Blaming poverty on the poor...

[2ndRateMind]

Fact is, there is just so much money in the world. The more of it you have, the less there is for everyone else. The absolutely poor (2 billion people on an income less than $1.25 per day) are the victims of the economic system, not the architects of it. That privilege is the preserve of the rich west. I think we should change the status quo.

Do you?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[bluethread]

Your premise is incorrect. There is not a limited amount of money in the world. There may be a limited amount of a given form of currency or of a commodity. However, money is anything one can use as a means of exchange. Anything can be money, therefore, there can not be a limited amount of it.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

Well, that's a direct enough criticism of my position. Nevertheless, I cannot help but wonder why, if money is in such limitless supply, so many are so poor? Why do we not all have a gin palace yacht moored in the Mediterranean, a Porsche sports car, a private jet, and a country mansion?

It may help us here to distinguish between money and wealth. Wealth is stuff and services. Money is the way we choose to ration that stuff and those services. Given that 1% of the world has as much money as the remaining 99% put together, and according to Oxfam, last year the rich got richer, but the poor did not, I further cannot help but think this rationing system is both unjust and unfair, and requires radical corrective action.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

Well, that's a direct enough criticism of my position. Nevertheless, I cannot help but wonder why, if money is in such limitless supply, so many are so poor? Why do we not all have a gin palace yacht moored in the Mediterranean, a Porsche sports car, a private jet, and a country mansion?

It may help us here to distinguish between money and wealth. Wealth is stuff and services. Money is the way we choose to ration that stuff and those services. Given that 1% of the world has as much money as the remaining 99% put together, and according to Oxfam, last year the rich got richer, but the poor did not, I further cannot help but think this rationing system is both unjust and unfair, and requires radical corrective action.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Very good, but you are still not quite correct. Wealth is not stuff and services. Stuff is goods or riches. Wealth is the employment of goods in the economy. Services are the use of goods in the economy short without their actual exchange. Money is not the way we choose to ration goods and services in the economy. It is the means we use to represent or facilitate the exchange of goods and services in an economy. It is the recognition of property rights that dictates how goods and services are distributed.

Now, if those concepts are understood, the fact that 1% of the world controls more goods and services than the other 99% has nothing to do with money, but with the nature of property rights. If one does not approve of that one must look at a combination of not just how we define propety rghts, but also human behavior. It has been verified in many different ways that power and assets tend to centralize. and attempts by governements to change that have done little more than speed up that process, while slowing down the economy.

Before we jump to a solution, we also need to look at how this effects the poor. You argue that a disparity in the control of goods and services hurts the poor. Unlike the centralization principle, that result is not a given. Yes, once centralization reaches a critical mass, the economy does brake down, which does harm the poor. However, until then, there is no direct correlation between disparity of economic control and harm to the poor. In free markets the wealthy do get richer, but so do the wealthy poor, i.e. the poor that invest. Yes, the hand to mouth poor do suffer, but so do the consumer rich. The controllling fact is how much one invests, not how much one has or receives.

So, the question is what is the best course of action. Well, smarter people than me have been arguing this for ages. The best and most honest answer I have ever heard has come from Jordan Peterson. His take is that historically, regardless of the economic model, power centralizes until it reaches a critical mass, at which point there is a social break down, followed by a chaotic period and then the economy resets and starts the process all over again. Therefore, one is left with two basic choices, one can free up the economy and let this occur naturally, or one can fiddle about with the economy and speed up the process. So, what are you suggesting?

[Wootah]

So, the question is what is the best course of action. Well, smarter people than me have been arguing this for ages. The best and most honest answer I have ever heard has come from Jordan Peterson. His take is that historically, regardless of the economic model, power centralizes until it reaches a critical mass, at which point there is a social break down, followed by a chaotic period and then the economy resets and starts the process all over again. Therefore, one is left with two basic choices, one can free up the economy and let this occur naturally, or one can fiddle about with the economy and speed up the process. So, what are you suggesting?

My understanding is that Jordan is suggesting that we 'carry our cross'. That we simply carry the burden of our circumstances. He says if we don't then the alternatives are as you point out.

[Wootah]

Fact is, there is just so much money in the world. The more of it you have, the less there is for everyone else. The absolutely poor (2 billion people on an income less than $1.25 per day) are the victims of the economic system, not the architects of it. That privilege is the preserve of the rich west. I think we should change the status quo.

Do you?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Please be specific on what you will do to change the status quo.

Also if you need some confidence look to China for the fastest rate of people moving out of poverty.

[bluethread]

My understanding is that Jordan is suggesting that we 'carry our cross'. That we simply carry the burden of our circumstances. He says if we don't then the alternatives are as you point out.

Yes, I understand that he believes that personal responsibility is the best course of action. Being a psychologist and not an economist he really does not get into the economic details. However, I think that would translate into being an investor rather than a consumer and/or hoarder. If I am not mistaken, he is not big on government intervention into the economy.

[steveb1]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

Poverty is both socio-economically and self-inflicted.

Let's face it, some people are just incompetent with money - how to earn it, how to manage it, how to invest it, and how to hold onto it. These form part of the "Incompetent Poor".

And of course, the rich get richer, which is the idea in capitalist societies. Domination systems that inherently keep the masses poor, of course, are real social evils. And they exist to some extent in the "Free West"/U.S. One cannot expect the .01% to just give away its wealth (except as tax breaks).

But "we the people" are more than our rich elites, and we should take care that we, and to some extent, our governments, materially and financially assist those who cannot assist themselves.

[bluethread]

But "we the people" are more than our rich elites, and we should take care that we, and to some extent, our governments, materially and financially assist those who cannot assist themselves.

Fair enough, as long as one realizes that when the government does it, it requires extorting the funds from the public, which creates many externalities. Personal and/or community based voluntary charity is the best. Regarding the reluctance of the 1% to give up their wealth, I do not think that is entirely true. In these United States, much of the 1% is transitory. It's composition changes from year to year. Also, the wise wealthy do engage in voluntary welfare programs. As Jordon Peterson points out the strong mouse lets the weak mouse win 30% of the time, or the weak mouse refuses to play. So, though wealth tends to centralize naturally, engaging in voluntary welfare helps to slow down the eventual attainment of critical mass, which is followed by social chaos.

One the other hand, the socialist wealthy expect to stave off critical mass by extorting the funds from the populous and distributing them according to their own personal value systems. However, this does just the opposite. It increases the eventual flow to critical mass, because it breeds resentment on the part of the paying populous, undermines the pressure on the poor to innovate, and even breeds resentment among the poor, as the largess given to them is not according to their personal value systems. This is felt most acutely by the poor who do innovate, because they see the confiscation of their wealth should they advance, largess if they regress, and their personal value systems ignored, if not undermined, in either case. This causes the economy to slow as the productive poor decrease and the nonproductive poor increase. Therefore, the best solution is for social welfare to be handled by individuals or local communities using their own funds in accordance with their own values systems.

[Wootah]

[Replying to steveb1]

The rich get rich is in the Bible and nothing to do with capitalism. It is true under communism or as you cLled it a domination system.

Google: Matthew principle.