Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
There is no wealth redistribution cure for poverty. Nor is there a market or political/governmental cure. See: Communism, Socialism. The best we have is band-aids like welfare, which I support. What we need is a plan that also stops new poor from being created. There will always be people with a lot and people with none. That's the human animal in action. Using that reality as a baseline, isn't the better course to try to lower the population of the poor? If there are less poor people reproducing there are less poor people.
"Curing" poverty in the sense any politician or policy wonk talks about is just, I don't know... Some sort of crazy utopian gibberish. Nonsense that makes people think such a war on human nature is even worth fighting. Its one of those dumb fictions a lot of people refuse to give up because they don;t want to look at reality and what we are and what kind of societies we naturally create. Silliness. Yes, we can and should do something about it. But curing it?
|
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight -- voting for economic policies that might benefit the working class? Redistribution of income, socialism, 1970s era liberalism, bad, foolish, against the laws of economics, etc. Voting for economic policies that favor the rich? Wise, economically sound, American, the right thing to do, etc. Got it.
Snark aside, here's an example -- NAFTA. Free trade is a great thing for the country overall, I agree, but really bad for certain segments of the economy and really good for certain segments of the economy. The current political reality holds that anyone who says "hey, wait a minute -- these textile workers in South Carolina who lost their jobs when their boss relocated to Hondorus need some help" are accused of class warfare. But the idea of cutting the capital gains tax for the factory owner is applauded.
