Krugman: Spend Now, Save Later

[HappySqurriel]

richardhutnik said:

HappySqurriel said:

richardhutnik said:

Let me throw the story of the former NBA player, Ray WIlliams, into the mix:

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2010/07/02/desperate_times/?page=1

So, we should just say, "Well, in a free society, we will end up with people being forced to live out of their cars.  That is the price of enabling people to pursue their dreams and get rich."?

The guy is now living out of his car, after being a star player in the NBA.

First off, what makes you think anyone is "forced" to live in poverty or that anyone would support a system that "forced" poverty on anyone? How is giving someone welfare and preventing them from gaining the education or experience that will lead them out of poverty not "forcing" poverty on them? How is lowering my standard of living to improve the standard of living of people who refuse to help themselves not "forcing" poverty on me?

By the way your example is an awful one because 5 people could have lived in (relative) luxury for the rest of their lives with 1 year of his salary; and it was his poor decision making that lead him to squander his good fortune and lead to his poverty. This man had opportunities beyond the vast majority of the population to get an excellent education and develop skills and relationships that would provide for him for the rest of his life, and he ends up with nothing because he wasted them.

So, which of the following options do you prefer:

1. People actually do meaningful help to help him out.

2. He stays the way it is, and remains living out of his car the rest of his life.

3. We install life termination booths, and since he screwed up so much, we mercifully kill him, and the rest of the poor, so they don't have to suffer?

The reality is this: People do get breaks and things fail.  They fall between the cracks.  The question is, what of it?  By the way, what bad choices do you know he made?  Can you tell?  Everyone ends up in his situation, because it is entirely his fault?  That is true for EVERYONE?

I guess maybe then my getting a Masters degree in Information Systems was a mistake to.  Well, I guess this video shows why to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V122ICNS8_0

 

By the way, read this shorthand and say WHERE Ray Williams failed:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/The-sad-tale-of-Ray-Williams-10-year-NBA-vet-no?urn=nba,253262

Can you point to it, or in your universe everyone who fails fails because it is their fault.

I find your argument rather close minded and childish because you seem to assume that the only means to help an individual is through the government; and that anyone who rejects the government’s authority or ability to help people obviously doesn’t sympathise or empathise with these individuals. About the only body in the government that has a demonstrated ability to transform individuals to the extent that they can consistently make positive changes in their life is the military; and most of the programs and organizations that set out specifically to help the poor end up worsening their outcomes in the long run.

With that said obviously the only answer to the question is providing meaningful help, but the thing I must point out is that enabling someone to continue the destructive behaviours that are leading to their undesirable outcomes is the opposite of meaningful help. In most cases the most meaningful help an individual can get is to give them a job, help them get meaningful education or training, and to help/encourage them to live within their means; while there are some governments that have shown an ability to provide adequate education, no government has demonstrated an ability to create stable, meaningful and productive work and all governments seem to discourage people from living within their means.