Understanding Leftist Mentality

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

You're right. Initially a lot of people will suffer, but this is only necessary to rid them of their bad habits and their dependence while simultaneously encouraging new habits that create wealth. The answers I'm giving aren't instant pleasure or short term answers they're long term answers that are meant to be sustainable and profitable. In the long term people will learn to walk, but they can never learn to walk if they aren't allowed to fall.

Not everyone who finds themselves in need of welfare assistance has ended up in that position because of bad habits. Maybe they were suddenly injured, or laid off, or became seriously ill, or incurred a debt from a relative that they can't afford to cover. I can't see how such people can even be remotely blamed for their sudden state of need. You do realize that not every household has enough income to support the family inside, pay the bills, and establish a nice emergency fund on the side, right? That credit isn't free, and that people who are poor can reasonably be expected to have too low a credit rating to just go out and get a loan? That private charities couldn't possibly handle the burden you're trying to place on them? You understand that many people are poor not because they're stupid, but because that's the best they can do with what they've got?

The answer to your rant is quite simple. Savings. Saving is a healthy habit that cushions people in the case of a major catastrophic event. So yes, if you were suddenly injured, laid off or became ill it was due to yours or an another persons bad habits or lack of good habits. Which is why a society that encourages good habits through the lack of state power and the increase individual power is desirable.

[The UK in Exile]

Not everyone who finds themselves in need of welfare assistance has ended up in that position because of bad habits. Maybe they were suddenly injured, or laid off, or became seriously ill, or incurred a debt from a relative that they can't afford to cover. I can't see how such people can even be remotely blamed for their sudden state of need. You do realize that not every household has enough income to support the family inside, pay the bills, and establish a nice emergency fund on the side, right? That credit isn't free, and that people who are poor can reasonably be expected to have too low a credit rating to just go out and get a loan? That private charities couldn't possibly handle the burden you're trying to place on them? You understand that many people are poor not because they're stupid, but because that's the best they can do with what they've got?

The answer to your rant is quite simple. Savings. Saving is a healthy habit that cushions people in the case of a major catastrophic event. So yes, if you were suddenly injured, laid off or became ill it was due to yours or an another persons bad habits or lack of good habits. Which is why a society that encourages good habits through the lack of state power and the increase individual power is desirable.

savings just destruction, thats the paradox of thrift.

[Hittanryan]

Not everyone who finds themselves in need of welfare assistance has ended up in that position because of bad habits. Maybe they were suddenly injured, or laid off, or became seriously ill, or incurred a debt from a relative that they can't afford to cover. I can't see how such people can even be remotely blamed for their sudden state of need. You do realize that not every household has enough income to support the family inside, pay the bills, and establish a nice emergency fund on the side, right? That credit isn't free, and that people who are poor can reasonably be expected to have too low a credit rating to just go out and get a loan? That private charities couldn't possibly handle the burden you're trying to place on them? You understand that many people are poor not because they're stupid, but because that's the best they can do with what they've got?

The answer to your rant is quite simple. Savings. Saving is a healthy habit that cushions people in the case of a major catastrophic event. So yes, if you were suddenly injured, laid off or became ill it was due to yours or an another persons bad habits or lack of good habits. Which is why a society that encourages good habits through the lack of state power and the increase individual power is desirable.

On savings: you have never had to pay for your own health coverage, have you?

"Bad habits": So if I get cancer at age 30 from breathing in trace amounts of benzene and PAHs for several years in an unregulated workplace, it's due to my own bad habits? Seems legit.

[Occupied Deutschland]

savings just destruction, thats the paradox of thrift.

Real savings come first if you want to invest, the market coordinates time with interest.

[Trotskylvania]

savings just destruction, thats the paradox of thrift.

Real savings come first if you want to invest, the market coordinates time with interest.

Not always to the most socially beneficial outcome.

[Geilinor]

Republicans also attack and misconstrue people who disagree with them. Please.
(I am not a Democrat, I am a centrist, but this is just stupid)

[The UK in Exile]

savings just destruction, thats the paradox of thrift.

Real savings come first if you want to invest, the market coordinates time with interest.

a tip of the hat to you sir.

however in this case, the person doesn't want to invest.

they want to live.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Real savings come first if you want to invest, the market coordinates time with interest.

Not always to the most socially beneficial outcome.

That didn't rhyme! You're disqualified.

[Rick Rollin]

Not everyone who finds themselves in need of welfare assistance has ended up in that position because of bad habits. Maybe they were suddenly injured, or laid off, or became seriously ill, or incurred a debt from a relative that they can't afford to cover. I can't see how such people can even be remotely blamed for their sudden state of need. You do realize that not every household has enough income to support the family inside, pay the bills, and establish a nice emergency fund on the side, right? That credit isn't free, and that people who are poor can reasonably be expected to have too low a credit rating to just go out and get a loan? That private charities couldn't possibly handle the burden you're trying to place on them? You understand that many people are poor not because they're stupid, but because that's the best they can do with what they've got?

The answer to your rant is quite simple. Savings. Saving is a healthy habit that cushions people in the case of a major catastrophic event. So yes, if you were suddenly injured, laid off or became ill it was due to yours or an another persons bad habits or lack of good habits. Which is why a society that encourages good habits through the lack of state power and the increase individual power is desirable.

And if you're poor for your whole life...?

The answer to your rant is quite simple. Savings. Saving is a healthy habit that cushions people in the case of a major catastrophic event. So yes, if you were suddenly injured, laid off or became ill it was due to yours or an another persons bad habits or lack of good habits. Which is why a society that encourages good habits through the lack of state power and the increase individual power is desirable.

savings just destruction, thats the paradox of thrift.

savings just destruction, thats the paradox of thrift.

Real savings come first if you want to invest, the market coordinates time with interest.

Along with a bunch of other crap.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Real savings come first if you want to invest, the market coordinates time with interest.

Not always to the most socially beneficial outcome.

Pretty much. I think Africa and the Middle East are examples of how public sector actions are required for a market to function. If markets were always optimal and the private sector is always investing, then there wouldn't be nearly as much fear and skittishness involved in investing overseas.

Somewhere around 60-70% of all foreign direct investment that has ever been made has been in the US, Europe, and Japan. The rest of the world hardly sees any of it. There's a reason for that, and it's not "evil states drive away investors." It's that functioning states attract investors, and the regions most disconnected from the world at large are those with the least capable states and the most violence.

[Rick Rollin]

Not always to the most socially beneficial outcome.

Pretty much. I think Africa and the Middle East are examples of how public sector actions are required for a market to function. If markets were always optimal and the private sector is always investing, then there wouldn't be nearly as much fear and skittishness involved in investing overseas.

Somewhere around 60-70% of all foreign direct investment that has ever been made has been in the US, Europe, and Japan. The rest of the world hardly sees any of it. There's a reason for that, and it's not "evil states drive away investors." It's that functioning states attract investors, and the regions most disconnected from the world at large are those with the least capable states and the most violence.

Also, tariffs and subsides.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Pretty much. I think Africa and the Middle East are examples of how public sector actions are required for a market to function. If markets were always optimal and the private sector is always investing, then there wouldn't be nearly as much fear and skittishness involved in investing overseas.

Somewhere around 60-70% of all foreign direct investment that has ever been made has been in the US, Europe, and Japan. The rest of the world hardly sees any of it. There's a reason for that, and it's not "evil states drive away investors." It's that functioning states attract investors, and the regions most disconnected from the world at large are those with the least capable states and the most violence.

Also, tariffs and subsides.

Not really. Those barriers are mostly gone from the world thanks to the liberalization of the 90s. What's stopping investors is an acute lack of the rule of law in these places. Just like in Russia and China during the 90s(when growth was much slower than the 2000s,) firms see a lack of guarantees that their money will continue to be theirs into the future.

They see a lack of guarantees that their property will be protected by a functioning legal apparatus from, say, vandalism or theft. They see a lack of guarantees that their workforce will be protected from genocide or other forms of mass violence. With all of this uncertainty, all they see is a big risk, and to them investment in these areas is basically throwing money down the toilet.

Without a functioning state(something the USA strongly invested in with the Asian Tigers by building all their defense ties,) there is only uncertainty from an investment perspective.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Initially a lot of people would suffer. And then they would go on suffering indefinitely. Why? Because it would require a massive change to current society, and many levels. A policy of "cut them off and they'll all pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you'll see" is no policy at all, since it doesn't actually deal with why people aren't capable of that with support.

It is a recipe for disaster though.

And personal anecdotes aside there are no reports or studies that show the majority of people supported by some welfare system somewhere are irresponsible layabouts to lazy to get out of there own way.

You don't need reports or studies to know that if people are giving money for nothing, they have less incentive to work. That being said, there are LOTS of cases of people who don't work because they don't want the alternative of trying to find work on their own, even if they are capable of it. Whether it's heroin addicts in Europe being given allowance by the government (not because they are addicts but because they are unemployed) or people in the US who don't want to milk the welfare system even though they have jobs, people are going to abuse anything that is free. You can't assume that welfare will only be given to the truly needy because it never is.

Of course I don't assume that welfare will only be given to the truly needy. What I know is that there are more truly needy benefiting from it than heroin addicts or those that want to "milk the system", unless you have evidence to the contrary. The good, if you will, outweighs the bad.

And no, cutting off welfare is not going to help those people whose bootstraps have been cut short by the nature of current society. It isn't going to help those facing discrimination (because of race, age or because they just got out of prison), those with a disability, those that are unlucky or those just in a place where there is no work. Major changes are needed in society to address the conditions that make so that there will always be people unemployed, regardless of their desire to work. Welfare does not create those conditions, it provides a safety net to ensure those adversely affected by those conditions have a chance to get to a better situation.

And yes they may have less incentive to work - slightly. Welfare doesn't (at least where I'm from) pay for a luxurious or even comfortable life.You want even an average quality life - yeah, welfare isn't paying for that. In Australia at the moment if you live in a capital city an unemployment benefit, with maximum rent assistant, will leave you practically nothing after rent, bills and just enough food get by.

[Rick Rollin]

Also, tariffs and subsides.

Not really. Those barriers are mostly gone from the world thanks to the liberalization of the 90s. What's stopping investors is an acute lack of the rule of law in these places. Just like in Russia and China during the 90s(when growth was much slower than the 2000s,) firms see a lack of guarantees that their money will continue to be theirs into the future.

They see a lack of guarantees that their property will be protected by a functioning legal apparatus from, say, vandalism or theft. They see a lack of guarantees that their workforce will be protected from genocide or other forms of mass violence. With all of this uncertainty, all they see is a big risk, and to them investment in these areas is basically throwing money down the toilet.

Without a functioning state(something the USA strongly invested in with the Asian Tigers by building all their defense ties,) there is only uncertainty from an investment perspective.

Subsides.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Not really. Those barriers are mostly gone from the world thanks to the liberalization of the 90s. What's stopping investors is an acute lack of the rule of law in these places. Just like in Russia and China during the 90s(when growth was much slower than the 2000s,) firms see a lack of guarantees that their money will continue to be theirs into the future.

They see a lack of guarantees that their property will be protected by a functioning legal apparatus from, say, vandalism or theft. They see a lack of guarantees that their workforce will be protected from genocide or other forms of mass violence. With all of this uncertainty, all they see is a big risk, and to them investment in these areas is basically throwing money down the toilet.

Without a functioning state(something the USA strongly invested in with the Asian Tigers by building all their defense ties,) there is only uncertainty from an investment perspective.

Subsides.

Have little to do with foreign investment. They have a lot to do with the problems that are leading to instability in Africa, though, as cheap food becomes less and less available thanks to western subsidies destroying their food industry. In an indirect fashion this contributes, but it's basically irrelevant to what I'm saying.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

On savings: you have never had to pay for your own health coverage, have you?

"Bad habits": So if I get cancer at age 30 from breathing in trace amounts of benzene and PAHs for several years in an unregulated workplace, it's due to my own bad habits? Seems legit.

Allow me too reiterate my point. If tomorrow a giant tornado randomly appeared and tore apart your house or some other random unforeseen accident occurred than no it is not your fault. Not having the savings available though to weather against unexpected occurrences is entirely your fault. Working 30 years and not having any money saved up in case such an emergency occurred is entirely your fault.

Of course I will wait for the obvious retort "WHAT IF MY HOUSE SAVINGS AND EVERY I EARNED WAS SUCKED INTO THE DARK ABYSS NEVER TO BE SEEN AGAIN AND THEN EVERYBODY ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH DIED SO IT WAS ONLY ME WITH NOTHING AND BABIES WERE TRAPPED IN OVENS!?THEN I WOULD NEED WELFARE!!!YOU GREEDY CAPITALIST". In which case refer to the last sentence.

Being prepared for whatever may occur and not taking certain risks is entirely your responsibility in a free-market capitalistic society.

[The UK in Exile]

On savings: you have never had to pay for your own health coverage, have you?

"Bad habits": So if I get cancer at age 30 from breathing in trace amounts of benzene and PAHs for several years in an unregulated workplace, it's due to my own bad habits? Seems legit.

Allow me too reiterate my point. If tomorrow a giant tornado randomly appeared and tore apart your house or some other random unforeseen accident occurred than no it is not your fault. Not having the savings available though to weather against unexpected occurrences is entirely your fault. Working 30 years and not having any money saved up in case such an emergency occurred is entirely your fault.

Of course I will wait for the obvious retort "WHAT IF MY HOUSE SAVINGS AND EVERY I EARNED WAS SUCKED INTO THE DARK ABYSS NEVER TO BE SEEN AGAIN AND THEN EVERYBODY ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH DIED SO IT WAS ONLY ME WITH NOTHING AND BABIES WERE TRAPPED IN OVENS!?THEN I WOULD NEED WELFARE!!!YOU GREEDY CAPITALIST". In which case refer to the last sentence.

Being prepared for whatever may occur and not taking certain risks is entirely your responsibility in a free-market capitalistic society.

saving money is pointless since inflation will lower the value of what you've saved.

which is why we have insurance.

[Rick Rollin]

On savings: you have never had to pay for your own health coverage, have you?

"Bad habits": So if I get cancer at age 30 from breathing in trace amounts of benzene and PAHs for several years in an unregulated workplace, it's due to my own bad habits? Seems legit.

Allow me too reiterate my point. If tomorrow a giant tornado randomly appeared and tore apart your house or some other random unforeseen accident occurred than no it is not your fault. Not having the savings available though to weather against unexpected occurrences is entirely your fault. Working 30 years and not having any money saved up in case such an emergency occurred is entirely your fault.

Of course I will wait for the obvious retort "WHAT IF MY HOUSE SAVINGS AND EVERY I EARNED WAS SUCKED INTO THE DARK ABYSS NEVER TO BE SEEN AGAIN AND THEN EVERYBODY ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH DIED SO IT WAS ONLY ME WITH NOTHING AND BABIES WERE TRAPPED IN OVENS!?THEN I WOULD NEED WELFARE!!!YOU GREEDY CAPITALIST". In which case refer to the last sentence.

Being prepared for whatever may occur and not taking certain risks is entirely your responsibility in a free-market capitalistic society.

(Feeding the troll is fun. )

What if the person was always poor and wasn't able to earn enough savings?

[Transhuman Proteus]

Not everyone who finds themselves in need of welfare assistance has ended up in that position because of bad habits. Maybe they were suddenly injured, or laid off, or became seriously ill, or incurred a debt from a relative that they can't afford to cover. I can't see how such people can even be remotely blamed for their sudden state of need. You do realize that not every household has enough income to support the family inside, pay the bills, and establish a nice emergency fund on the side, right? That credit isn't free, and that people who are poor can reasonably be expected to have too low a credit rating to just go out and get a loan? That private charities couldn't possibly handle the burden you're trying to place on them? You understand that many people are poor not because they're stupid, but because that's the best they can do with what they've got?

The answer to your rant is quite simple. Savings. Saving is a healthy habit that cushions people in the case of a major catastrophic event. So yes, if you were suddenly injured, laid off or became ill it was due to yours or an another persons bad habits or lack of good habits. Which is why a society that encourages good habits through the lack of state power and the increase individual power is desirable.

Oh to live in a world where things were so simple and fair.

Saving is great. It can be hard though - so you are stuck in minimum wage. You have a rent and pills to pay, a car to keep gassed up, maybe kids to provide for... plenty of people out there are stuck living paycheck to paycheck (or maybe one or two paychecks ahead).

In such case where exactly are you coming up with sufficient savings for it to make any difference if the place you work lets you go or you get to sick to work? Heck, even in better paid jobs it isn't that easy to save yourself to safety. Once a regular income stops savings can be used up fast - because that rent and those bills don't stop. The kids still need to be fed. If you are sick those medications, that hospital treatment needs cold, hard cash.

You have people in the US at the moment who are and were good workers, lost their jobs with all the economic turmoil and haven't been able to get back into the work force. A few months, a year... how much are people realistically expected to have saved in order to totally take care of themselves when they can't get a job for months on end?

Remember of course there are people living in poverty in the US (a big part of which is because they are born into that). There is a large working class in the US. There is a large "poor" class in the US. There are people getting realized from jail in the US after doing their time. Where do these miracle savings come from?

[Transhuman Proteus]

On savings: you have never had to pay for your own health coverage, have you?

"Bad habits": So if I get cancer at age 30 from breathing in trace amounts of benzene and PAHs for several years in an unregulated workplace, it's due to my own bad habits? Seems legit.

Allow me too reiterate my point. If tomorrow a giant tornado randomly appeared and tore apart your house or some other random unforeseen accident occurred than no it is not your fault. Not having the savings available though to weather against unexpected occurrences is entirely your fault. Working 30 years and not having any money saved up in case such an emergency occurred is entirely your fault.

Of course I will wait for the obvious retort "WHAT IF MY HOUSE SAVINGS AND EVERY I EARNED WAS SUCKED INTO THE DARK ABYSS NEVER TO BE SEEN AGAIN AND THEN EVERYBODY ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH DIED SO IT WAS ONLY ME WITH NOTHING AND BABIES WERE TRAPPED IN OVENS!?THEN I WOULD NEED WELFARE!!!YOU GREEDY CAPITALIST". In which case refer to the last sentence.

Being prepared for whatever may occur and not taking certain risks is entirely your responsibility in a free-market capitalistic society.

Except the nature of current society, which is so cash driven, makes it impossible for many to "save" themselves to a position where they will be secure in the event of a catastrophe that puts them out of work and/or leads to them being out of work for a long time.

You see entirely unfamiliar with the concepts of a working class, poverty, social barriers and so forth. The way people have to work and what they are paid at the moment means plenty aren't in a position to put a quarter of their pay away each week. And if they were that pay is so low it isn't going to mean much when they are unemployed and can't get a job.

What exactly is your solution to this? "Save harder" isn't an answer and displays a childish lack of understanding about how the world actually works (or a sociopathical lack of empathy). Much like "think happier thoughts" isn't an answer to depression.

[Trotskylvania]

Not always to the most socially beneficial outcome.

That didn't rhyme! You're disqualified.

The revolution will not poeticized *nods*

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

saving money is pointless since inflation will lower the value of what you've saved.

which is why we have insurance.

You don't have to keep your savings in the dollar or any other sort of fiat currency; you can leave your savings in precious metals such as gold, silver or platinum, and as of matter of fact that is what I would suggest to anyone who plans on saving.

Also I'd like to point out since you probably don't realize it yet, but insurance plans are a type of savings fund.

(Feeding the troll is fun. )

What if the person was always poor and wasn't able to earn enough savings?

I'm not trolling.

Also to answer your question he/she should flee the country that he or she is a part of, because policies that are detrimental to savings and the accumulation of capital are generally a hallmark of fascists, socialistic or communist ideologies.

You can retort though "WHAT IF HE/SHE ARE TOO POOR TO LEAVE" Plenty of people have escaped North Korea, and even if a person can't escape shouldn't we condemn the ideologies that force people into such desperation? (Rhetorical question; the answer is that we should)

[The UK in Exile]

saving money is pointless since inflation will lower the value of what you've saved.

which is why we have insurance.

You don't have to keep your savings in the dollar or any other sort of fiat currency; you can leave your savings in precious metals such as gold, silver or platinum, and as of matter of fact that is what I would suggest to anyone who plans on saving.

precious metals have no fixed value.

[Rick Rollin]

saving money is pointless since inflation will lower the value of what you've saved.

which is why we have insurance.

You don't have to keep your savings in the dollar or any other sort of fiat currency; you can leave your savings in precious metals such as gold, silver or platinum, and as of matter of fact that is what I would suggest to anyone who plans on saving.

Also I'd like to point out since you probably don't realize it yet, but insurance plans are a type of savings fund.

They all suck.

(Feeding the troll is fun. )

What if the person was always poor and wasn't able to earn enough savings?

I'm not trolling.

Also to answer your question he/she should flee the country that he or she is a part of, because policies that are detrimental to savings and the accumulation of capital are generally a hallmark of fascists, socialistic or communist ideologies.

You can retort though "WHAT IF HE/SHE ARE TOO POOR TO LEAVE" Plenty of people have escaped North Korea, and even if a person can't escape shouldn't we condemn the ideologies that force people into such desperation? (Rhetorical question; the answer is that we should)

You are trolling. As for the stupid claim that if the government is good enough, people will be able to save, it is wrong. Not all jobs pay well.

[Grave_n_idle]

You can retort though "WHAT IF HE/SHE ARE TOO POOR TO LEAVE" Plenty of people have escaped North Korea, and even if a person can't escape shouldn't we condemn the ideologies that force people into such desperation? (Rhetorical question; the answer is that we should)

I agree. We should condemn the institutionalised income inequality in America, that forces the poor to stay poor while the rich get richer.

That's what you meant, right?