 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Sure it's more important to remove poverty, but you can remove poverty AND inequality. It seemed to me that you favor inequality. Did I misunderstand you? |
Yes. I favour equality over inequality, but I think it comes at too high a price. Every system I've seen that would increase equality would do so at the expense of overall growth. Thus a system that would make rich people have less wealth would not increase the wealth of poor people by as much as the rich people lost. You're sacrificing some growth overall for a higher growth among poor people. I accept that this can be worth it, but I'd concentrate far more on relieving poverty than I would making sure everyone had the same. They're similar, but not the same problem.
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
wealth doesn't appear out of nowhere. "could afford" how exactly? win the lottery? They don't have the economic infrastructure, and don't have a societal infrastructure for indpendently creating modern amounts of wealth. |
They get more prosperous, thus they have a better education and healthcare system, thus they get even more prosperous... etc. Growth is a perpetuating circle, growth leads to the ability to have more growth. Thus if they were to be richer, say aid built them schools, then they'd be better educated and more able to create more things, more efficient. Generally a more educated society can make more output, and more money. Thus they get ever richer. After a while (years and years) they'd be a more formidable foe, able to stand up for themselves better, as money is what gives power, it's what buys an army. That was what my comment was about.
The point was removing poverty - ie. them having greater wealth - means they can afford more. If they can afford a lot more, over time, then they are better able to stand up for themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
But that's just going to lower wages in the developed world and make the gap greater, because the rich will benefit. |
How would making the developed world (ie rich world) poorer and the developing world (ie poor world) richer make the gap greater? Surely the poor having higher wages and the rich having lower wages is a good thing, from an equality point of view?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
Sure there are well off palestinians and terrorists. The majority of palestinians and terrorists are not well off.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
Maybe you are too close to the issue to understand.
Do you think that these people can see suffering of there people and not identify? Of course, they will take a stand. You erase the issues/problems then the symptoms go away. It's that simple.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Poverty and specifically youth unemployment aren't the sole cause of terrorism, but they certainly contribute to it. The problem is that in a society that's particularly poor, corrupt, and secular, people turn more readily to radical religious solutions to their problems, such as militant Islamism. Saudi financed Madrassas become substitutes for public education, Hamas charities become substitutes for welfare, etc. So while the terrorists are sometimes well off, their ideology is partially due to the poverty of their societies.
Last edited by Ramo on 10-01-2005 at 13:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sn00py
|
 |
From New Zealand
Aug 2001
time: 13:32
|
|
Communism can work, but only in small communities, not entire nations; And possibly even small populated countries.
The communities would have to be made up of people who don't require the need for luxuries.
The problem comes down to how many people think: "How hard and how long do I have to work and what job is it, in order to get that position in order to get that luxury that I ultimately want, and when I get it, I will be one step happier than I am now".
That's how it is with a LOT of people, but the reality is, you can never be satisfied with the continuation of striving to reach ultimate happiness. There is no "greater happiness". That's why I said earlier; understand what Jesus said, which basically instructs you how to BE happy with nothing. Which is easy to understand scientifically because happiness is a creation from the mind, not from anything outside the mind; It's easy to understand because whenever someone tries to make themself happy by using something from outside their mind (like drugs, alcohol, smoking, gambling, games, sex, movies, etc), one does not make themself happy, but places a veil over their unhappiness, once that veil is gone, their "happiness" mysteriously disappears.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Provost Harrison
|
 |
The farce is strong with this one.
Feb 2000
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sn00py
Communism can work, but only in small communities, not entire nations; And possibly even small populated countries.
The communities would have to be made up of people who don't require the need for luxuries.
The problem comes down to how many people think: "How hard and how long do I have to work and what job is it, in order to get that position in order to get that luxury that I ultimately want, and when I get it, I will be one step happier than I am now".
That's how it is with a LOT of people, but the reality is, you can never be satisfied with the continuation of striving to reach ultimate happiness. There is no "greater happiness". That's why I said earlier; understand what Jesus said, which basically instructs you how to BE happy with nothing. Which is easy to understand scientifically because happiness is a creation from the mind, not from anything outside the mind; It's easy to understand because whenever someone tries to make themself happy by using something from outside their mind (like drugs, alcohol, smoking, gambling, games, sex, movies, etc), one does not make themself happy, but places a veil over their unhappiness, once that veil is gone, their "happiness" mysteriously disappears. |
You're quite right, but lets face it, Jesus was hardly the first asceticist around...and Buddhism probably sets a better example.
A lot of this materialism boils down to sexuality, the successful hunter having acquired all these modern day trophies. It's a sad loophole of the human persona that everyone, including myself, is vulnerable to it. It is why people like Buddha and Jesus can be a very helpful example because materialism will not bring happiness...there will always be someone who has more than you and is doing better than you. Happiness does lie within, but it is a very difficult chain to break but it would be possible to do as a society where the emphasis shifts away from material wealth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
quote:
It's just basic economics. But then I guess you wouldn't know that, so just dismiss it in a "it's not communism so it must be evil" comment. Some parts of the free market actually *help* the poor. |
Yeah right. I'm not dismissing it on communist grounds, but on the simple grounds that it's shite. Sure a free market will lead to equalization of wages for the poorest paying jobs. That just means more people will be paid crap wages. |
Firstly that's crap. As I showed, as more people are employed in the poor country, the wage rate will rise due to increased demand, while falling due to less demand in the rich country. Indeed, the equalization will lead to the wage rate in each being far higher than it would be if you tried to force the wage rate to tbe the same, with legislation, a la communism.
And secondly, even if it did, you just contrdicted yourself. The first argument you made was that it was a stupid statement that the free market will equalize wages. Now you've admitted that it would, but claim the wages will all be crap then. So the first statement I've made was correct regardless of what the wage rate would be, and your whole "that's the most stupid statement" thing actually applies to something that you've admitted is correct. Great for credability.
There's enough differing of opinion here that the most stupid statement will generally not be something you admit to be true.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-01-2005 04:50
didn't I just bring you a link?
|