Here is what i want for america!

[Frank Apisa]

Gosh.


If only there was some kind of economic system out there capable of pulling off such a feat.......

IF you are convinced no existing economic system is capable of that...then we have to come up with a different system...one that can.

If capitalism is not capable of it...in effect, it is not much better than socialism and communism.

I, personally, think capitalism IS capable of great things with regard to eliminating poverty. I think America is capable of being a leader in devising a way to eliminate poverty.

Too bad there are so many who doubt capitalism and/or America are not up to the job.

Step number one probably should be not to pay much attention to those nay sayers.

 

[cpwill]

IF you are convinced no existing economic system is capable of that...then we have to come up with a different system...one that can.

I know, right? If only there was some economic system that had pulled more people out of poverty in the last three decades than any other system had over the entire breadth of recorded human history....

......wait....... :thinking

If capitalism is not capable of it...in effect, it is not much better than socialism and communism.

:lol: yeah. Because our problem in America is clearly hunger and starvation, rather than obesity.

I, personally, think capitalism IS capable of great things with regard to eliminating poverty.

In fact it is doing and has done great things with regards to reducing poverty.

Which you will never eliminate, because poverty at a certain point becomes a result of behavior. You cannot make someone give a crap about themselves.

I think America is capable of being a leader in devising a way to eliminate poverty.

Sadly, we have slipped far in that regard

 

[Frank Apisa]

I know, right? If only there was some economic system that had pulled more people out of poverty in the last three decades than any other system had over the entire breadth of recorded human history....

......wait....... :thinking




:lol: yeah. Because our problem in America is clearly hunger and starvation, rather than obesity.



In fact it is doing and has done great things with regards to reducing poverty.

Which you will never eliminate, because poverty at a certain point becomes a result of behavior. You cannot make someone give a crap about themselves.



Sadly, we have slipped far in that regard

View attachment 67192762

I reiterate:

If you are convinced no existing economic system is capable of that (eliminating poverty)...then we have to come up with a different system...one that can.

We do have a problem with obesity. But if you think we do not have a problem with poverty at the same time...you are just not thinking.

And the fact that YOU do not think poverty can be eliminated completely...is not in play here except as an opinion. Surely even you can see that a lot more can be done to eliminate it...particularly on a global scale.

But much, much better can be done right here also. And we should set about doing it, because if the outlook for lots of decent paying jobs is any indicator, we've got a lot more poverty heading our way.

 

[cpwill]

I reiterate:

If you are convinced no existing economic system is capable of that (eliminating poverty)...then we have to come up with a different system...one that can.

:doh Capitalism, Frank. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system, has led to incredible leaps and bounds in human wealth, human standards of living, human possibilities, and human capabilities.

We do have a problem with obesity. But if you think we do not have a problem with poverty at the same time...you are just not thinking.

In socialist countries they have problems with mass deprivation. Our poor here are fat. Sure we have problems with poverty, but our problems with poverty are not the rest of the worlds' problems with poverty at all. Capitalism means that our "poor" live lives lightyears ahead of those who live in poverty around the globe.

And the fact that YOU do not think poverty can be eliminated completely...is not in play here except as an opinion. Surely even you can see that a lot more can be done to eliminate it...particularly on a global scale.

Sure. We should continue to free up trade. Here in America we should adopt the NIT I've outlined and link it to work requirements, while also reducing regulatory, tax, and wage costs that keep our lowest-skilled populace from being able to get their first jobs.

But much, much better can be done right here also. And we should set about doing it, because if the outlook for lots of decent paying jobs is any indicator, we've got a lot more poverty heading our way.

Relatively? :shrug: maybe. Absolutely? No.

 

[Frank Apisa]

:doh Capitalism, Frank. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system, has led to incredible leaps and bounds in human wealth, human standards of living, human possibilities, and human capabilities.

Current rockets have lifted more equipment and weight off the surface of the planet during the last four decades than in all the rest of human history, cp.

That does not mean we should stop improving rockets...or replacing existing ones with better rockets if necessary.

If the complete eradication of poverty is not possible under capitalism...we have to replace it in order to get the job done.

In socialist countries they have problems with mass deprivation. Our poor here are fat. Sure we have problems with poverty, but our problems with poverty are not the rest of the worlds' problems with poverty at all. Capitalism means that our "poor" live lives lightyears ahead of those who live in poverty around the globe.

In your mind, perhaps. Many socialistic countries have done quite well.

Sure. We should continue to free up trade. Here in America we should adopt the NIT I've outlined and link it to work requirements, while also reducing regulatory, tax, and wage costs that keep our lowest-skilled populace from being able to get their first jobs.

The "jobs" are not going to be here. Not sure why people are not getting that...but the need for human labor is at an all-time low...and getting lower. Paying large numbers of humans to do things is a thing of the past.

Relatively? :shrug: maybe. Absolutely? No.

Well see.

I'm not the kind to wait until trouble comes...I like to head it off at the pass. I think WE should.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I am starting to think that some people dont have much faith in capitalism. Nor the ability of humans to help other humans.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I am starting to think that some people dont have much faith in capitalism. Nor the ability of humans to help other humans.

I think capitalism is capable of finally conquering poverty...and doing even more.

I think capitalism is capable of helping create a world in which NOBODY will every worry about having sufficient food, shelter, clothing, medical care, medicine, education opportunities, the ability to communicate with others, the ability to travel by bus or rail…and a decent amount of leisure.

Maybe I'm an out-of-control optimist...but I think capitalism can do that.

I know America can do that...and if we have to rid ourselves of capitalism to do it...then we should. But there is no reason for that extreme measure.

When EVERYONE is guaranteed of freedom from worry about those things…poverty (of the type I am talking about) will have been eliminated.

 

[cpwill]

Current rockets have lifted more equipment and weight off the surface of the planet during the last four decades than in all the rest of human history, cp.

That does not mean we should stop improving rockets...or replacing existing ones with better rockets if necessary.

Concur. Neither should we pretend that rocket science hasn't advanced, or is currently failing us.

If the complete eradication of poverty is not possible under capitalism...we have to replace it in order to get the job done.

complete eradication of poverty is impossible without the either complete eradication of the human species, or the occurrence of the Eschaton.

In your mind, perhaps. Many socialistic countries have done quite well.

No, they haven't. Usually countries with a higher degree of state transfer payments have done well by A) maintaining capitalism B) leveraging large natural resources and C) leveraging an American security umbrella. Countries that actually try socialism tend to produce mass starvation.

The "jobs" are not going to be here. Not sure why people are not getting that.

Because people are smarter than to fall for warmed over neomalthusian ludditism. After all, it's only failed every single prediction it's ever made

but the need for human labor is at an all-time low...and getting lower.

Need is irrelevant. I don't need my cellphone. I have economic demand for my cellphone, which is relevant.

Paying large numbers of humans to do things is a thing of the past.

Sure. Just like it was in the 1800s, when we suffered mass unemployment and we all died of starvation due to the invention of early machinery. Or like in the early 20th Century, when all those farriers, blacksmiths, horse breeders, horse traders, and stable-workers were put permanently out of work along with their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren by the invention of the car. :roll:

A market economy loathes unused resources, and snatches them up. Simply because you can't imagine the work force of the next 50 years doesn't mean it's going to cease to exist anymore than the inability of someone in 1900 to imagine the current demand for IT workers means it doesn't exist today.

Well see.

Indeed we will.

I'm not the kind to wait until trouble comes...I like to head it off at the pass.

Well, then go build your farm and live the life of a prepper. The rest of us will keep getting richer.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Gosh.


If only there was some kind of economic system out there capable of pulling off such a feat.......



1. We shouldn't be in the business of taking from those who work hard and reducing their ability to build a better life for their families, in order to give to those who simply wish to live at the expense of others. That is not good for either person in that exchange.

1a. Work helps give us meaning, helps give us purpose, and makes us happier. We are better, more joyful people when we have work. Work isn't an evil to find ways to avoid, it's a good that we shouldn't be denying people simply because we find them surplus to requirements.​

2. There is, however, a way to pull every man woman and child above the poverty line for income which, interestingly, will actually cost less than our current efforts.

3. That's not actually going to change their status that much, as wealth is mostly behavioral. The real benefits are in removing the behavioral incentives that encourage self-destructive decisions.

All of which is very close to what I've been saying all along.

 

[digsbe]

I want America to conquer poverty too, but through having a strong economy where anyone willing to work hard is able to earn a decent wage and not through government confiscation of someone else's wealth handed over to lower-income people via inefficient social programs and government aid. In any society there will be "poor" people when compared to the wealthy, we don't need to confuse a relative "poor" term with poverty.

I want America to be a strong country that supports a healthy economy and allows for maximum financial freedom and for citizens to keep as much of their wealth as possible via low taxes. People should prosper by the work of their own hands and be allowed to keep that prosperity.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I think capitalism is capable of finally conquering poverty...and doing even more.

I think capitalism is capable of helping create a world in which NOBODY will every worry about having sufficient food, shelter, clothing, medical care, medicine, education opportunities, the ability to communicate with others, the ability to travel by bus or rail…and a decent amount of leisure.

Maybe I'm an out-of-control optimist...but I think capitalism can do that.

I know America can do that...and if we have to rid ourselves of capitalism to do it...then we should. But there is no reason for that extreme measure.

When EVERYONE is guaranteed of freedom from worry about those things…poverty (of the type I am talking about) will have been eliminated.

I am very optimistic that America can almost wipe out poverty within her borders. I have no faith though that, Socialism or Communism can ever achieve anything good. The extreme left and the extreme right will never do anything good.

I also dont have much faith in big business achieving much except making themselves more wealthy. Which is ok by me, it is their liberty to do so. And some people just dont want to work, again whatever its their liberty. So there will always be some people who dont want to try. And that means some people will live in poverty no matter what the rest of us want them to do.

Capitalism is just our type of economic system, wiping out something like poverty cannot be done from that angle. We have to make it easier for Americans to have upward mobility. Keeping capitalism is a good start but by no means the sole method to a end.

Charities help many people, but charity goes only so far. We have welfare for the reason that people wont go that far helping other people reliably. It doesnt help that there are many people who take advantage of charities and welfare. But if more charities did more things to help those in actual need then it would make government programs unnecessary. But charities have a big disadvantage to start with: They pay CEO's and other people (church leaders etc) large salaries. Its a scam to avoid taxes and not as many people are being helped that could have been. Our charity laws need reform.

While I am not really a small government advocate (I put those people in the extremist category) there is some wisdom to not having a huge government that takes a buttload of money to keep going.

But I agree that in this modern age no one should be in want of the basics of survival. To make that happen will take technology not really politics. Technology could make it cheaper for the average American to survive. But you are right in noting that technology shifts the workforce. Factory jobs are almost a thing of the past. There are three forces at work causing that: Technology, out sourcing and immigrate workers (legal and illegal). Cut the latter two and it will buy us some time but only for so long. What do we do when technology hjs ate up 90% of the job market? If people are not getting paid to work then products wont be bought and it all comes to a crash. We known this for a longtime but what are we doing about it? SOme assert that it is leading to leftist extremism. While other want to regress to a day without all that technology. Both are fantasies.

We are going to have to figure it out and fast.

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

Poverty shouldn’t be conquered. Poverty has many roots, many economic, but poverty is also a complex problem that has many sociological, psychological, and other kinds of roots. To conquer it, we would need to throw massive amounts of money to essentially mitigate the worst, and to create a complex and vast welfare system to prevent poverty. Even a basic income guarantee would cost trillions of dollars, and would be inefficient in a sense, with great complexities.

Capitalism is a great system because it helps create economic and social mobility. It creates the kind of dynamic mobility that allows people to shift from a lower to upper class and tends to generate wealth that allows everyone to have a better standard of living. We can quibble about what kind of capitalism we want, but capitalism is a great system overall for creating a standard of living that everyone can enjoy.

The essence of what should be done is to encourage economic mobility and allow people to move up and down classes with relative ease. The best kind of capitalism in my mind encourages and rewards those who create for society and dissuades those who don’t add to society from keeping their wealth. In that sense, a merit based capitalism is the best kind of capitalism that can expand living standards. (This also dovetails into why wealth isn’t strictly economic; it can be psychological. A trust fund baby has less incentive to create and add to society, and so does a crack addict. In that context, conquering poverty is a dangerous idea. Do you want to protect the crack addict?).

In any case, poverty shouldn’t be conquered because the tradeoffs aren’t worth it. Other people have said it, but I’m just adding to the chorus here.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Concur. Neither should we pretend that rocket science hasn't advanced, or is currently failing us.



complete eradication of poverty is impossible without the either complete eradication of the human species, or the occurrence of the Eschaton.



No, they haven't. Usually countries with a higher degree of state transfer payments have done well by A) maintaining capitalism B) leveraging large natural resources and C) leveraging an American security umbrella. Countries that actually try socialism tend to produce mass starvation.



Because people are smarter than to fall for warmed over neomalthusian ludditism. After all, it's only failed every single prediction it's ever made



Need is irrelevant. I don't need my cellphone. I have economic demand for my cellphone, which is relevant.



Sure. Just like it was in the 1800s, when we suffered mass unemployment and we all died of starvation due to the invention of early machinery. Or like in the early 20th Century, when all those farriers, blacksmiths, horse breeders, horse traders, and stable-workers were put permanently out of work along with their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren by the invention of the car. :roll:

A market economy loathes unused resources, and snatches them up. Simply because you can't imagine the work force of the next 50 years doesn't mean it's going to cease to exist anymore than the inability of someone in 1900 to imagine the current demand for IT workers means it doesn't exist today.



Indeed we will.



Well, then go build your farm and live the life of a prepper. The rest of us will keep getting richer.

What I want for America is for it to finally end poverty...and to export the means of doing that to the rest of the world.

I am more than willing to put up with people who think we are not capable of doing it...and who, for some reason, just do not want to see it happen. The "hooray for me; screw you" philosophy that infects so many of us is a strong virus.

I am happy I am immune to it.

 

[WhyNotWhyNot]

I want America to be the first major power on this planet to conquer poverty.


I want America to be able to say to the rest of the world…

…NONE OF OUR PEOPLE LIVE IN POVERTY; THEY ALL HAVE "SUFFICIENT" FOR A REASONABLE LIFE.


No one should ever be in need of food, clothing, shelter, medical care, educational opportunities; the ability to go from one place to another; the ability to communicate with each other; the ability to interact with each other on the Internet…and to a reasonable amount of leisure amenities.


Every person in this country should have that as a bottom line. Every person!


When we get to that point…then we can call ourselves a great nation.


When politicians tell us that is what they striving for…then they deserve to be entrusted with leading us.


From my conversations in other threads…it seems there are lots of people here who do not want that…or who doubt the ability of our nation to achieve that status.


To them I say: Set your sights a bit higher. We are much more than you suppose we are.

In the 1960’s, the United States, working through the UN, consciously set out to eliminate starvation throughout the world. The challenge was presented to us by President Kennedy and championed by members of the Kennedy family as well the philanthropic arms of industrialist families. Young people enthusiastically joined the Peace Corp. Remember all the UNICEF small change collection drives. 50 years later this enormous dream has been essentially realized! Millions of people died of starvation in India, China, and Bangladesh in those days. Today mass starvation has been wiped out (it is perhaps the greatest human achievement of my lifetime) in these nations and they are the world’s emerging economies with a rapidly growing middle class. If we look critically at this success, we see that it was largely achieved by the persistent, patient work of private foundations, church organizations, private charitable organizations, and an enormous amount of private donations of money and time. The participation of the US government was to enable those that actually did the work through funding the UN, creating the Peace Corp, and targeting foreign aid grants. The three keys of this successful formula were 1) dynamic, enthusiastic national leadership, presenting the dream as real and noble, 2) private execution, and 3) government strategies to enable the doers. If we look at the mechanics, we see that the reason that we have a lasting solution is that the focus was on eliminating underlying problems such as water supplies, sewage management, farming practices, food preservation ….. – simply sending food would only have continued the situation endlessly.

The dream that we could eliminate of poverty in America is really no different than the dream that we could eliminate starvation in the world (except that we run the danger that the definition of poverty will keep moving upward). All that we need is enthusiastic leadership that turns on private foundation and church organizations and government policies that enable these private doers. And we need to understand that a real lasting solution requires addressing underlying problems.

A few years ago I saw talking heads interviews with a couple of Governors – one liberal and one conservative. The subject was the declining real income of the US middle class. The liberal guy asked, “When did we stop caring for the poor?” The conservative guy asked, “When did we stop building things?” Both were right. As we can see from the starvation campaign, caring for the poor by building things to lift them up created emerging economies and a worldwide middle class.

 

[cpwill]

What I want for America is for it to finally end poverty...and to export the means of doing that to the rest of the world.

I am more than willing to put up with people who think we are not capable of doing it...and who, for some reason, just do not want to see it happen. The "hooray for me; screw you" philosophy that infects so many of us is a strong virus.

I am happy I am immune to it.

:shrug: I don't see anyone against reducing poverty. Methinks you are attacking a straw man.

 

[Frank Apisa]

:shrug: I don't see anyone against reducing poverty. Methinks you are attacking a straw man.

Oh...we're gonna discuss "reducing" poverty now.

Shouldn't you start another thread where you advocate for "reducing poverty."

I want to see completely eradicated...so that no one ever needs fear that there will not be enough food or shelter or clothing or health care, or educational opportunities...and that kind of stuff.

If you want to reduce poverty to the point where only the very lazy...unfortunate...people live in fear of those things...

...you ought to do it in your own thread.

 

[cpwill]

Oh...we're gonna discuss "reducing" poverty now.

Shouldn't you start another thread where you advocate for "reducing poverty."

I want to see completely eradicated...so that no one ever needs fear that there will not be enough food or shelter or clothing or health care, or educational opportunities...and that kind of stuff.

If you want to reduce poverty to the point where only the very lazy...unfortunate...people live in fear of those things...

...you ought to do it in your own thread.

Ah. Well then rejoice, we are already there. Anyone with the ability can go to college, Americans don't starve, and we provide housing.

POVERTY is different, it is generally a more relative measure. If you want to eradicate POVERTY, then you have to eradicate PEOPLE.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Ah. Well then rejoice, we are already there. Anyone with the ability can go to college, Americans don't starve, and we provide housing.

POVERTY is different, it is generally a more relative measure. If you want to eradicate POVERTY, then you have to eradicate PEOPLE.

I wrote:

I want to see completely eradicated...so that no one ever needs fear that there will not be enough food or shelter or clothing or health care, or educational opportunities...and that kind of stuff.

With all the respect in the world, cp...if you think that is where we are in America right now...you are living in a dream world!

 

[Dittohead not!]

:shrug: I don't see anyone against reducing poverty. Methinks you are attacking a straw man.

Post 462, which starts, "Poverty shouldn’t be conquered."

 

[cpwill]

Post 462, which starts, "Poverty shouldn’t be conquered."

Conquered =/= Reduce. Post 462:

Poverty shouldn’t be conquered. Poverty has many roots, many economic, but poverty is also a complex problem that has many sociological, psychological, and other kinds of roots. To conquer it, we would need to throw massive amounts of money to essentially mitigate the worst, and to create a complex and vast welfare system to prevent poverty. Even a basic income guarantee would cost trillions of dollars, and would be inefficient in a sense, with great complexities.

Capitalism is a great system because it helps create economic and social mobility. It creates the kind of dynamic mobility that allows people to shift from a lower to upper class and tends to generate wealth that allows everyone to have a better standard of living. We can quibble about what kind of capitalism we want, but capitalism is a great system overall for creating a standard of living that everyone can enjoy.

The essence of what should be done is to encourage economic mobility and allow people to move up and down classes with relative ease. The best kind of capitalism in my mind encourages and rewards those who create for society and dissuades those who don’t add to society from keeping their wealth. In that sense, a merit based capitalism is the best kind of capitalism that can expand living standards. (This also dovetails into why wealth isn’t strictly economic; it can be psychological. A trust fund baby has less incentive to create and add to society, and so does a crack addict. In that context, conquering poverty is a dangerous idea. Do you want to protect the crack addict?).

In any case, poverty shouldn’t be conquered because the tradeoffs aren’t worth it. Other people have said it, but I’m just adding to the chorus here.

Makes pretty much the same argument I do:

 

[Dittohead not!]

Conquered =/= Reduce. Post 462:



Makes pretty much the same argument I do:

This post:

1. We shouldn't be in the business of taking from those who work hard and reducing their ability to build a better life for their families, in order to give to those who simply wish to live at the expense of others. That is not good for either person in that exchange.

1a. Work helps give us meaning, helps give us purpose, and makes us happier. We are better, more joyful people when we have work. Work isn't an evil to find ways to avoid, it's a good that we shouldn't be denying people simply because we find them surplus to requirements.

2. There is, however, a way to pull every man woman and child above the poverty line for income (The Negative Income / Perfectly Progressive Flat Tax) which, interestingly, will actually cost less than our current efforts.

3. That's not actually going to change their status that much, as wealth is mostly behavioral. The real benefits are in removing the behavioral incentives that encourage self-destructive decisions.

actually sounds quite different.
1a: Exactly why there needs to be a job for everyone, even if that job is provided by government. Given outsourcing and automation, there simply aren't enough jobs to go around currently.

2. That would work, it seems to me.

3. and the way to change that behavior is to provide opportunities for work, opportunities to kick addictions, or at least live with them without having to live outside the law to do so, provide real educational opportunities for those who want them, and provide an incentive to improve. As it is now, the poor are discouraged from attempting to work. That is just wrong, and needs to be changed.

Oh, and people who work, even at menial jobs, should have more than people who do not. Currently, that's not how it is.

 

[JumpinJack]

I want America to be the first major power on this planet to conquer poverty.


I want America to be able to say to the rest of the world…

…NONE OF OUR PEOPLE LIVE IN POVERTY; THEY ALL HAVE "SUFFICIENT" FOR A REASONABLE LIFE.


No one should ever be in need of food, clothing, shelter, medical care, educational opportunities; the ability to go from one place to another; the ability to communicate with each other; the ability to interact with each other on the Internet…and to a reasonable amount of leisure amenities.


Every person in this country should have that as a bottom line. Every person!


When we get to that point…then we can call ourselves a great nation.


When politicians tell us that is what they striving for…then they deserve to be entrusted with leading us.


From my conversations in other threads…it seems there are lots of people here who do not want that…or who doubt the ability of our nation to achieve that status.


To them I say: Set your sights a bit higher. We are much more than you suppose we are.

Lofty goals. But since everything is relative, there will always be "poor" people everywhere.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Lofty goals. But since everything is relative, there will always be "poor" people everywhere.

And...what does that have to do with eliminating poverty?

There can be poor (the relative "poor")...and still not be poverty.

Right?

 

[JumpinJack]

And...what does that have to do with eliminating poverty?

There can be poor (the relative "poor")...and still not be poverty.

Right?

No, since everything is relative. If everyone in the world is a millionaire, those with much less would be considered in poverty. We might think of poverty as not having enough food here in America right now, whereas people in Africa might think of it as starving to death, rather than simply not having enough food. It's relative to what everyone else has. If everyone were rich, our definition of poverty would change to something different.

So, there will always be the poor. Interestingly, the Bible has Jesus saying that (although I'm not particularly religious, I remember that statement because it's surprising).

Matthew 26:11

You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.

Mark 14:7

The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.

 

[Frank Apisa]

No, since everything is relative. If everyone in the world is a millionaire, those with much less would be considered in poverty. We might think of poverty as not having enough food here in America right now, whereas people in Africa might think of it as starving to death, rather than simply not having enough food. It's relative to what everyone else has. If everyone were rich, our definition of poverty would change to something different.

So, there will always be the poor. Interestingly, the Bible has Jesus saying that (although I'm not particularly religious, I remember that statement because it's surprising).

Matthew 26:11


Mark 14:7

I already said there will be relative poor...but that is a far stretch from poverty.

Donald Trump is poor relative to Bill Gates.

Get it?