How does it feel to be poor?

It's possible if you work very hard. The problem is that most idealists are innovators and, as innovators, they are good at creating something but they have a very hard time making it happen. They need to go through great challenges before they can realize their ideals. It takes a lot of sweat...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

True...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I spent 10 years thinking about that, and I still don't have the answer. I might be seeing some light in the end of the tunnel, but... who knows...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What a convincing argument.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The same as I said. Blowing up the rich that have been riding on the backs of the poor for so long, and taking back what belongs to the people.

Yes. Ineffective disfunctional super flawed system of destruction.


Simple situation.

There is the individual.
There is the system.

The individual devises the best plan to get as much possible from the system. Any means necessary. Use the flaws and holes. Create flaws and holes. Manipulate. Do anything, and you get this:
Individual<------------------------------SYSTEM

The individual has managed to exploit the cracks and use their intelligence to profit.


It is virtually impossibe to create a fool proof system that can prevent this situation from occurring. As long as an individual has the will and drive, they can achieve anything. But there are methods of minimizing and preventing such situations from occurring. The more progressive and functional the system (naturally meaning the less flaws there are), the less likely such situations can occurr. There is a road to the fool proof ideal which does not exist in reality. But it can be pursued and approached as close as possible.

Our current system is very very very very primitive in that it is totally flawed from the ground up. Very few aspects of our current system should even be considered in the development of an advanced progressive system which protects human right and the environment in a true first world high standard of living for all.

 

Make sure you're differentiating between ideas and ideals.

Innovation is wonderful but it never matches the ideal. The ideal watch for instance would be 100% accurate and run forever requiring no repairs or battery replacements. The reality is that no matter how hard we work to make it perfectly the Universe is not a place that allows such perfection. At the very least we have to account for friction and inertia.

Socio-economic systems are no different; in fact they are far more complex. For any change you want to make has repercussions you will need to account for.

Let's take CS's example for instance. He wants to balance things out by taking money away from the rich and giving it to the poor. Fine, let's take Bill Gates, the richest man in the world. We'll take all his money away except for $100k and a $100k salary. But where is Bill's wealth? It's primarily tied up in Microsoft. Fine so we take his MS stock away from him. Now we have several billion $ worth of stock which we will sell and give the proceeds to the poor. But to whom will we sell it? If we sell that much on the market the stock value will crash, so we'll never be able to get the current value, plus we just gave a bit financial hit to all those invested in MS (don't forget all those retirees' 401k and Money Market accounts). Or we can make the company buy it back. But then MS goes out of business because we've bankrupted it and we can add a long list of former MS employees to the bread lines. But we do it anyway (or some combination) and give the proceeds to the poor. They, in turn, buy food, clothing, and shelter from whom? More corporations. So now we've just made a bunch of other people rich. So we take their money away....

Do you begin to see the problem?

~Raithere

 

It's a huge problem. Namely land ownership versus environmental reforestation. The reforestation era will eventually come. It's just a matter of pissing off land owners by having our land taken away from us for the sake of the reforestation program.

 

Of course I am.

Who said it needs to be perfect? It's a matter of improving and maximizing benefits. Doesn't need to be 100% perfect. It can simply be as perfect as possible!

Yes, I know. I know CS was able to identify the problem, but his explanations ofr a solution are very simplistic and they just come directly from the problem...

 

No tears on my end. I work for a living and I'm proud of it. Like most humans.

 

Why?

 

I don't see the curse of working for your bread & beer. Is Donnie Trump something to aspire to?? I think not. The ruling 1% are parasites, worms feeding on the accomplishments of others. Uncalloused hands are a sure sign of an uber pussy. I am proud to not be one of them.

 

But you work for them.
Your time and effort is being used by the rich. You are a victim of exploitation. You serve your boss. You get paid for it whatever. The fact is, you are still a servant.
No I would not say Don Trump is something to aspire to. But what you are doing is something I would most definitely not aspire to, much less be proud of. You might not be a pussy or whatever dergatory term you direct at people, but you are still a servant. Why would you want this for yourself? What is so great about being in a position of such servitude? Is this not pathetic?

 

In a perfect world my labor would depend on the community's needs. If we needed health clinics I would be helping with that. If we needed a new school or bridge I would join in that. But in rightwing Christian America it's all about profit for a few. War on the world, for profit and divisiveness. Deriding and classing people because they aren't millionaires is a fave past time now. So I consider myself lucky to have a job that pays rent and a car that runs because that may be too much for a regular citizen soon.

 

The problem I see here is that seeking advantage is very much a part of human nature. Heck it's intrinsic to all animals. Which seems to leave you with two options; either change human nature or create a rigidly ordered society. The first seems inherently dangerous because this tendency is related to the instinct of survival, the second crushes freedom and invites rebellion. So while it's a nice idea, a society that prevents the exploitation of others and the ecology, the question remains how?

~Raithere

 

Reforestation is a different issue. The main problem here is that rainforests, counter intuitively, make very poor farmland. So the farmers slash-and-burn, slash-and-burn, in a constantly advancing destruction of the rainforest in search of fertile soil when the land in use gives out. Luckily we don't have this problem in Northern America.

~Raithere

 

So who would decide what the community needs in your perfect world? Some dictator? He says jump, you say how high, or its off to the death camp?? That's been tryed. It didn't work so well.

On the other hand, in a capitalist society, the communities needs are served by suppy and demand. No demand is long unserved when there's money to be made. We have salad shooters, IPOD's, everything you could ever want. In your perfect world, the people stand in line in forlorn hope that there will still be some bread left when their turn comes.

When Nikita Khrushchev toured the US, he visited some US supermarkets and assumed we had shipped in extra produce to those particular stores to impress him. We didn't. He didn't believe it. The capitalist system is so much more effective, there's no comparison. Communism is nothing but a path to poverty and misery for everyone except the dictator and his cronies.

 

You cannot use the "human nature" fallacy as an argument. It has not basis in logic. Nor does it have anything to do with what anybody is talking about. Whenever people are trying to have a normal discussion, some daft nut throws out the human nature statement. "Human nature!" I win. There is only one aspect of human nature, and that is free will. Even free will is debatable.

The point is, the human nature fallacy is the most idiotic regurgetated bit of nonesense. I have addressed the human nature fallacy so many times on this forum, and people still seem to resurface it. It's a closed issue. It is irrelevant. Nobody gives a crap about it because nobody gives a crap about pseudoscientific idioticy. I would not even categorize it as pseudoscience.
It is a cultural face value fallacy. It has been repeated over and over throughout society as if it has any meaning. It does not.

Your human nature argument is just as much a pile of garbage as anybody that uses it to try to prove anything.




In fact, it is not only I that believes this. I just found out it is an actual traditional fallacy:
"Appeal to nature (the natural law fallacy): Arguing that, because human beings are products of the natural world, we must mimic behavior seen in the natural world, and that to do otherwise is 'unnatural'. A common fallacy in political arguments."
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/fallacies.html


I still do not understand how idiots could even consider the "human nature" fallacy as an argument for anything. It makes absolutely no sense, and follows absolutely no logic. I always always always see moronic statements such as :
"Hey, you are forgetting about human nature."
or
"It would work except for one problem. Human nature."

This is so STUPID!!!!
No I am not forgetting about human nature. I don't give a crap about human nature. Human nature can kiss my natural ass. Try coming up with a better argument because as soon as I see the term "human nature" used in an argument, I throw up at the enormous stupidity.

 

????
WTF!!!!
Of course we have this problem in North America.
Wolverines.
Wolves.
These are just 2 of the dozens of N American animals on the verge of extinction. What the hell are you talkin about? Are you that much of an ignorant dullard?

 

Yargh. Your own argument has no basis in logic, either. The term "basis in logic" is a pretty weak one to begin with; only rationalistic arguments are "based in logic," and pretty much nothing scientific is rationalistic because science has an empirical nature.

And your own "logical" argument is unbelievably weak. Can you even rationally prove the existence of free will, much less prove it is the only aspect of human nature? Remember, you cannot use example. Reason only! Your argument must have a basis in LOGIC.

Please make sure you use the above words without understanding what they mean; consistency of character is of the utmost importance when you are perfect like cool skill.

 

It is not a fave past time to deride people. It is an attitude as if you are better than the people that are scamming the tax money. At least they are rightfully taking it instead of whoring themselves to some job.

Yes I am saying it is good to be thankful for what you have. You can pay your bills and have a working car.
As for 30K a year, I would rather take it from the system that I despise than mindlessly work for it to "earn" it like a good little slave.

I have far more respect for those that scam system I hate out of its money than I do for those that think they are better because they work for their money.

Capitalism is ineffective. Look around. Oh wait it is effective for the rich. Do you actually think you are anything other than a lapdog for the rich?

 

I am rich. I am enormously wealthy, in fact.
I have eighteen dollars currently.

Try to figure that one out.