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

[sayak83]

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.

The question probably is how to motivate the government and the rich people to spend more on solutions that lead to self empowerment of the poor rather than spending the money on lobbies and super PACs and political backbitings and sound bytes.

 

[Revoltingest]

The question probably is how to motivate the government and the rich people to spend more on solutions that lead to self empowerment of the poor rather than spending the money on lobbies and super PACs and political backbitings and sound bytes.

Caution...sarcasm ahead:

The right won't spend money to educate the poor in life skills.
The left wants only to teach the poor about 6th wave intersectional
post modern radical feminist gas lighting theory.

 

[fantome profane]

See post #9.

So, if we could find a way to separate material wealth from political power we just might stand a chance at creating policies for a more equitable distribution.

Perhaps a system where every citizen had an equal say in forming these policies regarding of their wealth.

And we could give this system some fancy name, maybe something like “Democracy”




(nah, forget it. It would never work)

 

[Stevicus]

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.

Liberals like FDR have a proven track record of success in this regard, resulting in vast improvements in America's economy and standard of living, with right-wing conservatives and capitalists fighting them tooth and nail every step of the way.

My main complaint about liberals nowadays is that they didn't stay the course. They wavered, which is why they're facing bigger problems now.

 

[PureX]

I'm a progressive.

Progressive my ***.

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

I don't dismiss the poor as helpless at all. Nor incapable of improvement. Their being screwed over by an amoral system set up by rich people to reward rich people for being rich.

 

[Revoltingest]

Liberals like FDR have a proven track record of success in this regard, resulting in vast improvements in America's economy and standard of living, with right-wing conservatives and capitalists fighting them tooth and nail every step of the way.

My main complaint about liberals nowadays is that they didn't stay the course. They wavered, which is why they're facing bigger problems now.

Where you see success, I see a policy of protectionism
that extended the Depression. The improved standard
of living was due to capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Progressive my ***.

Well, it's hard to argue with such cogent evidence based argument.

 

[Stevicus]

The improved standard of living was due to capitalism.

But that was obviously not the capitalists' first choice. They had to be goaded and compelled by those "ding-dang bleedin' heart librals" and "big gov" on the backs of private business - a common complaint I hear from the capitalist community.

 

[Revoltingest]

But that was obviously not the capitalists' first choice. They had to be goaded and compelled by those "ding-dang bleedin' heart librals" and "big gov" on the backs of private business - a common complaint I hear from the capitalist community.

Without capitalism, your "bleeding hearts"
wouldn't have the resources to give away.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

Well I think its safe to say it's clearly beyond redemption. Look at the profile of the apex people in power. All of government and business are firmly in the hands of billionaires and millionaires who will never willingly relinquish their grip on others. They just will squeeze harder and harder.


It would take a massive economic apocalypse or a major war to reclaim any level playing field that eliminates the parasitic nature of excessively wealthy individuals and governments whom have demonstrated clearly to be predators without recompense or remorse.

 

[Stevicus]

Without capitalism, your "bleeding hearts"
wouldn't have the resources to give away.

Without liberals, the socialists would have overthrown the capitalists decades ago. So you capitalists should get on your knees and kiss liberals' feet in gratitude for saving your bacon.

 

[Revoltingest]

Without liberals, the socialists would have overthrown the capitalists decades ago. So you capitalists should get on your knees and kiss liberals' feet in gratitude for saving your bacon.

Sounds like this is about your foot fetish.

 

[Stevicus]

Well I think its safe to say it's clearly beyond redemption. Look at the profile of the apex people in power. All of government and business are firmly in the hands of billionaires and millionaires who will never willingly relinquish their grip on others. They just will squeeze harder and harder.


It would take a massive economic apocalypse or a major war to reclaim any level playing field that eliminates the parasitic nature of excessively wealthy individuals and governments whom have demonstrated clearly to be predators without recompense or remorse.

You may be right. I think we're seeing signs of that already. Of course, there's a war going on which could very easily escalate. Political instability and a general sense of apathy also appear to frustrate the wealthy classes. I've heard some people in media lament about labor shortages and how people don't want to work anymore.

While the fanatics and extremists get more attention, there's a much larger number of people who appear cynical, apathetic, nihilistic - who simply don't care about the world, the country, or what direction we're taking. So, there could be a big blow up, but my prediction is that the apathy and malaise will simply cause us to gradually fade away while the billionaires' fortunes slowly dwindle. People have become strangely comfortable with the idea of "the end of the world as we know it" (and I feel fine).

 

[Stevicus]

Sounds like this is about your foot fetish.

Is that all you can come up with?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is that all you can come up with?

I could'a called you a poopy head.
But that might be mistaken for affection.

 

[Stevicus]

I could'a called you a poopy head.
But that might be mistaken for affection.

Yes, but you show such little gratitude for the liberals (who are also capitalists, btw) who saved capitalism.

 

[Heyo]

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.

Ideally, the government represents the will and interests of the people. It manages common goods, like e.g. clean water and air. When some people or corporations are allowed to use up common goods without paying for it, the goods are badly managed.

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.

Just about the same time as the US, in the Reagan era. By the neo-liberal ideology, there should be no state-owned corporations, so profitable businesses were privatized. At the same time, corporations implemented economic principles (which were theorized earlier) like minmax. It was also a time of rapid automatization. All that taken together has landed us where we are now.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Without capitalism, your "bleeding hearts"
wouldn't have the resources to give away.

Is this the "there'd be no wealth if it weren't for the rich" argument? It fails on a number of levels, not least that accumulating wealth is never a solo effort.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, but you show such little gratitude for the liberals (who are also capitalists, btw) who saved capitalism.

They didn't save it....nay, they've ganged up to cause
USA to fall in economic liberty relative to other countries.
Even Canuckistan is now more capitalistic than this
lumbering policeman to the world.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Ideally, the government represents the will and interests of the people. It manages common goods, like e.g. clean water and air. When some people or corporations are allowed to use up common goods without paying for it, the goods are badly managed.

Just about the same time as the US, in the Reagan era. By the neo-liberal ideology, there should be no state-owned corporations, so profitable businesses were privatized. At the same time, corporations implemented economic principles (which were theorized earlier) like minmax. It was also a time of rapid automatization. All that taken together has landed us where we are now.

I definitely believe public amenities like water, gas, electricity, education and health, should all be in public hands - which means managed by government appointed bodies on behalf of the community at large. The only shareholders should be the service users, and the only dividend should be the service itself. Beyond the provision of basic amenities, government intervention in economies becomes more problematic, but not as problematic as a completely unregulated economy quickly becomes, for all but a few.