| johnlucas said:
I think everybody does have a hard time understanding what I'm saying. The poor is still the poor. I don't care if the overall society is richer than it was 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago. That picture of São Paolo, Brazil I put up shows my argument. What I'm saying is there shouldn't BE any poor. A society so rich should not have those who are without. Ratios like I told you. Increase the total of money available but maintain the same ownership ratios of that money & NOTHING CHANGES. It's very simple. rich people don't exist without poor people in a money-based society. There is no real solution to that other than artificial equalization of money ownership (which makes money useless) or the abolishing of the entire money system. |
There will always be rich and poor (as you're defining them) regardless of which magical dream world you want to live in ...
Unless you completely eliminate people's ability to take any action that will improve their standard of living, people with talent and motivation will do things which increase the standard of living of their family, friends and themselves. Being that they have no motivation to provide these goods and services to people outside of their friends and family, people would trade the products of their labour and talent with other individuals for the products of their labour and talent, and some people would have a substantially higher standard of living.
As an example, if you have an individual who can cook amazing brownies some people would be willing to mow their lawn or paint them a picture to obtain a tray of brownies. This exchange has made all parties better off, and increased all of their standards of living, and has made them all richer ...
| johnlucas said:
You're talking about how today's poor have it so much better than yesterday's poor. It's bullshit. The question you need to ask yourself is why IS there a 'poor'? They tell you to work hard & you will one day become rich. THAT IS BULL! No riches were ever obtained without some criminal element somewhere in the mix. Directly or indirectly. Something immoral had to be done by someone or someones in the chain to be able to obtain that proportion of total money. Some kind of cheating or theft or pillaging somewhere by someone directly or indirectly. Who built up Las Vegas, Nevada? Who backs did the United States of America built its wealth upon? Who was murdered & killed to facilitate this wealth building? How did Spain obtain its empire 500 years ago? How come Idi Amin of Uganda gain his wealth & power? What did Genghis Khan do to spread his influence & gain his riches? |
People become rich by engaging in mutually beneficial, agreed upon, trade with other individuals and organization and receiving a higher value in return from this trade than what their input costs to engage in the trade was. We have laws and civil court systems that work towards eliminating all forms of exploitation, and most people are getting rich without ever "exploiting" anyone.
| johnlucas said:
You get a small business loan & start a business. But where did that bank get its money? How is that bank able to keep its money to give out? Who owns that bank & what other dealings do they undertake? Are those dealings moral or immoral? Was there deceit involved? Was there violence involved? |
For the most part, banks get their money by engaging in trade that people willingly participate in. An individual deposits money into their bank account willingly, receives interest payments in exchange for their money being used to back housing and small business loans, and they use services and pay fees according to their agreement.
| johnlucas said:
You wanna prove that there's no such thing as money being a ZERO-SUM Game? Then let's see a world where poverty doesn't exist. Not just a country but a world. It is no accident that the "Third World" is in the shape that it's in. Those are the people being exploited by the "Free World". The Free World's wealth is built off of the resources of the Third World. Prove your point by having the Free World maintain its level of wealth with the Third World having the same. I betcha you'll never see that happen. |
The people in third world countries are poor because they are being exploited BY THEIR GOVERNMENTS, not the developed world ...
I live in Alberta, we are a massive natural resource exporter and one of the wealthiest places in the world. The reason we're so wealthy and third world countries in a similar situation are so poor is because Alberta is a democratic capitalist system and the third world countries are not.
| johnlucas said:
There's a REASON why things produced outside of America cost LESS than things produced right in your own homeland. Exploitation. Manipulation. It actually takes more resources to deliver those products from overseas than from right in your own land. Fuel costs, transit costs, storage costs, staff costs. But because the workers of those foreign lands are basically one step above chattel slavery, it's easy to take advantage of their poverty & have them slave out all the products we use. Ask the suicidal Chinese workers from Foxconn how things really go down. The money systems between nations are also manipulated to save the slavedrivers even more money. Who mines those blood diamonds & do they get to wear the bling they bring? |
True, they're manufactured outside of the United States because it costs less money to manufacture items in developing nations. The reason it costs less is, in the absence of "western exploitation" have an average standard of living that is equal to a couple of dollars a day, and people will gladly work for a fraction of what a western worker will because of how much better their standard of living will become.
To make you see the "exploitation" from the perspective of the "exploited", if an alien species came to the world and wanted to set up factories in the developed world to manufacture Farklars and they were willing to pay their average employee enough to give them a standard of living $1,000,000 per year would buy today, how many people would be upset and feel exploited to work for them?
| johnlucas said:
As for your condo analogy, you did not "create land". You densified population. The definition of the word is right in your face. We didn't create this land. We manipulate the land, we shape the land, but we didn't create the continents. And no, it's not the same to have a condo than to have your own house with your own front & back yard. Rich folks you notice don't usually like to live around other people. They tend to live in some secluded, hard to reach area where they have some space from people. They tend to build a gate to keep people out. They usually have a massive land mass surrounding their massive house. For a rich person to live in a condo would be unthinkable. That's for the poorer folk. The poorest folk who are not homeless tend to live in apartment complexes. Housing projects. In more spacious rural areas, a trailer park. Tearing down a building to put up another bigger building is in no way, shape, or form creating land. You're just densifying your population into one place. Earth is finite. It has space limits. It's only so big. But people who lived packed in like sardines can get irritated with each other. The upstairs neighbor who every footstep he makes you hear to your annoyance. The adjacent neighbors, the young couple, whose every late night argument you hear interferes with your sleep. The other adjacent neighbors whose baby seemingly cries all day long driving you up the wall. The neighbor who plays her music too loud. The neighbor whose loud snores penetrate those paper thin walls every night. The neighbor whose tone of voice aggravates you as he simply has a conversation with his friend in the stairwell or hallway. Rich folks REFUSE to live like this. They want the privileges that their greater proportions of money provide & realistically they know that every one can't live the way they do based on how the money system is designed. In Animal Crossing world Tom Nook buys anything & sells anything. In the videogame world money is no object. You cut a blade of grass with your Master Sword & you get Rupees. Beat a monster in a cave & you get GP. In the real world money is the immovable object for most people in a given society. And that will never change because of the inherent way money works.
|
Yeah, because rich people don't live in cities like New York, Los Angeles, London, Tokyo ... Oh wait, the wealthiest people in the world tend to live in the cities with the highest population density,
