Emsworth vs. Cosmo Kramer

[Bono]

SO, how many people want the US to take over the world and start building a space empire?

[A18]

No, that's what the poor get to decide. They can choose between jobs, choose between apartments, choose what expenditures to make given the money they earn, and choose what arrangements to make.

Of course, most poor people are just young, and move out of it within 5-10 years.

[A18]

SO, how many people want the US to take over the world and start building a space empire?

Take over the world: Not interested
Start a space empire: I'm in

[Bono]

Start a space empire: I'm in

Do you realize how much that would cost man?

[A18]

Not much.

Presidential Proclamation: The Solar System are belong to us.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

No, that's what the poor get to decide. They can choose between jobs, choose between apartments, choose what expenditures to make given the money they earn, and choose what arrangements to make.

Yes of course.

They can decide between the job cleaning toilets for $5/hr. or breaking their back lifting boxes for a whopping $6/hr.

Then they get to have the fun of how to spend their money.  Maybe they could splurge on some rice, or spend the night in a luxurious housing project.  Oh, wait, you're against public housing.  Oooh.. this box looks nice!

Of course, most poor people are just young, and move out of it within 5-10 years.

That's perhaps the most insane thing I've ever heard.

[Emsworth]

Oh yes, they can decide whether to pay their rent or eat this month.  Decisions decisions....

Laissez-faire capitalism is not the same as serfdom. The worker is not bound to work for a single company; he is not forced to accept whatever wage his employer decrees. If he feels that he is not making enough money, he is always free to search for another job, to move to another city, or to reduce his expenditures. In a free market, the worker can do all of these things: the only thing he cannot do is restrict the rights of his employer.

Your argument essentially boils down to: the government should take from the rich and give to the poor, because the poor desperately need money. But why stop at money? Why not extend the same principle to other items as well? Should the government be allowed to take away one of my kidneys, because someone else might desperately need a kidney?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What makes you believe that people become rich only by violating someone else's rights?

[A18]

Or numerous other jobs. There is something called a school loan as well.

Here's one decade:


And that's relative poverty. The 1990s are probably just as good.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Laissez-faire capitalism is not the same as serfdom.

True.  At least with serfdom an owner has at least some semblance of responsibility to ensure that his serfs don't all die off.  With lassez-faire capitalism, you have no responsibility to other people whatsoever.

[A18]

LOL. Htmljoke prefers serfdom to freedom.

He also just ignored all but one line of Emsworth's post.

[Emsworth]

With lassez-faire capitalism, you have no responsibility to other people whatsoever.

You have a responsibility not to harm other people. You do not, however, have a responsibility to help them.

I see nothing wrong with this idea. Why should one person have any responsibility to help another? To assert that the individual should be forced to help other people would be to defend slavery.

[Bono]

Not much.

Presidential Proclamation: The Solar System are belong to us.

THat's not what he meant. He meant actively colonizing it.

[A18]

Not much.

Presidential Proclamation: The Solar System are belong to us.

THat's not what he meant. He meant actively colonizing it.

Private enterprise will do it in time.

[opebo]

No, that's what the poor get to decide. They can choose between jobs, choose between apartments, choose what expenditures to make given the money they earn, and choose what arrangements to make.

Yes of course.

They can decide between the job cleaning toilets for $5/hr. or breaking their back lifting boxes for a whopping $6/hr.

Then they get to have the fun of how to spend their money.  Maybe they could splurge on some rice, or spend the night in a luxurious housing project.  Oh, wait, you're against public housing.  Oooh.. this box looks nice!

Of course, most poor people are just young, and move out of it within 5-10 years.

That's perhaps the most insane thing I've ever heard.

Admirable defense of reason against the delusions of these rich-worshipers Philip and Emsworth, Htmldon.  Perhaps you should consider leaving the Plutocrat Party?

As for Philip's contention that the poor 'leave poverty' due to the aging process, yes, it is a foolish delusion.  Philip, if anything, poverty is more irksome when one gets older, as one realizes one not only cannot afford to support one's self, one also cannot afford to support a family - and should one have any children, one becomes aware that they are condemned to permanent poverty just like their parents.  Lastly, of course, old age in poverty is far worse than being a youthful poor, as one must deal with all the infirmities of human's inevitable decline without any resources, and without the ability even to work at a serf-level job (yes, I'm assuming your laissez-faire dream world, where there would be no social security or medicare).

[opebo]

LOL. Htmljoke prefers serfdom to freedom.

The worker's condition is not appreciably better in laissez-faire capitalism compared to Serfdom, Philip.  Why would it be?  He has no power in either system.

[Bono]

Not much.

Presidential Proclamation: The Solar System are belong to us.

THat's not what he meant. He meant actively colonizing it.

Private enterprise will do it in time.

But that's not what he meant. God dammit man.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

htmldon, I don't believe that poorer people can only advance by having the government take from wealthier individuals and redistribute the money. Not all poor people want the government's help; not all poor people are on welfare or food stamps, for example. Obviously it is humane to assist those in need, but that can also be taken care of (at least in part) by private charities, scholarships, et cetera.

Of course "wealth redistribution" for its own sake doesn't work.  Socialism doesn't work any better than lassiez-faire Capitalism.  I believe that government, along with private charities, can work together to empower people to raise their economic situations.  Without public education and a basic safety net, the poor would continue to get poorer and the rich get richer.

[Bono]

htmldon, I don't believe that poorer people can only advance by having the government take from wealthier individuals and redistribute the money. Not all poor people want the government's help; not all poor people are on welfare or food stamps, for example. Obviously it is humane to assist those in need, but that can also be taken care of (at least in part) by private charities, scholarships, et cetera.

Of course "wealth redistribution" for its own sake doesn't work.  Socialism doesn't work any better than lassiez-faire Capitalism.  I believe that government, along with private charities, can work together to empower people to raise their economic situations.  Without public education and a basic safety net, the poor would continue to get poorer and the rich get richer.

So before tehre was a "safety net", everyne except the rich got poorer?
I guess that explains why people in the 20s lived so much worse than people in the XVIII century.

[Emsworth]

I believe that government, along with private charities, can work together to empower people to raise their economic situations.

So it is appropriate for the government to pull down the rich, in order to help the poor?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is the basis for this claim?

[A18]

Opebo, I already posted the facts on income mobility.

Without public education and a basic safety net, the poor would continue to get poorer and the rich get richer.

There is no evidence that would happen, either relative to each other, or in absolute terms.

The poor have always gotten better off as time has gone by, as have the rich.

[opebo]

I believe that government, along with private charities, can work together to empower people to raise their economic situations.

So it is appropriate for the government to pull down the rich, in order to help the poor?

Certainly, Emsworth - it was the State that set them up there at the pinnacle of the social heirarchy in the first place.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

htmldon, I don't believe that poorer people can only advance by having the government take from wealthier individuals and redistribute the money. Not all poor people want the government's help; not all poor people are on welfare or food stamps, for example. Obviously it is humane to assist those in need, but that can also be taken care of (at least in part) by private charities, scholarships, et cetera.

Of course "wealth redistribution" for its own sake doesn't work.  Socialism doesn't work any better than lassiez-faire Capitalism.  I believe that government, along with private charities, can work together to empower people to raise their economic situations.  Without public education and a basic safety net, the poor would continue to get poorer and the rich get richer.

So before tehre was a "safety net", everyne except the rich got poorer?
I guess that explains why people in the 20s lived so much worse than people in the XVIII century.

You could make the case that there were more opportunities for people to raise their economic status in the 18th century than in the 20th, yes.

[opebo]

Opebo, I already posted the facts on income mobility.

Balderdash.  If mobility were that great, we'd see blacks and trailer-trash in the posh neighborhoods of every city.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no evidence that would happen, either relative to each other, or in absolute terms.

The poor have always gotten better off as time has gone by, as have the rich.
[/quote]

No, the rich have always gotten better off, the poo r have largely stayed in the same position.  Of course that would be excepting the liberal period (in the US 1932-1980) during which the State stopped oppressing them so much.

[A18]

We're talking about the population as a whole.

What utter nonsense. I already posted living standard statistics comparing 1920 with 1930. You conveniently just ignore facts, you deluded sloth.

[opebo]

We're talking about the population as a whole.

Yes, that is what we're both talking about.  And these imaginary upstarts of yours are not in any of the 'right' neighborhoods, in my experience.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They didn't even have microwaves back then, Flip.