The Divide between the Poor and the Rich

[Dyakovo]

My choice is to not answer a theoretical question not based in reality.

This /\

[Risottia]

The Rich and Poor can't BOTH get richer, there's only a finite amount of money to go around.

The point of wealth isn't having money; it's having access to resources.
So, having a finite amount of money (of course it's finite, duh... as long as it can be described by a rational number...) isn't the problem. The problem is having limited resources (not "finite"... let's use the proper terms).

[Ovisterra]

That question is more loaded than a bottle full of vodka.

[Jinos]

False Dichotomy, OP is irrelevant. Not to mention completely loaded, using vague qualifiers which don't really mean anything.

[Kilobugya]

That's a broken question because this choice just doesn't exist. The divide between the rich and the poor grow bigger, the rich get richers, the poor get poorers. That's what happening right now in most of the world, and the only other alternative is to lower the divide, making the rich poorer and the poor richer.

[Old Tyrannia]

Hierarchy and differences in rank are a natural and inherent feature of human society. This is why Communism and other egalitarian movements are so flawed- they seek to alter human nature itself, and thus their goal is unachievable. I much prefer the ideals of Disraeli's One Nation Conservatism, the cornerstone of which is that a hierarchy which exists to benefit all members of that hierarchy is morally preferable- and more stable- than a hierarchy which exists to serve the purposes only of the higher ranks.

[L Ron Cupboard]

There is a growing trend for these stupidly loaded question threads while pretending to play the devil's advocate. Can't people at least attempt honest debate?

[The UK in Exile]

Hierarchy and differences in rank are a natural and inherent feature of human society. This is why Communism and other egalitarian movements are so flawed- they seek to alter human nature itself, and thus their goal is unachievable. I much prefer the ideals of Disraeli's One Nation Conservatism, the cornerstone of which is that a hierarchy which exists to benefit all members of that hierarchy is morally preferable- and more stable- than a hierarchy which exists to serve the purposes only of the higher ranks.

human nature is easy to alter, indeed the defining feature of humanity is the ability to recognise our own nature an alter it to suite circumstances.

[Meridiani Planum]

If the poor got richer and their living standard increased, even if the rich got richer, would that be okay with you?

Absolutely, even if the rich got richer at a greater rate.

Would you rather the difference between the poor and the rich was less, even if the living standard of the poor didn't increase?

No, this would be retarded.

[Horsefish]

I mean for crying out loud we're the only goddamn nation that's put human beings on the moon!

With help from some Nazi's and a host of other nationalities.

[You-Gi-Owe]

That's a broken question because this choice just doesn't exist. The divide between the rich and the poor grow bigger, the rich get richers, the poor get poorers. That's what happening right now in most of the world, and the only other alternative is to lower the divide, making the rich poorer and the poor richer.

Sometimes life presents you with broken questions. Deal with it.

[The UK in Exile]

That's a broken question because this choice just doesn't exist. The divide between the rich and the poor grow bigger, the rich get richers, the poor get poorers. That's what happening right now in most of the world, and the only other alternative is to lower the divide, making the rich poorer and the poor richer.

Sometimes life presents you with broken questions. Deal with it.

yeah, but this isn't one of those times.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Mhmm...I see.

I'm going to eliminate the second of the OP's options since I'm pretty sure no-one in their right mind would support complete stagnation rather than an improvement that benefited the already rich more than it did the poor. Heck, I don't even think I have a right mind to be in but that still seems like a stupid question.

Would I rather a smaller overall rise in which the poor got a larger share or a larger overall rise in which the poor got a smaller share? That's the question that is worth answering. And the answer to that one is...it depends. Broadly speaking, I would support the system that gives the poor the best absolute position over the one that gave them the best relative position. On the other hand, it is my feeling that the system which satisfies both could quite possibly be the same system, a moderate social democracy.

[Tsuntion]

As others have pointed out, this is a fairly clear false dichotomy. So, recognising these are not the only two possibilities, I would say that living standards increasing for the poor is more important than things affecting the rich. Therefore, I voted option 1 on the poll. However, second to this, I see no reason to not pursue in some fashion lessening the divide between the poor and the rich, provided the poor don't get poorer and the old-rich don't end up poorer than them.

[Ovisterra]

That's a broken question because this choice just doesn't exist. The divide between the rich and the poor grow bigger, the rich get richers, the poor get poorers. That's what happening right now in most of the world, and the only other alternative is to lower the divide, making the rich poorer and the poor richer.

Sometimes life presents you with broken questions. Deal with it.

Life hasn't presented me with the question. You have. And as I mentioned above, it's pretty loaded.

[The Archregimancy]

Liberals are evil.

Does that answer your question?

So what you're saying is that we should impeach Obama?

Hey look, YGO has taken a tiny break from spamming stuff copy-pasted from Free Republic and is now trying to fabricate a dichotomy that will prove his 'point' once and for all. Well done!

Even if it does potentially pose a false dichotomy, the OP offers a perfectly legitimate hypothetical for discussion.

So why don't we all try actually discussing it rather than aiming snarky, slightly baity posts in YGO's direction?


Like this, for example:

If the poor got richer and their living standard increased, even if the rich got richer, would that be okay with you?
OR
Would you rather the difference between the poor and the rich was less, even if the living standard of the poor didn't increase?

Nice question, somewhat of a false dichotomy though.

I'm interested in having the poor increase their living standards (well... actually it would be more accurate to say that I want the workers to get all the mehrwert they produced, which is different, but would take us off-topic...). I don't harbour jealousy towards the rich.

Then again, there's the problem that, the higher the divide between rich and poor is, the stronger the accumulation on the richer side gets, which, in a world with limited resources (as it is), is going to make the poorer classes even more destitute.

Right now, I'd be happy in attaining a wealth distribution and a welfare model similar to the Danish ones.

If an Italian communist can address a hypothetical point posited by an American Tea Party-supporting conservative at face value, I'm sure it's not beyond the rest of you.

[Inis Arglidd]

Your a bit too far left if you selected the 2nd option.

[Samuraikoku]

Loaded question. I'm interested in everyone getting a good standard of living.

[Sailsia]

Your a bit too far left if you selected the 2nd option.

According to who? It's a blatantly loaded question from one of NSGs nut job right wingers.

[Grenartia]

I'm all for the Austin Aries route, Option C. How about we raise the standard of living for the lower and middle classes and keep the upper class standard of living right where it is. Because frankly they've been doing suspiciously well ever since the stock market crash and they really don't need ANOTHER gold-plated learjet, or whale forsekin shoes, or other idiotic things that the ultra-wealthy waste money on.

This.

That's a broken question because this choice just doesn't exist. The divide between the rich and the poor grow bigger, the rich get richers, the poor get poorers. That's what happening right now in most of the world, and the only other alternative is to lower the divide, making the rich poorer and the poor richer.

Sometimes life presents you with broken questions. Deal with it.

Yes, but this is not one of those times. There are more than two options for dealing with income inequality. Deal with it.

[The Grand Duchy of Marinia]

Greed and envy are the only means by which humans advance themselves. And by greed and envy, I mean all aspects of the human urge to go further, to explore, to make a better mousetrap; to gain, and advance in any capacity. We are better at learning, advancing, and getting growing as humans when in competition than in mediocrity. I say, let the gap remain. Give people something substantial to work and fight for. It's what evolution is all about. Kill the weak, fight the strong; claw and grasp your way up and either get stronger in the process or fail. And the rich won't always be the rich. Families and fortunes are always rising and falling. The rich get rich by being better, faster, smarter, more creative, more driven. Then, once a dynasty is established, after a couple of generations, either the scions of the wealthy continue to get better, stay sharp, stay motivated (in which case they deserve to keep the wealth they have) or they get fat, lazy, and stupid and take their inheritance for granted (in which case, they WILL fall, and deservedly so). The vacuum created by one magnate's fall will eventually be filled by another fast, smart, innovative, and driven person which starts the process all over again. And all in the name of the human race evolving and getting better. This process, while cruel to the unmotivated and untalented, has given us the ability to go to space, to understand the fundamental mechanics of our universe, to unlock the human genome and cure diseases, etc.

If you want to get rich, then be smarter, be more cunning, be more decisive, be more innovative, have a better work ethic than your peers and those who call themselves your betters. If you think you deserve to be rich, then prove it! Be better than the people in your way. If you are concerned for the poor, teach them how to compete. If they can't compete, then their genetics will be removed from the human race by virtue of natural selection. If you don't like it, tough. After all, there are no facts, there is no truth, just data to be manipulated. In a world where there is no such thing as absolutes, might becomes right, and the people that don't like it will either be crushed by the mighty or they will fight and become mighty themselves. When survival of the fittest is the rule, the human race can only become stronger.

[Grenartia]

Greed and envy are the only means by which humans advance themselves. And by greed and envy, I mean all aspects of the human urge to go further, to explore, to make a better mousetrap; to gain, and advance in any capacity. We are better at learning, advancing, and getting growing as humans when in competition than in mediocrity. I say, let the gap remain. Give people something substantial to work and fight for. It's what evolution is all about. Kill the weak, fight the strong; claw and grasp your way up and either get stronger in the process or fail. And the rich won't always be the rich. Families and fortunes are always rising and falling. The rich get rich by being better, faster, smarter, more creative, more driven. Then, once a dynasty is established, after a couple of generations, either the scions of the wealthy continue to get better, stay sharp, stay motivated (in which case they deserve to keep the wealth they have) or they get fat, lazy, and stupid and take their inheritance for granted (in which case, they WILL fall, and deservedly so). The vacuum created by one magnate's fall will eventually be filled by another fast, smart, innovative, and driven person which starts the process all over again. And all in the name of the human race evolving and getting better. This process, while cruel to the unmotivated and untalented, has given us the ability to go to space, to understand the fundamental mechanics of our universe, to unlock the human genome and cure diseases, etc.

If you want to get rich, then be smarter, be more cunning, be more decisive, be more innovative, have a better work ethic than your peers and those who call themselves your betters. If you think you deserve to be rich, then prove it! Be better than the people in your way. If you are concerned for the poor, teach them how to compete. If they can't compete, then their genetics will be removed from the human race by virtue of natural selection. If you don't like it, tough. After all, there are no facts, there is no truth, just data to be manipulated. In a world where there is no such thing as absolutes, might becomes right, and the people that don't like it will either be crushed by the mighty or they will fight and become mighty themselves. When survival of the fittest is the rule, the human race can only become stronger.

Basically, fuck the poor, they're poor because they're not good enough? Yeah, no.

[Neutraligon]

Greed and envy are the only means by which humans advance themselves. And by greed and envy, I mean all aspects of the human urge to go further, to explore, to make a better mousetrap; to gain, and advance in any capacity. We are better at learning, advancing, and getting growing as humans when in competition than in mediocrity. I say, let the gap remain. Give people something substantial to work and fight for. It's what evolution is all about. Kill the weak, fight the strong; claw and grasp your way up and either get stronger in the process or fail. And the rich won't always be the rich. Families and fortunes are always rising and falling. The rich get rich by being better, faster, smarter, more creative, more driven. Then, once a dynasty is established, after a couple of generations, either the scions of the wealthy continue to get better, stay sharp, stay motivated (in which case they deserve to keep the wealth they have) or they get fat, lazy, and stupid and take their inheritance for granted (in which case, they WILL fall, and deservedly so). The vacuum created by one magnate's fall will eventually be filled by another fast, smart, innovative, and driven person which starts the process all over again. And all in the name of the human race evolving and getting better. This process, while cruel to the unmotivated and untalented, has given us the ability to go to space, to understand the fundamental mechanics of our universe, to unlock the human genome and cure diseases, etc.

If you want to get rich, then be smarter, be more cunning, be more decisive, be more innovative, have a better work ethic than your peers and those who call themselves your betters. If you think you deserve to be rich, then prove it! Be better than the people in your way. If you are concerned for the poor, teach them how to compete. If they can't compete, then their genetics will be removed from the human race by virtue of natural selection. If you don't like it, tough. After all, there are no facts, there is no truth, just data to be manipulated. In a world where there is no such thing as absolutes, might becomes right, and the people that don't like it will either be crushed by the mighty or they will fight and become mighty themselves. When survival of the fittest is the rule, the human race can only become stronger.

Basically, fuck the poor, they're poor because they're not good enough? Yeah, no.

Why do people still believe in Social Darwinism?

[Big Jim P]

Basically, fuck the poor, they're poor because they're not good enough? Yeah, no.

Why do people still believe in Social Darwinism?

Because many poor people manage to pull themselves up out of poverty, some even into wealth, thus proving it correct?

[Grenartia]

Why do people still believe in Social Darwinism?

Because many poor people manage to pull themselves up out of poverty, some even into wealth, thus proving it correct?

Doesn't necessarily prove Social Darwinism...