Should Poverty Be Comfortable?

thephysicsman

Sure. You would be fools to do so, but that would be your right.

Making money involves productive work. If this is not heroic, what is?

BilPrestonEsq

QUOTE=russ_watters;3104684]Not really, no - typically the spending is adjusted from year-to-year to eliminate the impact of inflation. It is for social security: http://www.boston.com/business/perso...ecurity_2.html

In other words, inflation has essentially no impact on Social Security spending/benefits.[/QUOTE]

The money needed to subsidize social security to adjust for inflation has to come from somewhere else. Where do suppose the money comes from?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png

thephysicsman

In a free market you can only make money by providing consumers with something for which they willingly pay. How on Earth can this lower their purchasing power?

You can. It doesn't take many compassionate people to help the very few who will need help in a free society.

This is impossible. A free market is the only way to lower prices.

brainstorm

There are all these people who insist that money is the measure of work-productivity, but I think if you look more closely the two aren't the same. Some work produces great value but makes relatively little money, e.g. changing the oil in car regularly to get more miles out of the engine than if you rarely change it. Other work makes a lot of money but doesn't produce much tangible economic value, e.g. decorating retail displays, tearing ticket stubs, etc. Of course these tasks all have a function within the system they are embedded, but in a larger scheme they do not produce economic value the way things like farm-labor and construction do. So when more people could be producing more building materials so the price of building materials could be low enough for poor people to afford, but they are working in jobs to manage and market building materials at as high a price possible to increase profits, is this work really heroic for the poor? Yes, I'm aware of the argument that by pushing the price for building materials up, it stimulates more production of those products which ultimately results in a more abundant availability and the surplus trickles down, but I don't know that it really always does as efficiently as it could or should.

WhoWee

I think one of the problems with the US system is we (taxpayers) don't enjoy any buying power. Given the amount of money spent to house and feed people - we should be able to buy more (stuff) for the same amount of money. The most obvious example: States and US Government should buy food at wholesale - not retail. Historically, the Agriculture department has even paid farmers NOT to produce crops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070100962.html
"Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post. "

In the overall budget, $1.3 billion is (spent roughly every 8 hours?) - not a big number. However, if the same amount of money was spent purchasing crops from the farmers - wouldn't that be better (for the taxpayers)?

To expand on the point of "That such a situation might feel humiliating to the recipient is a rather irrelevant point. Because being in need is not the same as suffering an injustice. " - I see nothing wrong with the Government buying certain generic goods and staples directly from producers including: generic soups, cereal, and bread, cheese, (throw in some soaps and tooth paste), milk, eggs, meat, vegetables, fruit, and condiments.

People on welfare don't NEED over-priced processed foods - they NEED basic sustenance - anything more is a waste and a luxury (IMO). I don't want anyone to ever go hungry. We can feed more people for less money (again IMO).

arildno

Why fools?
Why am I fool to push a businessman out of business if he is a racial bigot, for example?
I do not want such men to prosper in their private life, and I find it eminently rational, and within my rights, to reduce their opprtunities for it. By legal means, of course.


The classical Randian fallacy.
Answer is: not necessarily.
Hmm, let's see.
That's a really hard one.
Does saving a boy from drowning in a pond meet your "standards" of heroism?

thephysicsman

It is heroic to persue your own happiness. If managing and marketing makes you happy, this is heroic.

arildno

Tell that to Jared Lee Loughner, and other guys like him.
I'm sure they agree with you.

thephysicsman

The government spends other people's money on things that they maybe don't want to spend them on. You seriously see nothing wrong with this?

I didn't say that. You would be a fool if you pushed a productive businessman out of business because he invested his money instead of giving it away to the poor.

How so?

Yes, unless you put yourself at risk.

brainstorm

I used to think this way but there is something to fighting fair. For example, you should realize that much racist bigotry occurs because people boycott institutions that are not racially exclusive enough (i.e. "white" enough). So it is ethically a bit nicer to raise the issue for discussion instead of immediately punishing a business "without due process." Granted sometimes you are convinced "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that a business is corrupt and you just can't stand to contribute to it by being a client, but also realize that legitimate businesses can be harmed by public campaigns created to scapegoat certain businesses to foster success for their competition.

Heroic to whom? Let's face it, everyone commits actions that are beneficial to some and detrimental to others - so everyone is a hero in some ways and a villain in others. The best we can do is try to maximize benefit and minimize detriment as much as possible for whomever possible, including ourselves.

BilPrestonEsq

Is it me or has this gone off topic?

brainstorm

To you, everything in any thread that doesn't focus on fractional reserve banking is off topic it seems.

BilPrestonEsq

You obviously didn't read my posts.

BilPrestonEsq

Why would anyone want to depend on the possibility of this happening? So you would bet the lives of your family members on this happening?

arildno

Why should it remain just a possibility?
People are perfectly capable of regulating their own communities, when aroused.
Placing (hopefully) benign bureaucrats to do the work you personally are responsible for doing merely makes you into a passive observer.
Nor will they be efficient at doing that work, either, without thereby arousing you from apathy.
Nor will they generally be benign, either, but more interested in getting a bigger office next year.

BilPrestonEsq

Again would you like to bet your aging family members on that? So no more social security we will just rely on the kindness of others to make sure millions of people are taken care of. That idealistic approach is irresponsible and naive.

BilPrestonEsq

As long as it's not a law it will continue to be only a possibility. I hear you the thing is it is not a realistically viable solution as you are betting real human lives on possibilities.