agree with the idea that people hate the rich too much, but saying that the poor abuse the rich is a little too much.
I've seen people rail against capitalism before, but to be honest I don't see why. My family has been filled with people who have worked hard, and prospered: that's the idea behind capitalism.
People like CEOs who get paid millions are the ones to get angry at, not the system of capitalism in general: and even then, there are a few out there that DESERVE the ridiculous amounts of money they make, because they're ridiculously good at their jobs.
I've seen people rail against capitalism before, but to be honest I don't see why. My family has been filled with people who have worked hard, and prospered: that's the idea behind capitalism.
People like CEOs who get paid millions are the ones to get angry at, not the system of capitalism in general: and even then, there are a few out there that DESERVE the ridiculous amounts of money they make, because they're ridiculously good at their jobs.
Well, the idea that businesses are beholden to their customers should be true, except that every business does all in their power to make sure that isn't the case. It's funny the TC mentions phones as an example since years ago it was believed that various internet technologies would make the cellphone subscription model obsolete, so the cellphone companies moved quickly to squash those other business models.
So no my friend, the customer does not always have a choice. You have no choice when you put gas in your car. You have no choice when you desire public transportation (the bus companies bought out the trains in most cities 50 years ago). You have no choice whom you buy electricity from. In all consumer items where choice is available there are forces at work to deny these choices as much as possible.
So no my friend, the customer does not always have a choice. You have no choice when you put gas in your car. You have no choice when you desire public transportation (the bus companies bought out the trains in most cities 50 years ago). You have no choice whom you buy electricity from. In all consumer items where choice is available there are forces at work to deny these choices as much as possible.
The rich can invest and set aside money to earn more money. The poor cannot as all of their money goes to living. The rich have more and varied opportunities for education, travel and advancement, the poor are lucky that public school is free to attend.
Your argument is flawed because it's based off of the premise that Capitalism is free-market and unrestricted...it isn't. There is no country on earth that has an un-monopolized-by-the-government brand of capitalism. Because the economy is influenced by those in power, those in power manipulate it so that the rich get richer, because the rich are the ones with power.
Your argument is flawed because it's based off of the premise that Capitalism is free-market and unrestricted...it isn't. There is no country on earth that has an un-monopolized-by-the-government brand of capitalism. Because the economy is influenced by those in power, those in power manipulate it so that the rich get richer, because the rich are the ones with power.
Yes, you are right. But unfortunately corporations are really only beholden to profits. During the early days of the Industrial Revolution and Robber Barons in America it was proven to be vital that the government get involved in such matters. They need to regulate such negative behavior.CIA said:
Try telling that ideology to the estimated 30% of people in the world who have never made a phone call.
Or the people in Uganda, where almost half the population do not have clean drinking water.
Capitalism, as it is now, goes far and far beyound the consumer-seller relationship. Capitalism penetrates every aspect of our world`s resources, how laws are enforced, and establishes trade deals that keep the produces of goods in poverty. There is no two-way interaction. There is so much more that goes on.
In your example, think about that phone, open it up. You will see a `made in china` or `made in `india` mark that demonstrates how that phone was made in a factory with very low wages and appalling working conditions. Things are slowly getting better but workers are still naught but cogs in a large machine. Replacable, identical, disposible cogs.
There is a huge gap in the World between the very rich and the very poor. I cannot feel any sympathy for these people at the top, who have to give in to customer demand. Well, so what? They have homes, clean water, fat pay checks, large pensions and money that most people in the world will never see in their whole lives. They hardly suffer abuse, and if they do, they are more than well paid for it.
How can those who benefit the least from trade and labour laws be considered as an abusing force against the rich who benefit from these laws and agreements? They are the real poor. The truly abused.
I have no sympathy for the consumers either. Compared to the people who made the things we buy, we have life really good.
Or the people in Uganda, where almost half the population do not have clean drinking water.
Capitalism, as it is now, goes far and far beyound the consumer-seller relationship. Capitalism penetrates every aspect of our world`s resources, how laws are enforced, and establishes trade deals that keep the produces of goods in poverty. There is no two-way interaction. There is so much more that goes on.
In your example, think about that phone, open it up. You will see a `made in china` or `made in `india` mark that demonstrates how that phone was made in a factory with very low wages and appalling working conditions. Things are slowly getting better but workers are still naught but cogs in a large machine. Replacable, identical, disposible cogs.
There is a huge gap in the World between the very rich and the very poor. I cannot feel any sympathy for these people at the top, who have to give in to customer demand. Well, so what? They have homes, clean water, fat pay checks, large pensions and money that most people in the world will never see in their whole lives. They hardly suffer abuse, and if they do, they are more than well paid for it.
How can those who benefit the least from trade and labour laws be considered as an abusing force against the rich who benefit from these laws and agreements? They are the real poor. The truly abused.
I have no sympathy for the consumers either. Compared to the people who made the things we buy, we have life really good.
This appears to hold water. Let's pour some in and see what happens. Where'd all my water go?PxDn Ninja said:
When you live in the poorest part of the world, are undereducated, the only escape from misery is sex, thanks in part to conservative Christians your second best birth control option after abstinence is anal sex, etc. etc. etc. it is absolutely no wonder that Africa has a booming population and a raging AIDS problem. Imperialism did massive damage to Africa, end of lesson!
Akai Shizuku said:
I have read your article and well while some of the points are logical, some are outright incorrect. For Example:
"But if these qualities are truly natural, it follows that they are a part of our DNA, our blueprints, and that only the mentally ill engage in them. But again, not all humans display tendencies like war, and those who do are not shaped so much by their genes as by their environments."
This statement to me, as someone who extensively studies genetics as a profession, I find laughable. It ignores a basic tenet of genetics. For example, why is it that identical twins, who share identical DNA, we are talking 100% similarity, exactly identical can have their genetic make up effect them in different ways. It is because the environment is as important as your genetic make up, certain situations trigger certain genes. So to say that "this isn't a gene issue it's an environment issue" is incorrect. The environment is as much a part of your genes as the DNA that makes them up. Whoever wrote this article didn't understand this. So this point is completely invalid and in fact goes more to prove that human nature actually does exist. But then again most people know very little about genetics so people would follow this very intently.
Also here's a little description I found at the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. A very reliable source.
Human Nature n.
Fundamental dispositions and traits of humans. Theories about the nature of humankind form a part of every culture. In the West, debate has traditionally centred on whether humans are selfish and competitive (see Thomas Hobbes; John Locke) or social and altruistic (Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim). Recent research in genetics, evolutionary biology, and cultural anthropology suggests that humans may be both, and that there is a complex interaction between genetically inherited factors ("nature") and developmental and social factors ("nurture"). Basic drives shared with other primates include food, sex, security, play, and social status. Gender differences include greater investment in reproduction and child-rearing among females, hence less risk-taking; and concomitantly less investment and greater risk-taking among males. See also behaviour genetics; Homo sapiens; personality; philosophical anthropology; sociobiology.
"The idea of human nature is limiting, an excuse: it suggests that we aren?t evolving in the ways we act and will never shed certain behaviours. If anything more than a pessimistic view of these behaviours is to emerge, humans should acknowledge that the misunderstood philosophical phenomenon known as human nature does not exist."
What makes you think human nature will not evolve as well? Human Nature is the collective traits and actions of the human collective. Why would that not also evolve with the human collective. This argument makes no sense, Human nature is not anything set in stone rather it is what makes us distinctly human. To argue that the current definition of human nature cannot change is incorrect and again shows that whoever wrote this article fails to acknowledge this fact.
I am not trying to trash you Akai Shizuku, you bring up many valid points throughout this forum thread and I respect your position, however, I would simply like to point out a few flaws in the article that you posted. The article is not entirely without worth. It does bring up interesting issues with human nature that are completely ridiculous, such as self-preservation. We do so many things that are idiotic and don't make any sense. I do like the examples provided, War, drugs, pollution, etc. These things do nothing but destroy us as humans, these destructive behaviors are being extensively studied by all areas to see where they stem from. This article is not without worth, in fact aside from the approach towards human nature I believe this article brings up a handful of concepts that should make people question what they do and why they do it.
your deceleration of choice seems invalid your only 'choice' is to bit between the companies all trying to do the same thing get profits. I find that a system which only goal is to the leg up on another in any form will always lead to a bad end since the competition only gets worse and worse and the accepted methods wider and wider while the resources get smaller and smaller.
Eventually the result will be the old horror of the mega corporations or a market collapse that drags everything down. Capitalism relies on excess material (fuel, food, metals) for the sake of growth it is becoming increasingly clear that excess material is running out.
Eventually the result will be the old horror of the mega corporations or a market collapse that drags everything down. Capitalism relies on excess material (fuel, food, metals) for the sake of growth it is becoming increasingly clear that excess material is running out.
Quite frankly, no. You've put some thought into this, and it is refreshing to see a topic that required passion in its making. However, I think you're not quite grasping everything yet.ben---neb said:
Because I'm too lazy to create a metaphor, I'll just instead tell you about what started the American revolution - a little thing called mercantilism. In essence, the British empire would send people to America, where they would have children and establish colonies. Then, the settlers would send back raw materials, which the empire would process into quality goods and sell back to the colonists. In other words, they ripped them off seven ways to Sunday.ben---neb said:
It's not like the Americans could say no and move on; I mean, they eventually did, at the cost of having to fight the world's largest military. But they were pressured by necessity. They needed the goods; they needed to mine the metal and send it over so that they could buy the plow that would result from it. Why? Who knows. They easily could have dug troughs with their hands. But there are hardly ever choices when you need to live and people have what you need.
How did this not benefit the producer, though? I'm not seeing the correlation.ben---neb said:
ben---neb said:
Idealistic, yes. Practical, no. Consumers fuel supply and demand, but a producer can always withdraw supply from an area which isn't demanding it and focus those resources on selling to an area which is. Producers will never listen to consumers unless they're latching onto something which will give them an edge over the competition. Otherwise, nobody cares about the consumer, really. They'll keep buying eventually.ben---neb said:
Also, remember individualism. Just because Fred doesn't buy something doesn't mean a hundred other Freds won't.
For another time, perhaps. Remember to look at the classic basics of economics next time and factor those into your thought process. Cheers, though.ben---neb said:
I won't argue a word you say. That is completely true, but the fact is they are still human, thus able to think rationally no matter how undereducated they might be.Captain Blackout said:
Undereducated or not, you know where babies come from. You know that having unprotected sex can lead to kids. You know you can't support yourself in any way. You decide to have sex and get pregnant (or get some woman pregnant, I'm equal opportunity). You have just took all the facts you know and made a decision that ends up putting another person in your exact situation.
I understand the need for escape from the terrible things those people go through, and I feel for them, but when you see footage and reports from over there and people have several children, clearly they aren't thinking about the kids. They are just fucking for the moment of pleasure and doing nothing about the repercussions.
I agree with you. I also submit many of them went for what they felt was a "rational" solution, and the AIDS problem in Africa exploded in the end. How many saw that coming 70 years ago?PxDn Ninja said: