Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah I'm sure you'd probably say the same thing about companies like Boeing, GE, microsoft, apple etc. Again, your view of a static economy is very misguided. Companies have created real wealth over the past century and improved the standard of living for everyone, from the top to the bottom.
Being poor in this country still means you often have access to cable TV, internet, a cell phone, even a car.
Companies havent created wealth, companies have found better ways to extract wealth.
Riddle me this really quick.
If one guy owns a piece of land, and another guy owns a piece of land, which is wealthier?
If one guy owns a piece of land, and the other find oil on his land? Who is wealthier? Well, they are still equally as wealthy....
The only time the guy with the oil becomes wealthier, is when the other guy with the land decides he wants the oil, but when he trades his land for the oil, and uses the oil, he no longer has the oil or the land. Its a simplistic concept.
Noone cares if you have an assload of American dollars. They are worthless, they are only a medium of exchange. If you have 5 bucks, and I have a piece of land, guess what, I can grow vegetables, guess what else, I dont have to accept your $5 piece of worthless paper for my vegetables......who lives and who dies?
This is funny, so the level of wealth in human societies has been constant from day one? How about we test this idea, we can drop you off deep in the rain forest and you can live with a Yanomamo tribe that has had no direct contact with western people. Since wealth is never created you should be able to have the same standard of living you enjoy here.
The Yanomamo tribe is sitting on unvalued wealth, but wealth non the less. They can exist without exchanging their labor, or trying to negotiate with worthless paper, to someone who actually owns wealth.
Companies havent created wealth, companies have found better ways to extract wealth.
Riddle me this really quick.
If one guy owns a piece of land, and another guy owns a piece of land, which is wealthier?
If one guy owns a piece of land, and the other find oil on his land? Who is wealthier? Well, they are still equally as wealthy....
The only time the guy with the oil becomes wealthier, is when the other guy with the land decides he wants the oil, but when he trades his land for the oil, and uses the oil, he no longer has the oil or the land. Its a simplistic concept.
Noone cares if you have an assload of American dollars. They are worthless, they are only a medium of exchange. If you have 5 bucks, and I have a piece of land, guess what, I can grow vegetables, guess what else, I dont have to accept your $5 piece of worthless paper for my vegetables......who lives and who dies?
Yep, there's no value to things like penicillin, a digital camera, a cardiac stent to prevent heart attacks, AIDS drugs, or technology that allows volumes of information to be stored in something the size of a thumbnail.
Yep, no wealth at all
Sounds to me like you need to go live in the middle of the amazon with some indigenous tribe because you're pretty out of touch with modern existence.
Really? Youve seen pictures of the factory shanty towns outside some of the "Industrial Revolution" factories? Humans will definatley sink to much lower forms of squaller and malnutrition before simply dying.
With industrialization came a sort of monopoly power, unions were created to try to combat this. But it was not the lack of social welfare that caused the poverty, rather it was the monopoly power enjoyed by business owners over low-skill workers. Implementing welfare programs does nothing to deal with the real issue, rather it just transfers wealth from tax payers to businesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
A decent number of people at any given time are subsiding on government handouts and safety nets for their only source of income. If forced off the dole, they would be faced with entering the workforce, or criminal enterprise. Largely, there is no room for these individuals in the workforce.
The economy is not static, there is not a fixed number of jobs. In what way are these people any different than the millions each year that become working age? If welfare was actually eliminated, it would have to be done slowly. Welfare distorts the markets and you'll want to roll-back the distortion slowly.
Also, I'm not against all social welfare. Things like disability when implemented correctly make perfect sense. But the idea that welfare reduces poverty is not well founded.
Yep, there's no value to things like penicillin, a digital camera, a cardiac stent to prevent heart attacks, AIDS drugs, or technology that allows volumes of information to be stored in something the size of a thumbnail.
There is "value" there is no wealth. A digital camera represents no degree of wealth. Its "value" is how much of another medium of exchange or actual wealth it can trade for in return. Same with all of the other crap you listed.
It is not wealth in itself. Nikon can make 6 billion digital cameras. Are those cameras wealth? Does anyone need them to actually survive? If people stopped caring about taking photographs, Nikon would have absolutely nothing. Those cameras are absolutely worthless.
Correspondingly, what does Nikon need to make those cameras? A collection of natural resources, and processed natural resources.
People who can not wrap their heads around the concept of zero wealth almost exclusively are also unable to understand the difference between value and wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chopchop0
Sounds to me like you need to go live in the middle of the amazon with some indigenous tribe because you're pretty out of touch with modern existence.
With industrialization came a sort of monopoly power, unions were created to try to combat this. But it was not the lack of social welfare that caused the poverty, rather it was the monopoly power enjoyed by business owners over low-skill workers. Implementing welfare programs does nothing to deal with the real issue, rather it just transfers wealth from tax payers to businesses.
Social welfare doesnt have any influence on poverty, I never claimed that. Social welfare puts a floor on how far the poverty goes. The industrial revolution proved that, given full reign, companies do not care about the condition of their employees, and employees will come to work even if their only meal is one piece of bread a day, and they live in a cardboard box.
Just look at how badly unions have been destroyed. People are so scared of having no job at all, that they gladly accept being abused in exchange.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
The economy is not static, there is not a fixed number of jobs. In what way are these people any different than the millions each year that become working age?
There is a very high unemployment rate amongst the 18-25 year old set, and its always been historically high. Traditionally, this age is either in college, or is taking unstable menial jobs while living with the folks until they latch on to something.
Jobs arent going to magically appear for these people when they are kicked off the dole. They will largely be faced with the same situation or worse that an 18 year old kid has, except, they dont have Mom and Dad to live with, and they will no longer have subsidized housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
If welfare was actually eliminated, it would have to be done slowly. Welfare distorts the markets and you'll want to roll-back the distortion slowly.
It impossible to "roll back" welfare in any capitalist system. Welfare is a neccessary evil of capitalism. Without it, there will be a revolution of the underclass. If you deny this, why dont you check out some great ones through history, such as the French revolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Also, I'm not against all social welfare. Things like disability when implemented correctly make perfect sense. But the idea that welfare reduces poverty is not well founded.
Welfare does not "reduce" poverty, welfare puts a floor on poverty that would be penetrated if free market capitalism is allowed to progress.
There is a very high unemployment rate amongst the 18-25 year old set, and its always been historically high. Traditionally, this age is either in college, or is taking unstable menial jobs while living with the folks until they latch on to something.
Yep, and social welfare laws like minimum wage have served only to exacerbate that high UE rate, particularly during this recession, and especially among young minorities.
Last edited by chopchop0; 07-14-2010 at 12:11 PM..
Just look at how badly unions have been destroyed. People are so scared of having no job at all, that they gladly accept being abused in exchange.
Unions can blame themselves for that one. They've morphed in something far beyond what their original purpose was for. Unions exist to extract as much wealth as possible for themselves and their constituents from the government and private sector, rather than provide protections and a reasonable wage.
I believe in making people productive members of society, not flooding them with indefinite welfare.
I agree as well, except, I dont believe in forcing people to work for the slave wage capitalism would assign them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
