Capitalism can not eradicate poverty
- Thread starter gore0bsessed
- Start date
It is called 'usury' in the OT, there are about 6 verses in all. The 'dividing line' seems to be what the bankers take home per year. If you want a personal loan and it is for a business project or your personal wealth is higher than a banker then you pay interest on the loan. Below that level the loans are interest free and that would now apply to all Jews and Gentiles alike.
If you don't like that system then look at Libya before the latest 'fix' we did. The citizens were healthy and well educated and a lot were on welfare yet above what we would call the poverty line.
Same reason people pursue hobbies. You are in it for the biggest paycheck and the more you get the bigger your ego gets. Putting all money back into the states bank when a person dies would eliminate the hoarding that goes on with the rich sector of society.
You recall the last four decades or so of the move away from nationalism and into the corporate form of globalism, the big happy village, and you've indicated that we have in the new Liberal government only the kinder softer twin of the recently removed Conservatives and you obviously aren't blinded by false hopes of any radical departure from the status quo. Like I've said before all the important phone numbers used by the last government are the same for this new government and we are only to be treated with a fresh new face and a new paint job, and possibly new tires. The vehicle won't leave the highway to hell. Anybody foolish enough to think Trudeau would live long enough to affect a radical course change has a rude awakening ahead. imo Trudeau is the Canadian version of the Obama treatment.
I hope I have to eat my words.
Mr Trudeau is first class.
You recall the last four decades or so of the move away from nationalism and into the corporate form of globalism, the big happy village, and you've indicated that we have in the new Liberal government only the kinder softer twin of the recently removed Conservatives and you obviously aren't blinded by false hopes of any radical departure from the status quo. Like I've said before all the important phone numbers used by the last government are the same for this new government and we are only to be treated with a fresh new face and a new paint job, and possibly new tires. The vehicle won't leave the highway to hell. Anybody foolish enough to think Trudeau would live long enough to affect a radical course change has a rude awakening ahead. imo Trudeau is the Canadian version of the Obama treatment.
I hope I have to eat my words.
Mr Trudeau is first class.
I hear you, Beav! I think one of the main things people fail to realize is Mr. Trudeau will get his "marching orders" from the same source as Mr. Harper got his. The main difference will be in the introduction and packaging. The money lenders have already got him borrowing money which you and I will be paying the interest on. And then of course we'll have the new "roomies" moving in.
hell you guys don't trust anybodyI hear you, Beav! I think one of the main things people fail to realize is Mr. Trudeau will get his "marching orders" from the same source as Mr. Harper got his. The main difference will be in the introduction and packaging. The money lenders have already got him borrowing money which you and I will be paying the interest on. And then of course we'll have the new "roomies" moving in.
Poverty will always exist regardless of the system. Capitalism gives everyone the chance to fight their own poverty.
All efforts to eliminate poverty have so far only created more poverty. Here's how it works: Take from the well off to give to the poor. Then those who are poor (because of their own lack of ambition or intelligence) waste their money and remain poor and those whose money was given to eliminate their poverty are poorer.
Poverty needs to be more clearly defined. It seems these days that people are considered poor if they don't own a 4 bedroom house, 3 cars, and take a vacation abroad every year. If those who are on limited incomes would stop spending on lottery tickets, beer, video games and the like they wouldn't be so 'poor'.
We have welfare, food banks, low income housing, free medical care; how much can we do for poor people? When do the hard workers who make the money get to keep some of what they earn?
All efforts to eliminate poverty have so far only created more poverty. Here's how it works: Take from the well off to give to the poor. Then those who are poor (because of their own lack of ambition or intelligence) waste their money and remain poor and those whose money was given to eliminate their poverty are poorer.
Poverty needs to be more clearly defined. It seems these days that people are considered poor if they don't own a 4 bedroom house, 3 cars, and take a vacation abroad every year. If those who are on limited incomes would stop spending on lottery tickets, beer, video games and the like they wouldn't be so 'poor'.
We have welfare, food banks, low income housing, free medical care; how much can we do for poor people? When do the hard workers who make the money get to keep some of what they earn?
Not to mention the dozens I see every day with $thousands invested in tattoos. Many of the same ones I hear whining about not getting paid enough. Ironic isn't it?
Good points, but what about the people born into being rich? And what about the poor? It is easy to say that these poor people spend their money on beer and lottery tickets but do they really? Some do, some do not. In fact, some of these people are proportionately more generous with their money than the rich people are, and especially the ones born into richness.
Capitalism works ok, but it really does tend to breed poverty and greed. So does communism.
For some of us, though, the important thing about life is to do one's best to be happy and enjoy life. And one of the keys to doing that is to respect and appreciate what one has. I cannot see how one can respect something if they have no acknowledgement of how much effort was put into making it or growing it.
Anyways, I think what MHz is talking about is idealistic socialism. It would not work any better than capitalism or communism for the same reason.
So only people who can afford to have things to enjoy should have those things to enjoy. I see.Not to mention the dozens I see every day with $thousands invested in tattoos. Many of the same ones I hear whining about not getting paid enough. Ironic isn't it?
Print our own money and that is $30B that can go directly to the poor and nothing else changes.
The reason it wouldn't work is because the ones who hold the power are not willing to let go for any reason as it would change their lifestyle of being the rich and famous in life.
The reason it wouldn't work is because the ones who hold the power are not willing to let go for any reason as it would change their lifestyle of being the rich and famous in life.
Historically that's the way it's been. How would you go about changing it? Should we be changing it?
(I've tried to teach my kids and grandkids, if you really want something get a job and earn it)
With some of them it's how they got "rich" and with some of them it's a sickness!
Funny. There is only you saying that. You have already demonstrated that you are an ideologue and ideologues tend to omit facts that do not support their claims. Your biggest omittance is that you do not acknowledge that humans are imperfect, so they cannot perform ideologies perfectly.
You do know that if a person does not find an escape from their reality now and then, they do tend to go nuts, right?Historically that's the way it's been. How would you go about changing it? Should we be changing it?
(I've tried to teach my kids and grandkids, if you really want something get a job and earn it)
Yep, but when I learned it, it was worded a little differently----------- "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy".
Good points, but what about the people born into being rich? And what about the poor? It is easy to say that these poor people spend their money on beer and lottery tickets but do they really? Some do, some do not. In fact, some of these people are proportionately more generous with their money than the rich people are, and especially the ones born into richness.
Capitalism works ok, but it really does tend to breed poverty and greed. So does communism.
For some of us, though, the important thing about life is to do one's best to be happy and enjoy life. And one of the keys to doing that is to respect and appreciate what one has. I cannot see how one can respect something if they have no acknowledgement of how much effort was put into making it or growing it.
Well what about people who are born into being rich? I guess they are just lucky
Capitalism works better when government keeps its nose out of business and let's markets find their own level.
Things like government controlling markets, setting up factory farming,, allowing unions to make overly generous demands on employers, those things all work to stymie capitalism.
Agriculture is a perfect example; Farmers used to diversify as markets changed. They could go from raising beef cattle to raising chickens to raising hogs or cash cropping as the demands for their products rose and fell. They can't do that any more. Now they are controlled by government which controls the market.
Corporations too are controlled.. They have to follow so many governmental regulations, satisfy hiring quotas, they move their operations off-shore to be able to make a profit. Sure the regulatory benefits are great for the workers for a while,, but corporations should be able to set the pay rate and benefits for their own operations. If employees don't like it they don't have to work there.
It is mind boggling how people take jobs and immediately start complaining and demanding better pay, benefits and working conditions.
We have become a greedy, spoiled society with a sense of entitlement, always wanting more, more, more!
well