Conquer Club

Lootifer wrote:Provide two simple things:

- Provide for them the opportunity, free of significant barriers, to become "not poor" or, ideally, "rich". This includes removing the protectionism so common with the modern "rich"
- Ensure that all children, regardless of the poor decision making capacity of their parents, can eat well, maintain good health and experience equivilent levels of education to children who have good decision making parents

I would also suggest trying to establish a culture where we don't subsidise intelligence and ambition (or greed if you will) so heavily, but that's in the too hard basket for now (and not something that can be centrally planned nor will it come from the free market in its current form).

I think everyone agrees we should do something, it's about the manner and degree in which it is done.

Just curious though from the other end of things, are there any responsibilities or expectations or requirements asked or demanded from those who are being provided for?

Phatscotty wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Provide two simple things:

- Provide for them the opportunity, free of significant barriers, to become "not poor" or, ideally, "rich". This includes removing the protectionism so common with the modern "rich"
- Ensure that all children, regardless of the poor decision making capacity of their parents, can eat well, maintain good health and experience equivilent levels of education to children who have good decision making parents

I would also suggest trying to establish a culture where we don't subsidise intelligence and ambition (or greed if you will) so heavily, but that's in the too hard basket for now (and not something that can be centrally planned nor will it come from the free market in its current form).

I think everyone agrees we should do something, it's about the manner and degree in which it is done.

Just curious though from the other end of things, are there any responsibilities or expectations or requirements asked or demanded from those who are being provided for?

Mandatory drug tests, nicotine tests, alcohol tests as well as full financial investigations and ankle bracelets that prevent you from going on vacation, as well as mandatory neutering.

this question isn't that fun...

They should be plugged into a machine and farmed for life energy, in return for the guarantee that they will live a well-nourished life, safe from physical harm.

Fruitcake wrote:Please be more precise as to what is meant by 'poor people'.

Take your pick!





Occupy Wherever participants

or....



Chadians!

Somewhat off topic but still somewhat related:
My great grandpa grew up during the depression, the youngest son of a farmer in South East Wyoming (Wyoming had been in the Depression about 4 years before the rest of the nation). Later on in life, while working for Standard Oil, he purchased several properties around town which were being sold for fairly low prices. Over time, and being able to fix them up himself (his motto was, was that if the apartments weren't nice enough for him to live in, they were not nice enough for tenants), he was able to make a nice profit on them overtime. By around the 1980s-1990s, he had a decent amount of money, however, he prefered living as he had: In overall bibs, worn work shoes, and a baseball cap in his house that still had antenna for TV (5 channels at most, on good days) and didn't have cable until after he was diagnosed with bone cancer (never smoked or drank alcohol a day in his life), and then, he kept it on Western Movies and DIY.

So, he grew up poor, worked blue collar jobs most of his life, made some sound investments at the right time, got money, but still chose to live the simple life well into his 80s (died when he was 90, and just before I joined CC).

notyou2 wrote:as well as mandatory neutering.

Coincidentally, I took a puck in the nuts tonight.

muy_thaiguy wrote:a baseball cap in his house that still had antenna for TV

Shit, I have a bunch of baseball caps and none of them have a TV antenna.

I can just imagine his wife: "Turn your head a little more...just a little more....that's perfect!"

muy_thaiguy wrote:Somewhat off topic but still somewhat related:
My great grandpa grew up during the depression, the youngest son of a farmer in South East Wyoming (Wyoming had been in the Depression about 4 years before the rest of the nation). Later on in life, while working for Standard Oil, he purchased several properties around town which were being sold for fairly low prices. Over time, and being able to fix them up himself (his motto was, was that if the apartments weren't nice enough for him to live in, they were not nice enough for tenants), he was able to make a nice profit on them overtime. By around the 1980s-1990s, he had a decent amount of money, however, he prefered living as he had: In overall bibs, worn work shoes, and a baseball cap in his house that still had antenna for TV (5 channels at most, on good days) and didn't have cable until after he was diagnosed with bone cancer (never smoked or drank alcohol a day in his life), and then, he kept it on Western Movies and DIY.

So, he grew up poor, worked blue collar jobs most of his life, made some sound investments at the right time, got money, but still chose to live the simple life well into his 80s (died when he was 90, and just before I joined CC).

I have a similar story. My grandfather was an illegal immigrant from Greece who jumped ship in Boston in the 1930-something at the age of 15 (he told us he had $2 in his pocket... probably an exagerration). He took a job at a diner (shocker) and eventually made his way down to New Jersey. He joined the army air force in 1941, served in the pacific theater (granted, as a cook), came back to New Jersey, opened his own diner, and got married. He invested in real estate and the stock market, he loaned money to people with no interest, helped people out, and was generally a good guy. On retirement, he moved to Florida and then moved back up to New Jersey maybe 15 years ago. He and my grandmother lived in a small, one-bedroom house in a retirement community. He didn't own a nice car or nice clothes or whatever; didn't have cable (the TV he owned when he died was one of those older box TV sets). He died at the age of 96 from "old age." His motto - "Save your money."

The thing worth bearing in mind when pushing the idea that we should just remove all/almost all benefits, on the grounds that anyone can 'make it' and removing aid will create incentive for them to do so, is that putting a lot of people in a situation where they have no security or safety net whatsoever creates its own social cost. It creates a society in which a lot of people feel they are second class citizens with a whip to their back, and it creates a lot of desperation. Neither of these are at all conducive to a harmonious and happy society.

It's also worth bearing in mind that even rich people are less happy in a divided and highly unequal society. It is far more pleasant to be a millionaire in Sweden than in South Africa.

mrswdk wrote:The thing worth bearing in mind when pushing the idea that we should just remove all/almost all benefits, on the grounds that anyone can 'make it' and removing aid will create incentive for them to do so, is that putting a lot of people in a situation where they have no security or safety net whatsoever creates its own social cost. It creates a society in which a lot of people feel they are second class citizens with a whip to their back, and it creates a lot of desperation. Neither of these are at all conducive to a harmonious and happy society.

It's also worth bearing in mind that even rich people are less happy in a divided and highly unequal society. It is far more pleasant to be a millionaire in Sweden than in South Africa.

Really? But they're not 2nd class when they get subsidies from government? What about government's "whip to their back"?

And if they don't feel bad about being subsidized continually, isn't that a bad thing? Isn't that culturally detrimental in the long-run? Many have argued that government welfare programs have actually fucked up black families much more.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:Please be more precise as to what is meant by 'poor people'.

Take your pick!





Occupy Wherever participants

or....



Chadians!

More difficult are Occupy whatever, or wage inequalities in developed countries.

Undeveloped places like say chad. Can be helped immensely if more developed countries do things like remove tariff barriers against imports from them, or offer debt relief. Though a major barrier can be massively dysfunctional/corrupt governments, and colonial legacies like stuffing a bunch of waring clans into one country.

BergBerlinSterlin wrote:And if they don't feel bad about being subsidized continually, isn't that a bad thing? Isn't that culturally detrimental in the long-run?

Why? Helping people when they're down doesn't strike me as a culturally detrimental thing to do. Telling people that if they fall on hard times then they'll be left to deal with it on their own strikes me as the culturally detrimental thing to do.

BBZ wrote:Many have argued that government welfare programs have actually fucked up black families much more.

And what is their reasoning? Also, are the residents of American ghettoes really representative of all poor people in general?

I think my Sweden/South Africa comparison is a valid one. I'd rather be a little less rich in a more harmonious society like Sweden than be a little richer and have to live on a compound patrolled by armed guards, like the majority of rich people in SA. It's just nicer not to live a life where I'm watching my back all the time.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:Please be more precise as to what is meant by 'poor people'.

Take your pick!





Occupy Wherever participants

or....



Chadians!

More difficult are Occupy whatever, or wage inequalities in developed countries.

Undeveloped places like say chad. Can be helped immensely if more developed countries do things like remove tariff barriers against imports from them, or offer debt relief. Though a major barrier can be massively dysfunctional/corrupt governments, and colonial legacies like stuffing a bunch of waring clans into one country.

Yeah, that hasn't helped Chad.

And how do you remove trade barriers? How does one enforce that?


Wage inequalities can be corrected by increasing taxes on the wealthier people. It's stupid, but it's easier than making Chad into Botswana.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:Please be more precise as to what is meant by 'poor people'.

Take your pick!




Chadians!

More difficult are Occupy whatever, or wage inequalities in developed countries.

Undeveloped places like say chad. Can be helped immensely if more developed countries do things like remove tariff barriers against imports from them, or offer debt relief. Though a major barrier can be massively dysfunctional/corrupt governments, and colonial legacies like stuffing a bunch of waring clans into one country.

Yeah, that hasn't helped Chad.

And how do you remove trade barriers? How does one enforce that?


Wage inequalities can be corrected by increasing taxes on the wealthier people. It's stupid, but it's easier than making Chad into Botswana.

Well if you have any tariffs on goods from the country you remove them. See what can be done to remove legal hurdles.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:Please be more precise as to what is meant by 'poor people'.

Take your pick!





Occupy Wherever participants

or....



Chadians!

I don't know, BBS, in neither of those pictures do I see poor people. There are likely poor people in Chad, but that ain't a picture of them. Just look like people going about their business and doing their thing. Looks like some of 'em are even gossiping and what not.

The top picture looks like a bunch of pissed off people yelling at cops dressed in SWAT gear. None of them look poor either, but it's hard to know for sure.

How about you show a picture of, you know, actual poor people? I'm sure there are some floating around on the interwebz somewhere. But these two choices as presented, pfffttt. I don't see any poor people at all. None that appear to be asking for help at least.

You can do better than that!

TheProwler wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:a baseball cap in his house that still had antenna for TV

Shit, I have a bunch of baseball caps and none of them have a TV antenna.

I can just imagine his wife: "Turn your head a little more...just a little more....that's perfect!"

Did someone say Mr. Bean???

patches70 wrote:Looks like some of 'em are even gossiping and what not.

An expensive pastime, I'm sure.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:Please be more precise as to what is meant by 'poor people'.

Take your pick!




Chadians!

More difficult are Occupy whatever, or wage inequalities in developed countries.

Undeveloped places like say chad. Can be helped immensely if more developed countries do things like remove tariff barriers against imports from them, or offer debt relief. Though a major barrier can be massively dysfunctional/corrupt governments, and colonial legacies like stuffing a bunch of waring clans into one country.

Yeah, that hasn't helped Chad.

And how do you remove trade barriers? How does one enforce that?


Wage inequalities can be corrected by increasing taxes on the wealthier people. It's stupid, but it's easier than making Chad into Botswana.

Well if you have any tariffs on goods from the country you remove them. See what can be done to remove legal hurdles.

Think about that. Who do you go to in Chad to remove all the various tariffs? Then, how do you enforce compliance with the various political groups?

patches70 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:Please be more precise as to what is meant by 'poor people'.

Take your pick!





Occupy Wherever participants

or....



Chadians!

I don't know, BBS, in neither of those pictures do I see poor people. There are likely poor people in Chad, but that ain't a picture of them. Just look like people going about their business and doing their thing. Looks like some of 'em are even gossiping and what not.

The top picture looks like a bunch of pissed off people yelling at cops dressed in SWAT gear. None of them look poor either, but it's hard to know for sure.

How about you show a picture of, you know, actual poor people? I'm sure there are some floating around on the interwebz somewhere. But these two choices as presented, pfffttt. I don't see any poor people at all. None that appear to be asking for help at least.

You can do better than that!

google "chad" and "economic growth" "gdp" and "what not." They're one of the least economically prospering countries of Africa. Most of their people live on "$2 per day".

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:Please be more precise as to what is meant by 'poor people'.

Take your pick!




Chadians!

More difficult are Occupy whatever, or wage inequalities in developed countries.

Undeveloped places like say chad. Can be helped immensely if more developed countries do things like remove tariff barriers against imports from them, or offer debt relief. Though a major barrier can be massively dysfunctional/corrupt governments, and colonial legacies like stuffing a bunch of waring clans into one country.

Yeah, that hasn't helped Chad.

And how do you remove trade barriers? How does one enforce that?


Wage inequalities can be corrected by increasing taxes on the wealthier people. It's stupid, but it's easier than making Chad into Botswana.

Well if you have any tariffs on goods from the country you remove them. See what can be done to remove legal hurdles.

Think about that. Who do you go to in Chad to remove all the various tariffs? Then, how do you enforce compliance with the various political groups?

I don't mean in Chad. I mean in countries like Canada and the USA. I know for instance that Canada has a policy which reduces trade barriers for "developing" countries. The idea is aid through trade. How to change things in Chad? that has to come from the Chadians. I think we can agree though that if countries like Chad worked to reduce internal barriers to trade/investment they would see a reduction in poverty. Admittedly I know very little about Chad, maybe they have little to no internal trade barriers.

I think that increased wealth leads to increased desire for effective/non corrupt government. Increase trade, increase wealth increase desire for change.

I dont think free trade will solve the poverty problem i think in many cases free trade ARE the problem that casuse poverty. Not in the "rich" countries, but in the developing countries like in africa where countries dont own theoir own resources they are controlled by transnational corporations and most of the wealth goes straight to us, not to the peolpe in the coutries with the resources.

The other side of this is WHAT should these countries do with their own resources cause they dont know how to develop them and gain a profit... a bit of chatch 22 that:)

The only real solution i can see is simply to have less poor people. We have a finite amount of resources in this world and those who have an excess of them are just not that likely to share.If there is x amount of resources to be divided by y amount of people and you can not increase x the only option is to decrease y.

Baron Von PWN wrote:
I don't mean in Chad. I mean in countries like Canada and the USA. I know for instance that Canada has a policy which reduces trade barriers for "developing" countries. The idea is aid through trade. How to change things in Chad? that has to come from the Chadians. I think we can agree though that if countries like Chad worked to reduce internal barriers to trade/investment they would see a reduction in poverty. Admittedly I know very little about Chad, maybe they have little to no internal trade barriers.

I think that increased wealth leads to increased desire for effective/non corrupt government. Increase trade, increase wealth increase desire for change.

Oh, yeah, having zero government restrictions on foreign imports would be effective in reducing poverty abroad. (inb4: "meh, sweatshops!")


re: bold, initially, all countries were poor, so how did wealth take off in England and Scotland?

Lord Arioch wrote:I dont think free trade will solve the poverty problem i think in many cases free trade ARE the problem that casuse poverty. Not in the "rich" countries, but in the developing countries like in africa where countries dont own theoir own resources they are controlled by transnational corporations and most of the wealth goes straight to us, not to the peolpe in the coutries with the resources.

The other side of this is WHAT should these countries do with their own resources cause they dont know how to develop them and gain a profit... a bit of chatch 22 that:)

Well, how can that be true? Assuming foreign governments don't enslave their own people, the company has to pay people to work for them. If those people value the money in exchange for their labor services, then both have become better off from trade.

Our rise in wealth is due primarily to trade. Other forms of exchange are transfers of wealth or are negative-sum (e.g. wars, regulations).

If the Catch-22 is true, then how did the earliest countries rise from poverty to wealth?