When you mention those most contributing to the poverty of the poor...

[Heyo]

Do you associate interest with capitalism?
In a world where people need to borrow money, how would you provide incentive for self centred mega rich to provide those loans without interest?

In my opinion.

How would you need incentive if there were no mega rich?

 

[danieldemol]

How would you need incentive if there were no mega rich?

Ok but we are at point A where we have mega rich, how do we get to point B where we don't?

In my opinion.

 

[Heyo]

Ok but we are at point A where we have mega rich, how do we get to point B where we don't?

In my opinion.

If I knew that, we wouldn't have mega rich. All I can do is inform people about how our economy works. And I'm neither very good at it, nor is it a simple problem nor are people willing to listen because economics is complicated and boring.

 

[PureX]

Poverty is not a lack of money, it's a lack of opportunity, of hope, and of sufficient ability to develop a livelihood. And we are ALL responsible for this. As we have allowed and participated in a culture that forces everyone to compete for everything they need to survive, when this competition is hugely wasteful and results in gross irrational inequities that result in millions of otherwise able and willing humans being locked out of any real pathway to a sufficient livelihood.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If I knew that, we wouldn't have mega rich. All I can do is inform people about how our economy works. And I'm neither very good at it, nor is it a simple problem nor are people willing to listen because economics is complicated and boring.

Do you think economies can and should be managed, and if so how, and by who? Too much government intervention (see the Soviet Union) has been shown to be detrimental, but too little seems to lead to huge inequality, social unrest, environmental damage etc, all of which, moral considerations aside, are unlikely to be good for the long term health of economies themselves.

Most of Western Europe (not sure about the USA) had planned free market economies (which sounds like a contradiction) immediately after WWII, and that seemed to work to the benefit of the many, not the few. We appear to have abandoned that now.

 

[Brickjectivity]

When you mention those most contributing to the poverty of the poor, who is it your highest priority to mention;

Jeff Bezos: worth 177 billion US dollars, one of the top 5 billionaires who has not pledged to give away more than half of their wealth?

Bill Gates: number 4 worth 124 billion US dollars?

George Soros: Not on the top ten list but worth 8.6 billion US dollars?

Or do you mention all of them or none of them?

For reference: The World's Billionaires - Wikipedia

In my opinion.

We currently rely upon two competing solutions to poverty. First there is the libertarian solution of personal ownership which has replaced the sovereign ownership used previously. Secondly there is the ancient biblical solution of tribal ownership with jubilees, in which ownership is temporary and is only rented from permanent tribal structures, the goal being to keep land divided into small plots. We use both of these in my country. We have personal ownership and also some trust busting.

The billionaires are a recurring issue that has come up in all of the systems for poverty reduction. Money gloms together as does control. Some people are smart, and some people are not so smart. This is both good and also problematic.

It is time for some trust busting probably. I doubt US voters would object overall to the increased competition. We simply break up the larger groups like we have done before with the Bell telephone company or various other overly large companies. We break up the banks. We break up the too-large-to-fail companies like Verizon.

 

[Twilight Hue]

When you mention those most contributing to the poverty of the poor, who is it your highest priority to mention;

Jeff Bezos: worth 177 billion US dollars, one of the top 5 billionaires who has not pledged to give away more than half of their wealth?

Bill Gates: number 4 worth 124 billion US dollars?

George Soros: Not on the top ten list but worth 8.6 billion US dollars?

Or do you mention all of them or none of them?

For reference: The World's Billionaires - Wikipedia

In my opinion.

It depends on what they do with the money.

If they spend that wealth, then society benefits, but if they hoard the wealth where it does nothing but sit and fester away for years and years, then they are certainly contributing to people's poverty.

I think its just becomes a big game when you get to a level of astronomical wealth where it's just completely incomprehensible as to why they will ever need or require that amount of excess.

 

[sayak83]

It depends on what they do with the money.

If they spend that wealth, then society benefits, but if they hoard the wealth where it does nothing but sit and fester away for years and years, then they are certainly contributing to people's poverty.

I think its just becomes a big game when you get to a level of astronomical wealth where it's just completely incomprehensible as to why they will ever need or require that amount of excess.

Money can be spent to gain power. Not sure the society benefits that way, as what it does is create a series of patron client relationships and nepotism.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I might mention them, but I'm not sure if they contribute the most to the poverty of the poor. These billionaires may be symptoms and beneficiaries of a more complex problem where the cause is difficult to pinpoint.

I dont think its all that difficult.

These people are essentially robber barons that exist to do nothing but exploit and milk wealth from others.

I doubt economic templates in their orginal form were ever originally designed for this level of wealth to be acquiesced by private individuals.

 

[PureX]

It depends on what they do with the money.

If they spend that wealth, then society benefits, but if they hoard the wealth where it does nothing but sit and fester away for years and years, then they are certainly contributing to people's poverty.

I think its just becomes a big game when you get to a level of astronomical wealth where it's just completely incomprehensible as to why they will ever need or require that amount of excess.

Sadly, what they actually do with it is use it to gain even more unnecessary wealth for themselves. The money becomes predatory.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sadly, what they actually do with it is use it to gain even more unnecessary wealth for themselves. The money becomes predatory.

I think that's where lines need to be drawn.

At that point, where it no longer benefits, but turns parasitic and predatory as you mentioned at a detriment to common people where a single person wealth affects the overall common good.

God... I almost sound like Lenin now, but I would like to add that it also needs to apply to government as much as people because government can be just as bad as individuals when it comes to money, power, and, influence.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you want to blame people for their choices, then at least give them a choice first.

Liberals....tending to make every problem about
blaming someone. It's far more useful to treat it as
assuming responsibility. This would inspire solutions,
eg, assisting the poor in making better decisions, &
becoming more independent & self sufficient.

I do not believe that is true. Children born in poor families are overwhelmingly likely to stay poor. Unless you believe being poor is genetic, it implies that the society around them is creating an overwhelming influence in sustaining their poverty. The ability to make good decisions is not an intrinsic ability, but also has be learnt. And that learning is not being provided.

See the above post.
Let's not dismiss the poor as being stuck that way.
I've dealt with many of them. I don't blame them.
I help them when practical. Some benefit. But some
insist on self sabotage.

 

[PureX]

Liberals....tending to make every problem about
blaming someone. It's far more useful to treat it as
assuming responsibility. This would inspire solutions,
eg, assisting the poor in making better decisions, &
becoming more independent & self sufficient.


See the above post.
Let's not dismiss the poor as being stuck that way.
I've dealt with many of them. I don't blame them.
I help them when practical. Some benefit. But some
insist on self sabotage.

"Liberals", huh, and yet your very first comment on this thread was about how the poor are to blame for their own predicament. So apparently you're not beyond blaming someone, either, so long as it's not you, or the system that has given you every advantage, and rewarded you every step of the way.

Poverty is 'sabotage'. People that grow up with it come to embody it after a while. People that fall into it for any number of reasons do too. And our system does nothing to help them. If they aren't serving the money pump their well being is of no concern. Even if they try to serve the money pump, at the lowest levels, their well being still doesn't matter. Their expendable. There will always be another grunt to exploit when they're gone.

It's pretty stupid to expect people to respect a system that has no respect at all for them; that only wants to use and exploit them to profit people that already have far more than they need.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Liberals", huh, and yet your very first comment on this thread was about how the poor are to blame for....

Another liberal fixated on blame.
Such limited thinking.

 

[PureX]

Another liberal fixated on blame.
Such limited thinking.

Another conservative not taking responsibility for his own behavior, even as he's busy accusing others of it. Typical.

 

[Revoltingest]

Another conservative...

I'm a progressive.
Unlike you, I don't dismiss the poor as helpless
& incapable of improvement. They can do better.

 

[Stevicus]

I dont think its all that difficult.

These people are essentially robber barons that exist to do nothing but exploit and milk wealth from others.

I doubt economic templates in their orginal form were ever originally designed for this level of wealth to be acquiesced by private individuals.

Well, they do it because they can, but who lets them do it?

 

[fantome profane]

None of them. I blame poor policies of the government and general human inability to look beyond their personal life and social circles.

But don’t you think those with considerable wealth also have an outsized role in shaping those policies? The policies that protect that wealth?

 

[Nakosis]

None of them. I blame poor policies of the government and general human inability to look beyond their personal life and social circles.

Almost what I was going to post.
Not the "billionaires" reasonability. It's the governments.

 

[sayak83]

But don’t you think those with considerable wealth also have an outsized role in shaping those policies? The policies that protect that wealth?

See post #9.