Is welfare pointless

  • Thread starter Thread starter morganist
  • Start date Start date
Quote from morganist:

I often think about the ways to eliminate poverty. One thing I have noticed that any effort to solve the problem does not work in entireity.

Even though production has increased and there is an ability to provide more resources to people it does not seem to solve the problem. There are many reasons for this. Poor distribution, squandering wealth on non essentials but the main thing in my opinion and the thing that eliminates any increase in production is increased population.

This is what I believe is the main source of all poverty. Overactive procreation. No matter how much you produce to eliminate poverty it will not help if there are more people. There is a level of personal responsibility to this and that is the main problem.

Should all efforts to eliminate poverty be centred around population rates not welfare cheques?

I think eliminating poverty is as simple as giving people ownership of production facilities. Usually, this means land/agriculture + either apprenticeship or training. (Just seizing land and giving it to peasants doesn't work.)

Land ownership needs to be looked at more closely, because you've got hogs like the Queen Elizabeth who have something like 6600 million acres of land. Let's correct the excesses of the European monarchies and elite families before we go talking about the guy who can't even be a subsistence farmer.

I would like to see the UK become a republic and Canada reject the Queen as head of state. The queen didn't get that wealth because of generosity and virtue, I can tell you that.
 
Quote from clearinghouse:

I think eliminating poverty is as simple as giving people ownership of production facilities. Usually, this means land/agriculture + either apprenticeship or training. (Just seizing land and giving it to peasants doesn't work.)

Land ownership needs to be looked at more closely, because you've got hogs like the Queen Elizabeth who have something like 6600 million acres of land. Let's correct the excesses of the European monarchies and elite families before we go talking about the guy who can't even be a subsistence farmer.

I would like to see the UK become a republic and Canada reject the Queen as head of state. The queen didn't get that wealth because of generosity and virtue, I can tell you that.

They are trying to turn it back that way.
 
Trader666: Welfare doesn't work because it's unnatural by rewarding failure and punishing success.


*****


SouthAmerica: The biggest example of rewarding failure that we have had in the history of the world it was the massive Wall Street and banking bailout of 2008.

Trader666, a world that thinks like you it would be a complete catastrophe and a major failure in every way.

Let's not reward failure in any way:

Then corporations should eliminate any type of accounts where they write off their failures such as allowances for bad debt, and account to write off bad inventory.

Let's eliminate all kinds of subsidies for corporations because that is just a form of welfare for the rich.

Let corporations eat all their losses.

Let's stop innovation 100 percent because failure is not allowed anymore on Trader666 perfect utopic system.

Let's eliminate welfare and have people rioting all over the place and people with your mindset has to live behind the gated communities and they would be afraid of going outside of the wall at any time.

.
 
Quote from morganist:

They are trying to turn it back that way.

Without much success. The public, for whatever reason, accepts kings and queens without much thought as to how they became kings or queens. Oh, but we're so ready to give birth control to third worlders!

I blame this on fairy tales like Cinderella brainwashing children. You can't do work for the person ("evil step mother") providing you food and shelter, but you win some kind of magic pumpkin lotto and that's your ticket to giving the son of a murderer / ruthless thug (the prince) access to your vagina (oh, like Cinderella wasn't trying to social climb) in exchange for "happily ever after."

Sorry for the rather crude description. I'm just trying to point out the subtle brainwashing that happens to cause people not to question their circumstances.
 
It is hard for those "winning" the game they play to look at the other side and the implications. It is much easier to shut off the inner voice that seems never to be satisfied.
 
Quote from clearinghouse:

Without much success. The public, for whatever reason, accepts kings and queens without much thought as to how they became kings or queens. Oh, but we're so ready to give birth control to third worlders!

I blame this on fairy tales like Cinderella brainwashing children. You can't do work for the person ("evil step mother") providing you food and shelter, but you win some kind of magic pumpkin lotto and that's your ticket to giving the son of a murderer / ruthless thug (the prince) access to your vagina (oh, like Cinderella wasn't trying to social climb) in exchange for "happily ever after."

Sorry for the rather crude description. I'm just trying to point out the subtle brainwashing that happens to cause people not to question their circumstances.

I think the whole idea that a girl is only interested in the Prince is in the first place shallow. If you notice all of those fairy tales the girl always marries someone rich, good looking and powerful.

This is just because that is what women want. They are shallow full stop and no amount of alternative stores will stop that. Just face the fact that humanity sucks and if you don't they will have the advantage of being ruthless against you see you as weak.

They will make you a slave.

The fact is humanity never really worked. You probably don't believe in God. But even God said he regretted making us. The fact he planned to send most people to an eternal prison would indicate he thinks at least a lot of us are bad.

If you believe in evolution then the very concept is that people become bad.

Anyway. Whatever the reason people are awful now. Perhaps all the good people were wiped out in the wars?
 
Quote from jueco2005:

Poverty is the most controversial aspect of economics because from there we must take into account “inequality” and define what poverty is.

FACTS

The poor in the developed world enjoys (most of the time) a standard of living similar to a middle class status is developing countries.

The poor in the developed world enjoys (most of the time) a standard of living similar to or higher than a middle class person 60 or more years ago.

SO?? What is poverty? What are basic things humans being need to be provided for??

ONE THING I CAN TELL YOU FOR SURE REGARDLESS OF COUNTRY OR CULTURE IS THIS:

The poor are the most forgotten class in their society. Even if they are the majority of the population.

They struggle just to get by. Whether it is a minimum wage worker in the US (where you are most of the time not respected, valued and your job can be taken away from without previous NOTICE and poor or no benefits; and you are very easily stepped over) or just a guy spending 12 to 16 hours a day working or trying to just to provide bread and water for his family.

Regardless of country and culture, it is very hard leave poverty. Specially when the economic system you live in favors it that way.

MORE IMPORTANT: if you are poor you feel miserable most of the time not because you posses few material possessions, but because society makes life much …..much harder needlessly.

The poor would feel much better without increase in wealth if the system provides them just with less pressure, social securities and guarantees, protection of rights and few others.

the poor need more "pressure" to get them to go to work. in many western countries the middle class are not much better off the poor. when it comes to health benefits they can be worse off.
 
Quote from Trader666:

Welfare doesn't work because it's unnatural by rewarding failure and punishing success.
Excellent! Well said!

If I may attempt to amplify the point, no man will ever learn to succeed on his own, unless he's allowed to fail on his own.
 
Back
Top