Wage Slavery? The poor are poor because....

[NERVUN]

Because the poor are stupid.

...

What? Poor people have generally lower IQs.

Nothing. But everyone knows the poor tend to not be bright or unable to provide anything of value to the world. What does my knowledge of being poor have to do with this?

*** Warned for trolling ***.

[The Liberated Territories]

But democracy says my opinion is equally as valid as everyone else's! I have a right to not control people too!

Democracy says no such thing. Democracy, as an abstract concept, is unable to speak. I believe that you mean that the idea that your opinion is as valid as anyone else is a basic underpinning of democracy. This, too, is incorrect. In a free and democratic society (particularly in a republic with a Constitution), you have the right to vote your conscience. You also have the right to speak your mind within certain public safety limitations. This does not make your opinion any more or less valid than anyone else's. Indeed, your posts are evidence that one can opine freely regarding matters about which one has no education, insight, or experience whatsoever.

You have missed the point of my post, and are being extremely acute.

I only originally pointed out a small fact equating poverty and intelligence, which both, similar to democracy, are abstract concepts. The "poor," as Biden had pointed out first, are only "poor" comparatively to the rich. There will always be people in poverty in the capitalist system, which I underlined a few posts ago yet in a less clear manner.

Regarding your post, why, then, should I, a person who has misjudged the poor from my position, involve myself in a program (anti-poverty) that does not affect me personally, except through the taxes needed to sustain it AND my knowledge that the programs do not work as evidence by the growing poverty?

[Australian rePublic]

If everyone had $1 Million dollars, than $1 Million would be worth as much as $1 is worth now, if everyone had $1 Billion, than $1 Billion would be worth as much as $1 is worth now etc.

[Divair2]

Okay... Having some welfare =/= social democracy.

Obviously. But this is not "some welfare". This is ensuring everyone has a basic standard of living that includes housing, healthcare, food, etc.

[Bezombia]

If everyone had $1 Million dollars, than $1 Million would be worth as much as $1 is worth now, if everyone had $1 Billion, than $1 Billion would be worth as much as $1 is worth now etc.

Are you implying that everyone only has $1?

[Montesardo-East Adanzi]

Human nature, it's obvious that some are going to have it better than others. I don't blame capitalism one bit, to the contrary. It permits anyone with the skill, the power and the personal initiative to prosper. Even so, we can all agree none of us are equal and we will never be.

[Chestaan]

Your posts are sounding more and more satirical.

Actually, as you might have guessed, they started out that way, but then got serious, and then got satirical again.

How is any of that relevant to my point? And eradicating poverty is in the best interest of all of us, as I have mentioned before, to maximise societal utlity, and hence have a truly efficient system, we must reduce poverty.

It is not the interest of all of us. Am I a good enough example of that? I do not object to ameliorating poverty, heck, I'm all for it! But as long as that interest is involuntarily served through the state apparatus, and continue to be largely ineffective in a long term scope, I cannot say that I will support such programs. What I was talking about as there were other ways to deal with poverty without implementing anti-poverty programs.

In other words then you don't care about how efficient a system is and are simply greedy?

So the way to combat poverty is by doing nothing?

[Banyakhutang]

There are poor people because there are rich people.

Some succeed. Others don't. It's not the fault of capitalism.

It is the nature of capitalism, to keep wealth concentrated in the hands of a small elite, and to continually impoverish an increasing number of people outside that elite.

all true.

The way it works is this, in an over simplified way:

100 poor people makes 1 rich people.
Because 100 poor people buys Domino Pizza... and Domino Pizza is owned by Mr.Domino.

But poor people really really like Domino Pizza.
They just hate the fact that Mr.Domino become rich as a result.

[Thalbania]

As if the other end of a handful of people having more wealth than the rest of society combined was so much more sensible.

Of course. The point of my post was to argue against socialists (and others like them) that not everyone should make the same income.

I have never met a socialist over age 16 who thought that that everyone should have the same income. Socialism is about collective ownership of the means of production. While this could very easily reduce gaps in income, it's a completely separate idea.

[Ardoki]

Because the poor are stupid.

...

What? Poor people have generally lower IQs.

Yep, capitalism rewards the smart while punishing the stupid and lazy.

[Bezombia]

There are poor people because there are rich people.

Some succeed. Others don't. It's not the fault of capitalism.

It is the nature of capitalism, to keep wealth concentrated in the hands of a small elite, and to continually impoverish an increasing number of people outside that elite.

all true.

The way it works is this, in an over simplified way:

100 poor people makes 1 rich people.
Because 100 poor people buys Domino Pizza... and Domino Pizza is owned by Mr.Domino.

But poor people really really like Domino Pizza.
They just hate the fact that Mr.Domino become rich as a result.

More like 100 poor people starve to death because they can't afford to buy food because rich Mr. Domino isn't paying them livable wages.

[Banyakhutang]

More like 100 poor people starve to death because they can't afford to buy food because rich Mr. Domino isn't paying them livable wages.

Anger leads you no where friend.
If you want to play (or break) the game, you have to know how it works.

Anyway, starving people to death is not the plan, because dead customers make poor customers.

Mr. Domino would prefer to squeeze out every ounce of profit, without actually killing them off.

[Chestaan]

There are poor people because there are rich people.

Some succeed. Others don't. It's not the fault of capitalism.

It is the nature of capitalism, to keep wealth concentrated in the hands of a small elite, and to continually impoverish an increasing number of people outside that elite.

all true.

The way it works is this, in an over simplified way:

100 poor people makes 1 rich people.
Because 100 poor people buys Domino Pizza... and Domino Pizza is owned by Mr.Domino.

But poor people really really like Domino Pizza.
They just hate the fact that Mr.Domino become rich as a result.

How can both Viritica's and Sanguinea's points both be true? They directly contradict each other.

[Banyakhutang]

How can both Viritica's and Sanguinea's points both be true? They directly contradict each other.

because I've seen rich people really plotting their way to keep their hold on riches no matter damage they cause to other people... (Not all of them, just some of them)

and i've also seen people who are really poor because they are Really really lazy and useless. (Not all of them, just some of them)

Both happens.

Even such extremes happen within my extended family.

[Chestaan]

How can both Viritica's and Sanguinea's points both be true? They directly contradict each other.

because I've seen rich people really plotting their way to keep their hold on riches no matter damage they cause to other people... (Not all of them, just some of them)

and i've also seen people who are really poor because they are Really really lazy and useless. (Not all of them, just some of them)

Both happens.

Even such extremes happen within my extended family.

Virtica claimed that poverty was not the fault of capitalism while Sanguinea claimed that poverty is inherent in capitalism's nature. These points directly contradict each other. Either poverty is the fault of capitalism or it's not, both cannot be true.

[Geilinor]

Human nature, it's obvious that some are going to have it better than others. I don't blame capitalism one bit, to the contrary. It permits anyone with the skill, the power and the personal initiative to prosper. Even so, we can all agree none of us are equal and we will never be.

Anyone? This needs to be brought up again, but Nikola Tesla died poor despite being a genius.

[The Liberated Territories]

Actually, as you might have guessed, they started out that way, but then got serious, and then got satirical again.

It is not the interest of all of us. Am I a good enough example of that? I do not object to ameliorating poverty, heck, I'm all for it! But as long as that interest is involuntarily served through the state apparatus, and continue to be largely ineffective in a long term scope, I cannot say that I will support such programs. What I was talking about as there were other ways to deal with poverty without implementing anti-poverty programs.

In other words then you don't care about how efficient a system is and are simply greedy?

So the way to combat poverty is by doing nothing?

No. I'd donate to charities, help local people, etc.

[Banyakhutang]

Virtica claimed that poverty was not the fault of capitalism while Sanguinea claimed that poverty is inherent in capitalism's nature. These points directly contradict each other. Either poverty is the fault of capitalism or it's not, both cannot be true.

Can you blame King Cobra for being poisonous?

I don't know, I guess what I say may seem illogical.

But they are true.

So yes, Poverty IS inherent in Capitalism.
But that's not the fault of capitalism, that's just the way Capitalism is.

Same way that King Cobra IS poisonous.
You can't blame the King Cobra, it will just feel slightly confused, and then it's still business as usual.

Sometimes you just have to take it as it is, instead of trying to make sense of it all.

[Chestaan]

In other words then you don't care about how efficient a system is and are simply greedy?

So the way to combat poverty is by doing nothing?

No. I'd donate to charities, help local people, etc.

All of which is already done and yet we still see many people in desperate poverty. Government programs to help the poor are simply an efficient use of resources as the money used to help the poor means a lot more to them than it does to the rich as to have so little of it. It's a simple case of diminishing marginal utility.

[Viritica]

all true.

The way it works is this, in an over simplified way:

100 poor people makes 1 rich people.
Because 100 poor people buys Domino Pizza... and Domino Pizza is owned by Mr.Domino.

But poor people really really like Domino Pizza.
They just hate the fact that Mr.Domino become rich as a result.

More like 100 poor people starve to death because they can't afford to buy food because rich Mr. Domino isn't paying them livable wages.

Which can be solved simply with minimum wage laws.

[Bythibus]

More like 100 poor people starve to death because they can't afford to buy food because rich Mr. Domino isn't paying them livable wages.

Which can be solved simply with minimum wage laws.

Well, I wouldn't say simply, but yes. Preferably in the 9-10 dollar range, considering that's the "living wage"

[Viritica]

Which can be solved simply with minimum wage laws.

Well, I wouldn't say simply, but yes. Preferably in the 9-10 dollar range, considering that's the "living wage"

Indeed.

[Ardoki]

Which can be solved simply with minimum wage laws.

Well, I wouldn't say simply, but yes. Preferably in the 9-10 dollar range, considering that's the "living wage"

I would put US$ 20 as the minimum wage with one preferably higher.

[Arkinesia]

I'm not talking about globalization, I'm talking about the real, lasting scars from colonialism and how the third world was still set back hard by the rape.

You're not showing me trends or evidence.

I never said the third world was ravaged by capitalism. The old colonial powers switched to capitalism post-rape and capitalism has been a tool which, while helpful in letting poorer countries become somewhat less poor, was also instrumental in keeping them down. Capitalism isn't a magic tool that brings money in stride, the only reason countries do better than others is resources.

I know, but you're obviously trying to trigger ideas with your words, and I think you're being dishonest with your terminology.

I dunno, I'm experiencing a distinct lack of source in your supposedly "fact-based" "argument".

Oh my god stop throwing around “second world” and “third world” as these terms referring to income grades. That's not what those mean.

First World = US-aligned nations
Second World = Warsaw Pact-aligned nations
Third World = Non-Aligned Movement

Majority world and minority world refer to poorer countries and wealthier countries, respectively.

Continue.

[Vazdania]

I don't understand why there are poor people in the United States of America. I would like to know the reason and would like to know what the poorest person in America could do to get rich. If everyone were billionaires and wanted yachts would there there wouldn't be enough to make them all. I want to know why the public school system is bad or even if it is bad.

I want to know why universities aren't free to attend.

Tell me why we can't all be Andrew Carnegie or John D. Rockefeller.

Should anyone be rich to begin with?

Is state capitalism the best economic system?

What is anarcho-socialism?

What is anarcho-capitalism?

Which one of these is more practical?

Is the Zeitgeist Movement/ Venus Project a good idea?

The poor are poor, because it seems as though they can't manage their own affairs properly. We've already seen a study on NS which proves this.

Education costs money. Education isn't free.
Because they worked to where they are at. With a little luck.
Yes, of course.
Corporatism is.
Anarcho socialism is a system by which workers own the means of production with a lack of state
Anarcho Capitalism is a system by which idividuals own the means of production with a lack of state
Anarcho Capoitalism is much much much more moral.
No.