BF2S Forums Does this make sense?

anyway with this class I can shoot unsupported baseless opinions in there

Seems like a pretty dumb class then.

Your government tries to set an unemployment rate, in most cases to fight inflation.

So if the government is trying to keep people out of work what chance do you have of ending poverty? lol

I'm thinking the Gauss curve applies to how many poor, middle class and rich there is and needs to be ... the latter can be discussed of course but it's utopia to think we can eliminate poverty ...

Poverty can be eliminated, by doing what Dilbert said, and replacing that segment of the work force with automated equipment.

needless to say, there will be much bitching involved, race cards will be played, and nazi comparisons will abound.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

What does becoming a more liberal society have to do with poverty?  Or do you mean that as 'liberals' gain more control of society through government actions poverty will increase?

When there is no motivation provided to get off government subsistence, do you not think that the number of people living off it will expand? We've given people the means to be lazy and still have a roof over their head, food in their belly and a flat screen tv in their living room. Those people then have children who grow up learning how to work the system themselves. They also tend to have more kids than the average family because they are paid extra to do so. On a long enough time line they become the majority. Lovely.

AussieReaper wrote:

Your government tries to set an unemployment rate, in most cases to fight inflation.

So if the government is trying to keep people out of work what chance do you have of ending poverty? lol

This.

You can end poverty easily, you just need to stop using currency.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Your government tries to set an unemployment rate, in most cases to fight inflation.

So if the government is trying to keep people out of work what chance do you have of ending poverty? lol

This.

You can end poverty easily, you just need to stop using currency.

But unemployment doesn't automatically equal poverty, does it?

Ah. True. But it is generally assumed so.

My point being, as long as some one is making currency, some one is therefore losing currency, so to end currency issues (i.e. poverty) you need to do away completely with currency.

Morpheus wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

This.

You can end poverty easily, you just need to stop using currency.

But unemployment doesn't automatically equal poverty, does it?

Ah. True. But it is generally assumed so.

My point being, as long as some one is making currency, some one is therefore losing currency, so to end currency issues (i.e. poverty) you need to do away completely with currency.

Not necessarily true.  Money is created.  Money is accumulated.  Money is spent.  When people horde their money, currency gets "taken out" of the system.  Nothing inherently wrong with people accumulating wealth, it's the hoarding of vast quantities of wealth that is the detriment.

Macbeth wrote:

So I'm doing an essay on Poverty, anyway with this class I can shoot unsupported baseless opinions in there.

Anyway would it make sense to say that totally ending poverty is impossible and as we continue to become a more liberal society and with the end of American economic dominance and illegal immigration  poverty in the U.S. will keep on a steady rise in the U.S.?

Unfortunately poverty will never be eliminated.

The definition of poverty will only be refined.

cpt.fass stated it perfectly.  Our concept of poverty is different than Africa due to our standard of living is much different.  By raising the standard of living, you raise the standard for poverty, and vice versa.

Isn't communism the idea poverty can be eliminated by setting the standard of living?

Regarding illegal immigration - are illegals counted in the poverty rate?

Morpheus wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

This.

You can end poverty easily, you just need to stop using currency.

But unemployment doesn't automatically equal poverty, does it?

Ah. True. But it is generally assumed so.

My point being, as long as some one is making currency, some one is therefore losing currency, so to end currency issues (i.e. poverty) you need to do away completely with currency.

What exactly would you replace currency with?

End Poverty? not likely

Here's an old saying

"A conservative will tell you that the best education for a young man is to be cold, wet and hungary... And a liberal will think it but won't say it."

That's the basic difference. Liberals may help to fatten the ranks of the middle class slightly, while conservatives may push more people into poverty. The fact that the economy is planned to have unemployment to ensure a ready supply of hungary people to take shit work and shit wages means that the alternative to not working has to be worse than the shit job... and that means poverty.



PS go ask a champagne socialist if they would give up their position and wealth if it would end poverty. If they are honest, imo, they will be bashful and elusive and ultimately the answer would be no. Ask that question of a conservative and you would be lucky to get the entire question out as those would be fighting words.

JohnG@lt wrote:

When there is no motivation provided to get off government subsistence, do you not think that the number of people living off it will expand? We've given people the means to be lazy and still have a roof over their head, food in their belly and a flat screen tv in their living room. Those people then have children who grow up learning how to work the system themselves. They also tend to have more kids than the average family because they are paid extra to do so. On a long enough time line they become the majority. Lovely.

Need to stop the buggers breeding somehow, and 'the alternative to not working has to be worse than the shit job... and that means poverty.'

The consequences of poverty on people esp children are unacceptable in a modern country IMO.
If adults choose to live in filth too bad. Stop providing incentives to have kids though.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-23 19:11:30)