Does Poverty Motivate People?

[WinePusher]

[youtube][/youtube]

First let me say that when I see and hear people like this it makes me think that liberals and the occupy wallstreet crowd got it right...

Obviously what he's saying is pretty atrocious. Obviously poverty is NOT good, it's a very bad thing that needs to be reduced and completely obliterated. But, putting aside this guys absurd and offensive comments, I've managed to glean two points in what he's saying:

1. Poverty motivates people to do better in life (this point was also made by Benjamin Franklin).
2. Capitalism has been the only socioeconomic system that has significantly reduced poverty throughout the globe.

I think it's a fact that Capitalism has done a great deal of good for the poorer classes of society, but the first point about poverty being a motivator remains to be seen. I would also say that poverty is by in large a combination of two factors: personal responsibility and circumstances beyond personal control. You're either poor because you got dealt a crappy hand of cards (in this case you have no control over the situation), or you're poor because you're lazy and not hard working (in this case you do have control over your situation). This is a crucial distinction that needs to be made because I think that all of us would have no problem providing assistance to people who are poor because of circumstances beyond their control. But when it comes to people who are poor by choice I think it's safe to say that all of us would have a problem giving them money since they're perfectly capable of making money themselves.

Questions: What is the cause of poverty? Does poverty motivate people to do better in life? How can poverty be reduced?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 20 by Goat]

I think that is an oversimplification, like I said though unfettered is not necessarily the best solution either. I think walking a fine line between regulations and free market is the hardest thing to do, however it is something that we should aim for. Maximizing the benefits and reducing the risk as much as possible. However, as a free society we are given the freedom to vote for as little or as much risk as possible. That is the essence of our right to vote. So one should exercise their right to vote as much as possible.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 20 by Goat]

Goat wrote:

While that can happen anyplace, isn't it amazing that it keeps on happening in states that are anti-regulation? You know, Utah, Texas, West Virginia?

Instead of demanding that your own ideas of suitable regulations be imposed on everyone else, you could exercise your right to vote with your feet and leave those states you don't like.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, those who would trade away their freedom for a little security deserve neither freedom nor security.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 22 by JohnPaul]

That is not always the answer JohnPaul not everyone can just pick up and go. Instead people like Goat have the 1st amendment that allows them to voice their opinions and use the free market of ideas and vote on these issues as a society. The fact that we live in a society negates our freedom to do whatever we want.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 22 by JohnPaul]

That is not always the answer JohnPaul not everyone can just pick up and go. Instead people like Goat have the 1st amendment that allows them to voice their opinions and use the free market of ideas and vote on these issues as a society. The fact that we live in a society negates our freedom to do whatever we want.

I certainly would not deny Goat his 1st Amendment rights, but I do sometimes disagree with him. Not always, but sometimes.

We live in a Constitutional Republic where the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, states that those powers not specifically reserved to the federal government are given to the several states, or to the people. That is why the area of northern California where I now live is fighting to establish a new state of Jefferson, separated from the "regulations" and the overwhelming voters of southern California, which many of us here do not like.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 22 by JohnPaul]

That is not always the answer JohnPaul not everyone can just pick up and go. Instead people like Goat have the 1st amendment that allows them to voice their opinions and use the free market of ideas and vote on these issues as a society. The fact that we live in a society negates our freedom to do whatever we want.

I certainly would not deny Goat his 1st Amendment rights, but I do sometimes disagree with him. Not always, but sometimes.

We live in a Constitutional Republic where the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, states that those powers not specifically reserved to the federal government are given to the several states, or to the people. That is why the area of northern California where I now live is fighting to establish a new state of Jefferson, separated from the "regulations" and the overwhelming voters of southern California, which many of us here do not like.

And I am so sure that you just so dislike all those regulations that give you clean water, clean air, and safe roads and bridges... as well as safe food when you go to the grocery store.

I personally remember when forests were dying off, because of acid rain caused by power plant pollution in other states. Pollution in other states affected the area in which I was living. Why should I suffer because some greedy folks in another state just want to shove pollution into the air?
Why should folks in the Mississippi delta suffer because the folks upstream want let mercury and nitrates run off into it?

[Darias]

While there are some issues with capitalism unfettered it far outweighs the alternative. There are also some really simple things that can be done to mitigate social issues without dumping tons of money into it or raising taxes.

Take for example what they are doing with education in Oregon. They are providing the upfront costs of college education by having a portion of your earned wages being returned over a period of time. So if you don't get that high paying job after you graduate you are not saddle with loans that make meeting ends nigh impossible. Trust me I took out $120,000 dollars for my education. those loan payments were expensive >.< only $30,000 to go So given the alternative I think ideas like that can help people who would be averse to taking out huge loans from going to college.

Unfettered? I think you'll find the economy quite tethered indeed. You can't have a free market if the money supply is controlled by the state -- it's impossible.

[center][/center]

The stated purpose of federal student loans was to help the poor get educated. However, because loans exist, colleges have raised tuition because they know they will get more money. If those loans did not exist colleges would have to lower the costs significantly in order to get people to come and pay for classes. However, it's to the point now where you literally have to be part of the 1% to afford tuition without federal "aid." The government makes billions of dollars off of the poor and middle class, making them debt slaves for a very long time. The government doesn't care about the poor; if it did they wouldn't be taxed at all. No the government sees the poor as another source of revenue, or as a voting block to appease.

On the other hand, let's look at some of those 'fetters'?? How about the good old 'environmental and safty regulations'. Inspections have to be paid for. Now, there are some states that are very anti-regulation, and don't do their environmental and safety inspections nearly was good as they should.

Then disasters happen.. and guess what?? The people around there suffer.

While that can happen anyplace, isn't it amazing that it keeps on happening in states that are anti-regulation? You know, Utah, Texas, West Virginia?

No one wants antifreeze in their toothpaste or tainted beef. There is an enormous demand for safety, and in a free environment people would seek to meet that demand. I happen to believe more safety and voluntary regulation is better than what we have now.

I happen to think that when a state monopolizes the safety inspection industry it does a rather shit job at protecting people. The FDA bans life saving drugs other countries have allowed for years (All in the name of the environment, cause we all know how much the government cares about the environment when it uses depleted uranium on Iraqis, all in the effort to create new markets for big oil). It bans gay men from donating blood, but doesn't care if people are sick if they're heterosexual. The USDA have been known to examine meat for ecoli with a visual inspection. I mean, that's Dark Ages levels of stupidity. We're paying for that? Gosh, I feel so safe.

And you actually think the state cares about the environment? Carbon taxes only enrich the state, they don't actually reduce pollution, especially when the state subsidizes the oil industry as it does. The occasional political favor to bankrupt companies like Solyndra is just a joke. Politicians want your votes and they don't really care about the environment.

BP wouldn't have existed in the first place were it not for Great Britain's help. And the spill occurred given the regulations we already have.

And pollution in China is as bad as it is because so many industries are state owned and forming a union will get you put in prison. You cannot protest your working environment because of the state. If you don't like the smog in Chinese cities, your only option is to leave those cities -- all thanks to the state.

You don't get to blame all this shit on the free market. There is no free market. There's nothing close to a free market. Sure it's not Stalin's Russia, but that's not saying a hell of a whole lot.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 25 by Goat]

well techinically if that does happen your state could technically sue the other state. As is the case in Alabama when the state of Georgia wanted to divert rivers that fed the Alabama river due to their drought, of course what came up was Georgia's piss poor water management and Alabama won the case.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 26 by Darias]

Yes, China has a problem with lack of regulation, due to greed.

Yes, we can do better inspections and regulations to make sure thigns are safe.

However, you fail to show that a 'Free Market' economy would do any better...

I see that in a Free Market Economy, greed would overcome civic responsibly.

I can see the results of what happens when you get the anti-regulation folks involved.

And the 'true free market' economy is very anti-regulation.

I don't see you providing how a 'free market' economy would be any better. I just see attacks on the current system. It reminds me of how creationists always attack evolution, yet can't provide any evidence for creationism except for unsupported claims.

I CAN directly see the results of what happens without environmental and safety regulations.. or poorly enforced ones. I also see that the groups that are 'Free Market Economy' are also very anti-regulation, and I see those groups are funded by billionaires that don't give a darn about the average person.

I am not going to bother posting a bunch of pictures, or meme's or anything like that. When it goes overdone, it shows the lack of ability to actually SUPPORT your claim. It shows the discourse is on an emotional level, not a rational level. An occasional one is fine, but when you see someone over doing it, their arguments tend to be weak, and they are overcompensating.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 25 by Goat]

Goat wrote:

And I am so sure that you just so dislike all those regulations that give you clean water, clean air, and safe roads and bridges... as well as safe food when you go to the grocery store.

And where does southern California get that "clean water" you are so proud of? It pipes it in from northern Califonia. For example, Los Angeles has no water supply of its own and is almost totally dependent on northern California water. When we establish our new state here and cut off that water supply and the kitchen taps and jacuzzis of Los Angeles run dry, I give it less than a week before they wave a white flag and then we can negotiate a fair price for our water.

It is said that America has more laws, rules, regulations, statutes and ordinances per square foot than any other country in the world, and certainly more incompetent government administrators than any dictatorship.

Just a couple of California examples from where I live. There is a small oceanside lagoon here that overflows from rainfall every year and floods miles of surrounding farmlands and roads for weeks at a time. This can be easily prevented by simply opening a small ditch to drain it into the ocean. There never was any reason to deny the permit. The water drained into the ocean is fresh rain water. It never was anything more than bureaucratic paperwork, but a separate permit is required each year, can't be applied for until the flood begins, and takes weeks to process. The result of this California idiocy is that in recent years, the ditch has magically opened by itself in the dead of night and the bulldozer tracks can never be traced to the culprits who did the evil deed.

Another example. A couple of department stores in a small town just across the Oregon border offer guns for sale, but they refuse to sell to California residents because the California paperwork required is deliberately made so complicated and time-consuming as to make the sales not worth the store's effort.

I could go on and on, but this is getting too far off topic.

I can't resist a final example of your wonderful regulatory nonsense. It is technically a crime now to purchase a pack of cigarettes in California and transport it into Oregon with even a single cigarette remaining in it without paying the additional Oregon tax on it and obtaining an Oregon tax stamp for it. Thank God the county budgets on both sides of the border have seriously cut back on law enforcement. Good night.

[Darias]

1)

Yes, China has a problem with lack of regulation...

China doesn't properly regulate the industries it owns and runs. Could it possibly be because the state doesn't care to spend extra tax revenue making sure its own companies are safer or less environmentally hazardous?

Heavy industry, dominated by state-owned enterprises, has been promoted since the beginning of central planning and its constituents still have many privileges, such as access to cheap energy and loans. In China, heavy industry tends to be a polluting sector[12] and possesses considerable power to resist environmental regulation.[13]

It should not be a surprise to you that the state fails to police its own. This happens everywhere, not just in China, and not just regarding environmental issues. If you smoke crack while in office and admit to it, people will love you; if you're the average joe, you go to jail. No one regulates the regulators or watches the watchmen. This is just reality.




2)

... due to greed.

As I just demonstrated, you'll find that the state is the reason for China's Venus-like haze. This is not the doing of an unfettered market; it's the handiwork of unrestrained state power and control.

But you want to call this "greed," and lay the blame at the invisible feet of the market. I'm sorry but listing one of the seven deadly sins is not an analysis.

I would have said that the tariff on cheap sugar at the people's expense, in order to protect domestic farmers from third world competition (which leads to the inclusion of fattening, unhealthy corn syrup in most American food products) is an example of the negative consequences that comes from the state's interference in the market -- but I guess the real reason for this problem is none other than gluttony.




3)

Yes, we can do better inspections and regulations to make sure thigns are safe.

You think? I would imagine that in the marketplace of ideas, one could find many functional alternatives to visual inspections for ecoli, the state's safety standard. If meat inspection was a business that not only had to compete with others but also rely on custom and not guaranteed tax revenue, you can bet that there would be a monetary incentive to make sure meat was not contaminated.

If greed is part of human nature, then it would not suddenly disappear with the state. That self interested drive would make people try a little bit harder to keep tainted meat from reaching the masses than performing a quick double-take. I am confident the invisible hand can do a much better job detecting invisible microbes, than the not so all-seeing eye of the state.




4)

However, you fail to show that a 'Free Market' economy would do any better...

The burden of proof is on you my friend. Would you care to demonstrate just how a government monopoly on safety inspections and environmental policies works at all, given that the state is beholden to corporate influences (private interest that exist precisely because state law has the power to make and break those corporations)?

Putting government in charge of regulation and environmental issues is about as counter productive as letting the Catholic church monopolize daycare services, or making Fred Phelps president of the Human Rights Campaign.

If you believe that it is not safe enough to let corporations regulate themselves (for self-interest of not getting sued, etc.), how then do you logically justify advocating that the only ones with the power to regulate should be those agencies operated by this corporatocracy -- a system that cannot be improved by voters, when politicians are only accountable to corporate donations?




5)

I see that in a Free Market Economy, greed would overcome civic responsibly.

Given that there is no free market and that you are supposedly an empiricist, what is the evidence for this assumption?

I, for one, think that the mindset that "this is the government's job" removes personal responsibility from people. Everyone wants roads, safe food, and security, and if they knew that a giant monopoly stretching from sea to shining sea wasn't going to take care of those issues, and if they truly cared about those issues enough themselves, assuming they were self-interested, then they would make those things happen. This isn't just a theory, as it happens all the time. Hawaiians pitched in and built their own road because the government would not; they did a $4,000,000 job for free because they all had a vested interest in making it happen.

Crowdfunding happens all the time. The reason why people don't ask "without government, who will make the indie games?" is precisely because the tiny voluntary donations of millions pave the way for wonderful gaming experiences. And these types of projects aren't limited to games.

There are people mowing grass on public land in Detroit for free. People who really give a damn about something take care of it themselves in whatever way they can, they don't ask who else is gonna step up and do it.




6)

I can see the results of what happens when you get the anti-regulation folks involved.

Now, I know what Harry Reid had to say about the Tea Party, but we're not talking about them here. A large majority of actual anarcho-capitalists like me do not vote at all.




7)

And the 'true free market' economy is very anti-regulation.

[. . . .]

I CAN directly see the results of what happens without environmental and safety regulations.. or poorly enforced ones. I also see that the groups that are 'Free Market Economy' are also very anti-regulation, and I see those groups are funded by billionaires that don't give a darn about the average person.

Opposing state monopoly of an industry or service is not to oppose the existence of that industry or service.

I have posted this quote before, and I will continue to post it so long as the rebuttal is relevant. This is not for your displeasure, but to correct your invalid claim:

[center][/center]



8)

I don't see you providing how a 'free market' economy would be any better. I just see attacks on the current system. It reminds me of how creationists always attack evolution, yet can't provide any evidence for creationism except for unsupported claims.

It's actually more like asking Medieval atheists to prove how the world came to be without Providence, or how civilization would function without the rule of the Catholic Church. Or like asking 18th century abolitionists how society would be clothed and fed without the benefits of stated backed slavery.

I am at liberty to criticize the current system, if we can even call it a system, all I please. It's not as though it has a few problems; it is inherently flawed. I do not have to propose a master plan in order to rightly point out what is wrong. Atheists in the middle ages understood that the Church's influence over the state resulted in all sorts of barbarism, and that there probably wasn't a god -- even though they had no evidence to demonstrate how life came to be, nor did they have any clue about what the future would bring. Similarly, abolitionists could not have foreseen a future where Obama is president and where people of different ethnicities work together, marry each other, and are treated as equals under the law. They most likely did not have a foolproof plan showing how the south would not have to rely on slave labor to ensure the population was well fed and clothed.

Asking me to present this master plan for the future is absurd. If I knew how everything should work, then you, a believer in the state, should vote for me as president.

I do not have to offer any solutions in order for my criticisms to be valid. I do not have to know the ins and outs of biology and the big bang to argue that Creationism is unsound.

However, I will humor you.

In a world where limited liability and corporate personhood do not exist, given the absence of state legal protections, businesses owners will have the monetary incentive to apply for insurance, so that they won't have to worry about losing their business in the case that they or their employees are sued for damages, negligence, injury, etc. Insurance companies will not wish to insure businesses that fail to meet safety standards and protocols, lest they lose money by having to pay for damages. Insurance companies will have the monetary incentive to require all applicants to submit their places of business to routine safety inspection (from 3rd party inspection companies or non-profits).

Rather than suffer country or province wide safety risks thanks to some federal agency's oversight, society would be much safer leaving safety inspection to competition at the local level, where possible mishaps are localized.

An imperfect analogy is akin to states' rights, where it is possible to purchase medical marijuana and have a gay wedding in some parts of the country despite federal prohibitions on those freedoms.

If you are concerned about how arbitration will be handled sans state, you may take a look at this; I have already wandered far enough off topic:

[center][yt][/yt][/center]



9)

I am not going to bother posting a bunch of pictures, or meme's or anything like that. When it goes overdone, it shows the lack of ability to actually SUPPORT your claim. It shows the discourse is on an emotional level, not a rational level. An occasional one is fine, but when you see someone over doing it, their arguments tend to be weak, and they are overcompensating.

I post 1 image listing countless agencies that are involved in this so called "unfettered" market and that is somehow a meme? I did it to save time and make the post shorter, while still illustrating an important point.

And if you're tired of looking at Bastiat's face and reading that quote of his, then please stop insinuating that being anti-government is the same as being anti (insert your favorite thing here). Yours is a very reoccurring and tiring assumption. We all want security and clean water and roads and education, etc. Saying we don't, simply because we don't want the state to be in charge of those essential and necessary services, is dishonest.

In conclusion, I can assure you that I am not overcompensating for anything, although I'll spare you the pictorial evidence.