russ_watters said:I realize I said I was answering the question directly but I really didn't. My answer is no, poverty should not be comfortable because if it is comfortable, many people won't make an effort to get out of it.
This is the kind of economic thinking that poisons any hope of ever having a truly free market, imo. If poverty is seen as having a social-motivational purpose for "getting out of it" in a meritocratic system, the economy becomes nothing more than a systemic reward/punishment for submission and obedience to authority figures in control of those economic rewards.russ_watters said:I realize I said I was answering the question directly but I really didn't. My answer is no, poverty should not be comfortable because if it is comfortable, many people won't make an effort to get out of it.
brainstorm said:You're comparing radically different things. Be careful before you start threatening "foreigners" by suggesting that they are an impediment to the "national welfare of the American People." That is too close to a national-socialist type approach, imo, where scapegoats are sought to exclude in order to increase "the nation" as a closed social group. The political reality is that the US political-economy extends beyond people with US citizenship and the government has responsibilities to protect all those people's freedoms, not just promote collective dominion for citizens globally over anyone and everyone without citizenship.
If you want to mess with foreign aid, it would be better to take an approach that is constructive and respectful of the rights and freedoms of the people those policies are aimed to serve. Look at their relationship(s) with US businesses and industries, etc. Don't just look at them as sandbags to be jettisoned in times when US citizens/businesses can't get their acts together to overcome financial hurdles to universal opportunity for at least basic economic sustainment.
I don't believe I'm omniscient. I just analyzed the what you wrote. Here is what you said:Radrook said:Your response is full of strawman arguments based on your misinterpretation of what I said. It assumes intentions and ideas totally alien to me. When not sure it's better keep the imagination in check and if in doubt to respectfully ask for clarification instead of pretending to be omniscient. IMHO
First, what does this sentence imply? Why should "nations be doing their own things?" That implies that there's automatically something wrong with people in separated national regions with different national citizenships working together. Is this what you're assuming. That every form of global interaction that doesn't restrict itself to homonational relations is a problem?The government has no such incentive qualms when it comes to giving foreign aid to nations that should be doing their own things.
I see how it could, but that's the same as saying that providing federal funding for interstate highways could encourage dependence on federal aid. You're just singling out "foreign aid" because it's "foreign," no?In fact, it encourages dependence on foregn aid in order to maintain regional political influence.
This sounds like some kind of sarcastic double-talk to implicitly complain that "Americans" should support tax money going to "fellow Americans" and be against money going to "foreigners" for any reason. In other words, you want the US government to underwrite a system of economic privilege for citizens based on birth-right. You assume that the money spent on "foreign aid" is nothing more than a welfare check for non-citizens.I don't see Americans taking umbrage with their tax dollars being splurged that way. They only seem to take unmbrage whenever the tax dollars are imagined as going to fellow Americans in need.
thephysicsman said:No matter how poor you are, you don't have the right to other people's money. It's time we replace social security with private charity.
Originally Posted by russ_watters
I realize I said I was answering the question directly but I really didn't. My answer is no, poverty should not be comfortable because if it is comfortable, many people won't make an effort to get out of it.
WHOWEE In his response to the State of the Union Address tonight, Congressman Ryan said (something to the effect of) "let's not turn the safety net into a hammock" - classic!
WhoWee said:Social security is funded through payroll deductions and matching tax.
BilPrestonEsq said:That's like saying that we should rely on a person's self discipline and morality instead of enforcing laws(on criminals, theives and the like).
There will always be people who can't help themselves
we are humans and we have compassion.
Problem is you can't rely on everyone to have compassion.
What force, or were you attempting to make a joke?thephysicsman said:That is, through initiation of force.
Evo said:What force
No. Inflation has no bearing whatsoever on this issue. I think you are attributing more effects to inflation than it really has.BilPrestonEsq said:The problem with solving welfare problems is that under our current system the value of money is diminishing without working any less.
While it is popular these days to equate the two, they aren't really equal. In fact, I'd say equating the two contributes to the problem of reliance on government aid: when you base the definition of "poverty" on income inequality instead of standard of living, you create a situation where people receive handouts they don't need which decreases the incentive to work.The gap between rich and poor will continue to grow. And that is equal to the welfare problem.
arildno said:1. Money is not given out, but food articles, clothes etc.
2, Furthermore, the spending rate of their valuables can be controlled by limiting the amount they are given each time (possibly increasing the frequency of hand-outs).
Rather than giving the equivalent of a month's allowance (which could easily be frittered away in a day by bartering or re-selling), a daily allowance will probably reduce the percentage of abuse of welfare.
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.
russ_watters said:when you base the definition of "poverty" on income inequality instead of standard of living, you create a situation where people receive handouts they don't need which decreases the incentive to work.
The problem with this is that not everyone's money is worth the same thing. What I mean by this is that when a well-earning attorney or other professional is taxed for compassion, their labor does not contribute anything to the poor. Instead, their money gets paid to someone who works in a grocery store to give food to the poor. The forced exchange that took place through taxation and governed spending is that the grocery store workers feed the poor and in exchange they get free attorney service, or whatever the person does who paid the taxes. But who says that the grocery store worker WANTS to work harder just because the attorney paid more taxes? See, the problem is not just distributing money and resources, it's distributing preferred and less-preferred forms of labor.BilPrestonEsq said:So you have to take their money by force through taxes or else the burden would fall on the shoulders of only the compassionate, giving people without compassion a financial advantage.
Again, from the grocery store worker's perspective, or food-server, etc. paying the social worker just creates one more person they have to cook and clean for, along with the "truly needy person" who gets money to buy groceries and buy fast food because the social worker felt really bad for them. The question is why both the social worker AND needy person can't work in the food service industry that they need money to patronize? If they need money to pay for a house or apartment, why can't they work in the construction industry, etc.? There are obviously reasons why not everyone can and does work in these industries but the issue is why can't the people in need be trained or otherwise work in some way that reduces the burden of the service class who don't like their work?The problem is getting the money to the right people and leaving able minds and bodies to fend for themselves like everyone else. It needs to be case by case rather than just giving money to anyone below a certain income. Hiring social workers to weed out the people that don't really need the money would certainly be more efficient than just handing out money to anyone that says they need it.
Yes, but the problem is that those that work don't want to cut their hours to create more jobs for the unemployed. It's a catch 22. They want maximum hours for maximum pay and job security, but they don't want to do anything to help those that are structurally unemployed as a result of there being too few jobs. How can you horde jobs and work-hours and then complain that other people need to work instead of getting a handout?BilPrestonEsq said:Anyone would have to agree with this on the basis that anybody given a choice between working for a paycheck or receiving an equal paycheck without working would take the free money. I know I would! The problem with solving welfare problems is that under our current system the value of money is diminishing without working any less. That has to be changed just the same. The gap between rich and poor will continue to grow. And that is equal to the welfare problem. Or rather that is equal to unemployment and other subsidies given to people that want to work but can't find any or can't make enough to pay their bills due to economic circumstances that are out of their control. Bottom line is you can't give money to able minds and bodies for nothing. It is obviously not fair to those that work.
Originally Posted by BilPrestonEsq
That's like saying that we should rely on a person's self discipline and morality instead of enforcing laws(on criminals, theives and the like).
THEPHYSICSMAN:No, it's nothing even close to it. The funciton of the law is to protect us against criminals who want to steal our money - not to help the criminals to do so.
THEPHYSICSMAN: There will always be people who can't help themselves
And there will always be people who want to help. Because, as you put it:we are humans and we have compassion.
THEPHYSICSMAN:You don't have to rely on everyone to have it.
BilPrestonEsq said:Laws are in place because we cannot depend on people to discipline
we cannot depend on people to have compassion for others.
why the burden will fall on those that do have compassion. How is that fair?
russ_watters said:No. Inflation has no bearing whatsoever on this issue. I think you are attributing more effects to inflation than it really has.
I would like to keep this on topic but the proof of inflation(money supply vs. purchasing power) is clearly laid out in the graphs in my last post on the 'Is Modern Banking Fraudulent?' thread. This does have an effect on all spending including entitlement spending
The sooner people realize the obvious mathematically impossiblity of a sustained economy through fractional reserve banking the better. If you would like to argue that we can in that thread. I felt it was necessary to make that point in my post on this thread seeing as I it was important to clarify different points in my argument.
While it is popular these days to equate the two, they aren't really equal. In fact, I'd say equating the two contributes to the problem of reliance on government aid: when you base the definition of "poverty" on income inequality instead of standard of living, you create a situation where people receive handouts they don't need which decreases the incentive to work.
Again same answer. Except for the part in bold which I couldn't agree with more. How is someone receiving the same amount of money through a handout going to have any incentive at all to work for the same money? There is no incentive.
And why cannot this be counter-acted by demonizing, non-violent boycott campaigns?That is exactly what will create a financial incentive to be without compassion. That is why the burden will fall on those that do have compassion. How is that fair?
arildno said:And why cannot this be counter-acted by demonizing, non-violent boycott campaigns?
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/pers...money/archives/2009/03/social_security_2.htmlBilPrestonEsq said:This does have an effect on all spending including entitlement spending...
So?thephysicsman said:Good point. But keep in mind that businesses are far more effective in helping people by doing business than by handing out their money
Well, actually higher profits raise profit expectations generally, which leads to competition for who can set prices the highest and lower costs the most. Higher prices reduce everyone's purchasing power, including the poor - but especially the poor because a greater proportion of their income goes to purchases instead of things like saving, insurance, investment, etc.thephysicsman said:Good point. But keep in mind that businesses are far more effective in helping people by doing business than by handing out their money. People tend to forget this. They seem to believe that the economy is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum" game, where one person's profit is another person's loss.
arildno said:I, and a zillion people are in our full right to boycott anyone merchant, and advise others to do the same.
Making money is not some form of morally heroic act.
brainstorm said:Well, actually higher profits raise profit expectations generally, which leads to competition for who can set prices the highest and lower costs the most. Higher prices reduce everyone's purchasing power, including the poor - but especially the poor because a greater proportion of their income goes to purchases instead of things like saving, insurance, investment, etc.
I think sometimes people help each other out for various reasons and that's wonderful but you can't rely on that.
The best thing to help poverty, imo, is to make it possible to live better with less spending, both by supporting economic policies that lower prices
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.thephysicsman said:Making money involves productive work. If this is not heroic, what is?
arildno said:Money has some extra values beyond the item you can buy with it:
You can buy something else for it instead, and you also have a freedom on the spending rate of your money.
It might be justified that those added values are precisely what people on welfare should be debarred from:
1. Money is not given out, but food articles, clothes etc.
2, Furthermore, the spending rate of their valuables can be controlled by limiting the amount they are given each time (possibly increasing the frequency of hand-outs).
Rather than giving the equivalent of a month's allowance (which could easily be frittered away in a day by bartering or re-selling), a daily allowance will probably reduce the percentage of abuse of welfare.
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.
Why fools?thephysicsman said:Sure. You would be fools to do so, but that would be your right.
The classical Randian fallacy.Making money involves productive work.
Hmm, let's see.If this is not heroic, what is?
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?
thephysicsman said:It is heroic to pursue your own happiness.
WhoWee said:I see nothing wrong with the Government buying certain generic goods and staples directly from producers
arildno said:Why am I fool to push a businessman out of business if he is a racial bigot, for example?
arildno said:Why fools?
The classical Randian fallacy.
Answer is: not necessarily.
Does saving a boy from drowning in a pond meet your "standards" of heroism?