Economics thread. Have you had enough of wizard of oz monetary scientists?

[MrSmith]

And the only person to blame for hijacking a thread suggesting a solution and frothing fascist opinion instead without any rational reason for doing so is you.

 

Regarding the specific point you make. Try going to Africa and saying that to a factory full of slave laborers. "Your lack of achievement is your fault"

 

I suppose a Mother in Indonesia who can't afford to feed her kids and has to sell one or more is just envious of the rich banker with private jets and islands in the Caribbean. "You only hate him cos your Jelous!"

 

It's clear to anyone with a SOUL that the people themselves are not always (or even usually) the ones responsible for the poverty they are in. People do not exist in a vacuum, they exist in a whirlwind created and controlled by other people and mostly by rich people.

 

I assume then that you are saying not a single African as managed to get themselves out of poverty and make something of their life. And the wealthy in the west do everything in their power to keep Africa poor, Africa’s problems are of their own making, and if someone doesn’t have the means to feed their children they shouldn’t have children.

[Mecky]

I see the same tory old tory failings of paranoia, quoting figures and providing suspect Internet links have surfaced again.

[MrSmith]

Scandinavian countries generally come out well in international happiness measures. You can probably Google it

 

Norway and Sweden used to top the list as nations with the highest per capita production in the world. Today, neither is strictly a socialist state, but rather advanced welfare states. Norway is more heavily taxed than the average democratic country, and Sweden is the most taxed of all democratic countries.

Socialism creates dependency, not independence. It gradually reduces the standard of living and guts individual initiative and the entrepreneurial spirit. Traditionally self-employed farmers, Scandinavians are now primarily consumers, not creators, inventors, innovators, or researchers. Since the mid-1900's, they have been consuming more than they create, both individually, on average, and as a whole nation.

Socialism has improved the quality of life of Scandinavia's bottom quartile of society, out of the pockets of the other three quartiles: the poorest families in Scandinavia are as poor as the poorest families in the USA, but the wealthiest families in Scandinavia are 22% poorer than the wealthiest families in the USA.

 

It’s done prissily what some of us have been saying, the poor are still poor but the rich have also become poorer, and will continue to become poorer without increasing the wealth of the poor. Yes the poor may be happy in the knowledge that the rich are also now poor but how does that make society better.

[MrSmith]

It depends what the benefits of staying in would be. For some people they could be minimal.

 

If say somebody was producing a single sack of rubbish per week and was happy to walk 3 miles to take it to the dump he might not be very interested in taking his turn to transport 200 sacks of rubbish every couple of months. To him the benefit of staying in would be minimal, until he broke his leg or got ill I suppose. Then he might wish he was in after all as his rubbish stacked up around him week after week.

 

It really depends on the scale and nature of whatever the cultural, social or economic cooperative is undertaking. There could be things that were an absolute must to be involved in - clean water (or back to OP local power generation) etc... that nobody in their right minds would exclude themselves from. Almost self-policing in a way.

So the bottom line would be to either lock up or execute anyone that didn’t want to play ball, that’s much better than the system we have now. It would solve one of the problems of overpopulation but I don’t think today’s poor would benefit much because they would probably be the ones that wouldn’t work.

[MrSmith]

Not always. Not when companies operate in cartels or monopolies.

 

How much choice do we really have when the government is buying arms? The JP Morgan types make their money off the back of stock market manipulation and currency speculation. What about people drowning in debt who are forced to go to loan sharks for money.

 

Your free market fantasies depend on a number of other systems like a functioning democracy and proper regulation.

 

 

 

An actual functioning progressive tax system and a 100% cap at a certain level.

 

 

 

If you reach your personal limit any additional money you make in a year could be put in to a special fund that you can use to make investment in a limited number of democratically agreed upon projects.

 

 

 

What do you mean? If your a shareholder and your profits come from dividends and interest payments then you weren't really producing anything anyway. If you work somewhere then do whatever you like. Keep working or put your feet up and get investing your time in to something else you enjoy more. Let someone else take over the producing (probably your vice president who hasn't quite reached his limit).

In this fantasy world that you want to create how would you overcome human nature, suppose we took some of the poorest people of today and put them into the top 1% of the wealthiest people, do you think they would do anything for other people or would they just enjoy their new found wealth and not be to bothered about the people at the bottom.

There have been a few examples demonstrating how useless some of the poor would be when you give them money, look at some of the big lottery winners and you will find that some just think about themselves, humans are all different and no matter what system we have there will be hard workers and idle parasites, rich and poor, good and bad.

[Crayfish]

Actually, put Chem1st in charge, he/she maKes sense.

 

To clarify, I don't believe that the base rate of benefits is too high, but it is too close to the base rates of minimum wage. Chem1st's suggestion of a better interplay between benefits and low paid work to increase the financial benefit of working would be ideal. It's also a good point that work costs money, e.g. in travel, clothing, and food. I think this is often overlooked.

 

Raising the minimum wage would be another option, and this would be possible if a maximum income cap was established.

 

Although I accept the criticisms, I still like the idea of a well designed voucher system. Alternatives would be to regulate the food industry properly from a nutritional perspective, remove cheap drinks from the market, and further increase tax on cigarettes. The current system just encourages vulnerable/poorly educated people to harm themselves. It's possible that the latter two suggestions may actually occur.

[I1L2T3]

So the bottom line would be to either lock up or execute anyone that didn’t want to play ball, that’s much better than the system we have now. It would solve one of the problems of overpopulation but I don’t think today’s poor would benefit much because they would probably be the ones that wouldn’t work.

 

I said nothing about locking up or executing people. The ultimate choice could be to participate or face an uncertain future without the benefits that participation would otherwise secure.

 

You're right that some people wouldn't want to work. I see that in my job sometimes too though - people come to work but want everybody else to put in the effort. They don't usually last long.

[ultimatesens]

Well done for describing the system we have, as the rich get richer so do the poor, yes the gap gets wider but the poor do become better off.

 

Chem1st has not described the system we have at all. You seem to be reading what you want to read. The poor do not become better off. We have more people throughout the world in poverty now than there has ever been.

[ultimatesens]

I assume then that you are saying not a single African as managed to get themselves out of poverty and make something of their life.

 

No. I am saying the VAST MAJORITY of Africans are unable to get themselves out of poverty.

 

And the wealthy in the west do everything in their power to keep Africa poor,

 

Yep!

 

Africa’s problems are of their own making,

 

This is such a load of rubbish. Africa has been colonized, under-developed, and raped by western powers. Democracy has been systematically undermined by western leaders who have installed dictators and warlords friendly to western interests. Those dictators have borrowed money in the name of "the people" only to funnel it in to private bank accounts and leave the people to carry the can. The African nations have often paid their debt many times over but are forced to pay obscene compound interest on such a burden under the threat of military force. Go away and do some homework instead of just believing whatever it takes to help yourself sleep a night.

 

and if someone doesn’t have the means to feed their children they shouldn’t have children.

 

Many women in Africa do not have the same choices that we have in the west. Women have little access to birth control and often get raped.

[MrSmith]

Chem1st has not described the system we have at all. You seem to be reading what you want to read. The poor do not become better off. We have more people throughout the world in poverty now than there has ever been.

 

 

He described the system we have in the UK.

That’s probably got a lot to do with the fact that it’s the poorest people of the world doing all the breading and producing the next generations of poor people, more people means more poverty. But if you look at the poorest people in a democratic society then they become better off as the rich get richer.