Poverty is due to moral lacking

[Thorne]

If economics is a science, it is one trying to operate with so many variables it becomes useless.

Well, I used the term loosely. It IS a science, but a "soft" science, like psychology. Rather than predicting definitive outcomes, it predicts trends. And yes, it is far from precise.

One of which is the incompetance of banks.

Actually, it's the incompetence of BANKERS that is the problem, and economic theory can take that into account. It's just not comfortable when you do, so many economists ignore that, preferring to blame the "volatility of the market."

It is armchair thinking, and much more political ideology than logic or knowledge.

In large part it's a combination of all of these. Which makes it very easy to misuse.

In fact, nothing but a lot more control of this wild capitalism will save another crisis, and another.

I disagree. Removing the controls of capitalism would work far better, I think. Tighten the controls on monopolies, of course, and strengthen consumer protections, but let the markets work. A competitive marketplace has always been beneficial to both industry and consumers. Adding regulations which make it impossible for innovators to break into the marketplace only makes things worse.

The news on our tv was that if Obama and senate/rep had not made this temporary compromise, US would have had to stop paying its officials and vital functions within a very short time.

Doubtful. A good reason not to put to much stock into TV news. NON-vital functions might have had to be stopped, temporarily, which would not have been good for those government workers, but no way they would let the vital functions shut down.

[DuncanONeil]

Umm ... haven't recent economic developments pretty much proven that market theories are just that: Theories?

Gravity is a theory!!

So the answer to your question is, no. Besides the "problem" with "economic developments" was in fact Government intrusion in the first place!

[lucy]

Gravity is a theory!!

So the answer to your question is, no. Besides the "problem" with "economic developments" was in fact Government intrusion in the first place!

Yes, gravity is a theory. But unlike economic theories it actually works in everyday life. At least I didn't float upwards this morning when I got out of bed.

[Thorne]

Yes, gravity is a theory. But unlike economic theories it actually works in everyday life. At least I didn't float upwards this morning when I got out of bed.

Not quite! The theory doesn't WORK, it EXPLAINS! Gravity worked long before there were any theories about it.

But just imagine what would happen if, for example, scientists discovered that gravity depended upon a certain number of people spending a certain amount of their money over a certain period of time. As long as those conditions persisted, gravity worked. Then, along comes some idiot movie/sports star and says that, no, people would be better off if they spent MORE money, faster. Suddenly gravity no longer works! The theory may be sound, but the application of the theory has been sidetracked.

This is kind of what happens with economic theory. Under the right conditions, those theories will explain what's happening. But when conditions are altered, generally by some pretty face, or a politician, or any of a number of absolutely inane possibilities, the theories can no longer be used as models. So the economists say, given a population of X, which has a disposable income of Y, performing Z actions will help the economy improve. Politicians say, great! Let's do that, and pass the required laws. Along with new tax laws, and new spending bills, and more appropriations, all of which alter the value of Y, making the whole equation worthless.

[DuncanONeil]

Alright then Global Warming is a theory!

Yes, gravity is a theory. But unlike economic theories it actually works in everyday life. At least I didn't float upwards this morning when I got out of bed.

[thir]

Umm ... haven't recent economic developments pretty much proven that market theories are just that: Theories?

Yes!

[DuncanONeil]

"I fail to understand how taking LESS from some one -rich, middle class or poor - provides the resources to "give" to some one else."

Government should not be doing this at all!

[DuncanONeil]

Hear! Hear!

The entire system of our representative republic was designed to keep it small and let the state and local governments deal with regional and local problems. Competition- not monopoly- in healthcare, education, banking, business, even government, will produce better results. Monopolies - especially through governmental intrusion into the marketplace - will stifle competition and improvement. Some regulation to prevent abuse is necessary. The problem is that most regulation is aimed not at preventing abuse within the system but at controlling the system and giving favor to one portion over another. The current liberal attitude is to seek equality of outcomes; something that is impossible, rather than equality of opportunity; which is how our country was designed.

[denuseri]

Poverty has many causes. Morals do not determine personal responsibility. Being born dirt poor and doing nothing to improve it means that it will continue for that person. Education is available to anyone in this country - legal resident or illegal. Why do specific groups in this country refuse to take advantage of it? Washington, DC schools are the highest funded in the country; clear evidence that more money is not the answer. Conservatives (as compared to Republicans) desire less government, lower taxes. I fail to understand how taking LESS from some one -rich, middle class or poor - provides the resources to "give" to some one else. Large government sucks capital out of the economy to dole it out to those areas to maintain dependence on large government. The Soviet system demonstrated how well central planning and government intrusion doesn't work. The larger the government, the less effective it will be. The entire system of our representative republic was designed to keep it small and let the state and local governments deal with regional and local problems. Competition- not monopoly- in healthcare, education, banking, business, even government, will produce better results. Monopolies - especially through governmental intrusion into the marketplace - will stifle competition and improvement. Some regulation to prevent abuse is necessary. The problem is that most regulation is aimed not at preventing abuse within the system but at controlling the system and giving favor to one portion over another. The current liberal attitude is to seek equality of outcomes; something that is impossible, rather than equality of opportunity; which is how our country was designed.

That's the best response yet imho!

[thir]

Poverty has many causes. Morals do not determine personal responsibility. Being born dirt poor and doing nothing to improve it means that it will continue for that person.

Meaning the myth that if you really want a job there will always be one, and if you really want an education one is possible.
In other words, it is their own fault, the lazy good for nothing buggers.

Education is available to anyone in this country - legal resident or illegal. Why do specific groups in this country refuse to take advantage of it?

Why ideed? It is a real mystery.

The Soviet system demonstrated how well central planning and government intrusion doesn't work.

It did work for quite a while, in which ordinary people had food on the table for the first time. They had no freedom, but they hadn't had that before either, and anyway, like in China, food is more important. Until you have enough and some - then freedom starts to be important.

The larger the government, the less effective it will be.

This may be true to a certain extent. Unfortunately you can also say that the wilder the capitalism, the more mess!

Competition- not monopoly- in healthcare, education, banking, business, even government, will produce better results.

Well, it certainly hasn't in any of my countries! When health care is big business, they only do what is cost effective and not what is good for patients. Education same.

Banks -they have certainly shown that they are too greedy and incompetent to be able to hold that function in society. And when it goes wrong, as with the businesses, they come whining to the government, wanting interference!

[StrictMasterD]

"One of the underlying threads of conservative thought is that the rich are inherently hard working and “earn” their good fortune, and the poor almost always are poor due to some sort of moral lacking."

"This is the assumption that makes the right believe that most people on welfare, on unemployment, using food stamps or other government aid must be lazy, or lacking in courage, determination or pride. No one “needs” government assistance because they should be able to care for themselves, and a “handout” just makes them try even less."

"It’s usually not discussed publicly in so many words, even though that’s what many believe. But David French of the National Review Online doesn’t have any qualms about coming right out and voicing it himself:

"It is simply a fact that our social problems are increasingly connected to the depravity of the poor. If an American works hard, completes their education, gets married, and stays married, then they will rarely — very rarely — be poor. At the same time, poverty is the handmaiden of illegitimacy, divorce, ignorance, and addiction. As we have poured money into welfare, we’ve done nothing to address the behaviors that lead to poverty while doing all we can to make that poverty more comfortable and sustainable.""

(Italics are mine.)

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/conserva...#ixzz1XRnZONUW

I don't think it is specifically a political view, but probably also a world-view shared by many, which is why I put it here.

What do you think? What exactly causes poverty?

I take exception o this, I worked my entire life, I paid into the system for over 40 years
I am now disabled, unable medicaly to work, yes I recieive Socialy Security Disability and Assistance from my state for Food, but I EARNED the right to do so, I have never not worked becuse I am or was Lazy, I am under the careof Docotors
So please do not say those who live "off the Goverment" are lazy, mos tof us are not I paid inot the system and are simply getting back what I paid in FICA Taxes for over 40 years,yes there are some out that that are lazy, that find it easier to live off the system but please do not say ALL those ho recieive Social Secirty Diability, or Retirment Pay or Food Stamps are lazy, not having been in that situation you can not place everyone who is in the same boat
That is tenamount to sayig all people of a certain Ethnicity are bad because of a few select one,s not ALL whitesae bad, not all Blacks are bad not ALL Muslims are Radical lke those responsable for 911
Base pepole on who they are and not the class or Ethnicity they come from

[DuncanONeil]

Although you "paid" in you didn't really "earn" anything for those payments. Since you were not really buying something, you were being taxed by the Government to fund a benefit program.

I take exception o this, I worked my entire life, I paid into the system for over 40 years
I am now disabled, unable medicaly to work, yes I recieive Socialy Security Disability and Assistance from my state for Food, but I EARNED the right to do so, I have never not worked becuse I am or was Lazy, I am under the careof Docotors
So please do not say those who live "off the Goverment" are lazy, mos tof us are not I paid inot the system and are simply getting back what I paid in FICA Taxes for over 40 years,yes there are some out that that are lazy, that find it easier to live off the system but please do not say ALL those ho recieive Social Secirty Diability, or Retirment Pay or Food Stamps are lazy, not having been in that situation you can not place everyone who is in the same boat
That is tenamount to sayig all people of a certain Ethnicity are bad because of a few select one,s not ALL whitesae bad, not all Blacks are bad not ALL Muslims are Radical lke those responsable for 911
Base pepole on who they are and not the class or Ethnicity they come from

[Thorne]

Although you "paid" in you didn't really "earn" anything for those payments. Since you were not really buying something, you were being taxed by the Government to fund a benefit program.

I have always looked at it more as a forced savings account, which is more or less what it was intended to be. The actuality? Far different, sadly.

[DuncanONeil]

Agreed! Which is why there is always an argument. What it IS vs What was INTENDED. Seems like there is a party that wants credit, and to be the "good guys", based on what they intended to do rather then what they accomplish.

I have always looked at it more as a forced savings account, which is more or less what it was intended to be. The actuality? Far different, sadly.

[Snark]

I have always looked at it more as a forced savings account, which is more or less what it was intended to be. The actuality? Far different, sadly.

Unfortunately, many people have this misunderstanding. It was never intended, nor practiced as a forced savings account. It has always been a pay as you go collection and distribution system with no actual accounts assigned nor assets accumulated in any individual's name. There is no Social Security Trust account; it is simply a collection of Treasury Notes giving the SS system the right to retrieve the excess collections that the congress siphoned away. In its simplest terms it is a government operated Ponzi scheme. Always has been and will be until it is changed.

[StrictMasterD]

Although you "paid" in you didn't really "earn" anything for those payments. Since you were not really buying something, you were being taxed by the Government to fund a benefit program.

Yes I earned the righttheright to get my benefits that come with the FICA Tax Deduction, my point was simply oto say that some peoplewho recieive Socialy Security, Food Stamps Legitmately get them, and itis not a case of them or me justbeing LAZYand not wanting to work
If you invest in a Comay by buying stock inthem, you haveearned theright to the divident you get back
But to say those wgho reveivie Siclay Security or Food Stampsare simply to lazyto work, I find that very wrong, I worked my entire life well over 40 years
Yes I did buy someting, i bough the righ to have Medical Insurance when I stopped working, by my FICA Dedcution weekly
My FICA decition was to insure I recieived money when I did stop working, like if you buy an insurance policy through and insurance company, say auto insurance, you pay a semi annual premium forthat you gt into a car accidfent, you pay the deductable buttheinsurance company pays most of thecostofrepairs, my FICA paymeny insures me the say righ,ti can't wrok i go to my "Insurance Polivy" via my FICA paymentys and they pay for what i need to me Scialy Swecirty and my FICA paymentst are no different then the premium you pay for health, auto or life insurance,

[StrictMasterD]

Yes I earned the righttheright to get my benefits that come with the FICA Tax Deduction, my point was simply oto say that some peoplewho recieive Socialy Security, Food Stamps Legitmately get them, and itis not a case of them or me justbeing LAZYand not wanting to work
If you invest in a Comay by buying stock inthem, you haveearned theright to the divident you get back
But to say those wgho reveivie Siclay Security or Food Stampsare simply to lazyto work, I find that very wrong, I worked my entire life well over 40 years
Yes I did buy someting, i bough the righ to have Medical Insurance when I stopped working, by my FICA Dedcution weekly
My FICA decition was to insure I recieived money when I did stop working, like if you buy an insurance policy through and insurance company, say auto insurance, you pay a semi annual premium forthat you gt into a car accidfent, you pay the deductable buttheinsurance company pays most of thecostofrepairs, my FICA paymeny insures me the say righ,ti can't wrok i go to my "Insurance Polivy" via my FICA paymentys and they pay for what i need to me Scialy Swecirty and my FICA paymentst are no different then the premium you pay for health, auto or life insurance,

Corrrct and that Benefit Program that I HELPED fun I am now using

[DuncanONeil]

Responding to your own posts???

Corrrct and that Benefit Program that I HELPED fun I am now using

[DuncanONeil]

Yes I did buy someting, i bough the righ to have Medical Insurance when I stopped working, by my FICA Dedcution weekly

No! You did not buy anything. Your were taxed to fund a Government benefit program!

[thir]

No! You did not buy anything. Your were taxed to fund a Government benefit program!

Twisting words as I see it. I too have payed taxes all my life (haven't we all?) and a lot of them, and I expect to get back what I need when I need it. That is the deal.

[DuncanONeil]

my FICA paymentst are no different then the premium you pay for health, auto or life insurance,

Again with those other things you actually have a vested interest in them. With SS you do not have any interest in it at all.

Can you will you SS benefits to your heirs?

[thir]

I take exception o this, I worked my entire life, I paid into the system for over 40 years
I am now disabled, unable medicaly to work, yes I recieive Socialy Security Disability and Assistance from my state for Food, but I EARNED the right to do so, I have never not worked becuse I am or was Lazy, I am under the careof Docotors
So please do not say those who live "off the Goverment" are lazy, mos tof us are not I paid inot the system and are simply getting back what I paid in FICA Taxes for over 40 years,yes there are some out that that are lazy, that find it easier to live off the system but please do not say ALL those ho recieive Social Secirty Diability, or Retirment Pay or Food Stamps are lazy, not having been in that situation you can not place everyone who is in the same boat
That is tenamount to sayig all people of a certain Ethnicity are bad because of a few select one,s not ALL whitesae bad, not all Blacks are bad not ALL Muslims are Radical lke those responsable for 911
Base pepole on who they are and not the class or Ethnicity they come from

Nobody is saying that, not the article, and no I myself, who is merely presenting it for comments.
I happen to agree.

[MMI]

Thought you might all like this pearl from an ex-public schoolboy (that's a fee-paying non-state school btw).

"If the poor aren't educated properly, they won't be able to do the jobs we need them to do properly."

Make of that what you will.

[Thorne]

"If the poor aren't educated properly, they won't be able to do the jobs we need them to do properly."

This could be restated in a less "priveleged" manner.

"If the poor aren't educated properly, they won't be able to get the jobs they need to escape poverty."

It's mostly a question of defining "properly".

[MMI]

"Poverty is Due to Moral Lacking"

Assuming "moral lacking" means the absence of any distinction between right and wrong, and accepting that the consequence of poverty is hunger, dependency, disease and death, then it must be. With most of the world's wealth in the hands of just 2% of the population, and that Two Percent believing it has actually "earned" its fortune by its own good honest toil, there is next to no chance that the Two Percent will do anything to alleviate poverty elsewhere. Amoral.

The Two Percent earned nothing - they took it, and the wealth they "created" was through the hard work of others.

In fact, the Two Percent is likely to take steps to ensure it retains its privileged position: Multi-national corporations using poor nations to produce raw materials, paying pitiful wages, and paying the lowest prices for the goods they buy; dumping food and goods onto these nations at prices that undercut local producers, preventing the growth of independent agriculture and industry; nourishing corruption by supporting client rulers who provide favoured nation deals they can't afford in return; and attaching penal conditions to the aid that is provided, causing what wealth poor nations do have to be handed over to wealthy countries as "debt" repayment. Immoral.

The fact is, the Two Percent doesn't give much of a fuck ... what it does care about is keeping its own privileges and comforts, at everyone else's expense. Meanwhile they pretend they have worse problems of their own, that must be tended to first. Evil.

Today 21,000 children died around the world

"The silent killers are poverty, easily preventable diseases and illnesses, and other related causes. Despite the scale of this daily/ongoing catastrophe, it rarely manages to achieve, much less sustain, prime-time, headline coverage."

In other words, although we have the means to do much so much good around the world, we would rather ignore the problem. Only when there is a major catastrophe will the western media pay any attention to the disaster - as a form of entertainment - but within days, or weeks, their interest, and that of the audience, will fade away, and the gossip programs will take primacy once more.

The wealthy nations of the world have promised to increase the amounts of aid they give, and in 1970, they set a target of about 0.7% of GNP to be given annually from about 1975. Those nations are now giving about 0.2% to 0.4% pa, some forty years later. The USA is notable laggard. More recently, the EU nations set a new target for achieving the target: they are all failing. The cost for vested interests is too high.

I see no answer but war, and it is likely that the poor will lose, and and lose again, and will be made to pay for their temerity. However, once there have been sufficient martyrs for the cause of the impoverished, maybe there will be some kind of revolution that makes life easier for some. A token.

Don't think the Two Percent will have given up their position of dominance. That will never happen.

[thir]

"Poverty is Due to Moral Lacking"

Assuming "moral lacking" means the absence of any distinction between right and wrong, and accepting that the consequence of poverty is hunger, dependency, disease and death, then it must be. With most of the world's wealth in the hands of just 2% of the population, and that Two Percent believing it has actually "earned" its fortune by its own good honest toil, there is next to no chance that the Two Percent will do anything to alleviate poverty elsewhere. Amoral.

The Two Percent earned nothing - they took it, and the wealth they "created" was through the hard work of others.

In fact, the Two Percent is likely to take steps to ensure it retains its privileged position: Multi-national corporations using poor nations to produce raw materials, paying pitiful wages, and paying the lowest prices for the goods they buy; dumping food and goods onto these nations at prices that undercut local producers, preventing the growth of independent agriculture and industry; nourishing corruption by supporting client rulers who provide favoured nation deals they can't afford in return; and attaching penal conditions to the aid that is provided, causing what wealth poor nations do have to be handed over to wealthy countries as "debt" repayment. Immoral.

The fact is, the Two Percent doesn't give much of a fuck ... what it does care about is keeping its own privileges and comforts, at everyone else's expense. Meanwhile they pretend they have worse problems of their own, that must be tended to first. Evil.

Today 21,000 children died around the world

"The silent killers are poverty, easily preventable diseases and illnesses, and other related causes. Despite the scale of this daily/ongoing catastrophe, it rarely manages to achieve, much less sustain, prime-time, headline coverage."

In other words, although we have the means to do much so much good around the world, we would rather ignore the problem. Only when there is a major catastrophe will the western media pay any attention to the disaster - as a form of entertainment - but within days, or weeks, their interest, and that of the audience, will fade away, and the gossip programs will take primacy once more.

The wealthy nations of the world have promised to increase the amounts of aid they give, and in 1970, they set a target of about 0.7% of GNP to be given annually from about 1975. Those nations are now giving about 0.2% to 0.4% pa, some forty years later. The USA is notable laggard. More recently, the EU nations set a new target for achieving the target: they are all failing. The cost for vested interests is too high.

I see no answer but war, and it is likely that the poor will lose, and and lose again, and will be made to pay for their temerity. However, once there have been sufficient martyrs for the cause of the impoverished, maybe there will be some kind of revolution that makes life easier for some. A token.

Don't think the Two Percent will have given up their position of dominance. That will never happen.

Maybe it will..we are making ourselves so vulnerable with more and more technology and in other ways - maybe the system will crach, and maybe in a way that gives us a chance to start over.