• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The One Cause of Poverty That’s Never Considered

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
No prob, I don't like you either.

But hey, if you find me to be morally inferior to all such
as yourself, isn't it the honorable thing to just say so?

Instead of implying it by referring to someone else's words.

You could ask for evidence. But remember that is morality in the end and that maybe also apply to claims you make. Or if I make them. :)
 

Audie

Veteran Member
No, I don’t think you are morally inferior to me. I have no business judging you, and wasn’t being entirely serious anyway.

That said, Balzac has a point, at least from the perspective of European history; Europe’s old aristocratic families are mostly direct descendants of the robber barons and chain mailed thugs who parcelled up the land and lived off the labour of peaceful farmers and peasants. The more recently acquired family fortunes, passed down from the 16th and 17th centuries, almost certainly profited from the transatlantic slave trade. That was the context in which he made his observation.
"... avarice. The rich do take proportionally more than
the poor, so in that sense their crime is that much greater".

Those are your words.
Readily taken by another,as you may have seen
as reflecting badly on me, and, on yourself.

For me, i will take your assurance that you were referring only
to a limited historical context. :D
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Did I actually say Scandinavians equalize everything, or that there are no millionaires in Scandinavians? If you are gonna put words in my mouth, try using MY words.
Look what it comes down to; is we don't want to be like the Scandinavian countries. Yeah; there are some who would want to be, but those are usually the ones who are less productive; happy to consume more than they contribute. But the majority like the idea of being able to keep most of the fruits of their labor. We have a different culture, a different economy than those of the Scandinavian countries, we don't want to be like them; if we did we would elect politicians in office to make us like them.
I'm wasting my time trying to correct your errors as you simply have no clue what you're talking about, plus you frequently twist what I actually post to suit your own bigotry, such as with the above.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Did I actually say Scandinavians equalize everything, or that there are no millionaires in Scandinavians? If you are gonna put words in my mouth, try using MY words.
Look what it comes down to; is we don't want to be like the Scandinavian countries. Yeah; there are some who would want to be, but those are usually the ones who are less productive; happy to consume more than they contribute. But the majority like the idea of being able to keep most of the fruits of their labor. We have a different culture, a different economy than those of the Scandinavian countries, we don't want to be like them; if we did we would elect politicians in office to make us like them.

So here is a factor you have overlooked. I can't work. So please tell me, what comes next?
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
"... avarice. The rich do take proportionally more than
the poor, so in that sense their crime is that much greater".

Those are your words.
Readily taken by another,as you may have seen
as reflecting badly on me, and, on yourself.

For me, i will take your assurance that you were referring only
to a limited historical context. :D

Take whatever you want.

That’s what rich people do, isn’t it? ;)
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Take whatever you want.

That’s what rich people do, isn’t it? ;)
That will include taking back my take back,
now that you've clarified that my crime is greater than yours.

Why bother to deny you are saying you are morally superior?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
You obviously reject fairness in an effort to obtain equality at all costs. What are your moral primitives?
You didn't answer my question. I guess you never thought about it. And then you ask me a question that I already answered. You are out of arguments, we can end this now.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I did revise my q., which was about the opinion of a business failure on
the character of those who are successful. But never mind.

On to your response.

Your contention is that because i have more than you, as is to
a certainty the case, that I take from the poor, what I have
is the result of sin and crime, and, this being the case that
I am morally inferior to the 99 percent, including you?

I don't know if I would interpret the Balzac quote that way. It doesn't say that every person who has amassed a great fortune is necessarily guilty of a crime personally, but that a great crime might have happened just the same. It's possible the crime may have happened centuries earlier, and the possessor of said great fortune might just be a residual beneficiary - though not personally a criminal.

No one is saying that you are morally inferior, but there's a deeper question of whether humanity itself can truly advance on a moral basis. At least from my observations of history and current events, I perceive that the mechanisms which operate in this world are not some sort of parlor game or even a civil debate. It's not necessarily a morality contest either, although some people try to present in that way, to somehow make their own point of view seem "cleaner" or more sanitized. That's usually where the discussion goes awry and becomes more of a competition of who is holier than thou.

As I see it, the basic problem at hand is not really about "capitalism vs. socialism (or communism)." All of our political and philosophical perceptions we look at today came about due to attempts to explain and organize the human condition in the advent of exploration, colonization, industrialism, and the immense growth in science and technology. It's just humans trying to figure out what to do with themselves. The early classical economists, such as Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, and Bentham, are probably most influential in forming some of the perceptions of capitalism and economics as most people understand it today. The liberals and socialists started to arise as the effects of early capitalism and industrialism were having on the well-being and living standards of the common people.

Most people nowadays seem to take for granted all that had to happen before we could reach the point we are at today. Despite whatever anyone might say about America, it is truly astounding to see the immense and relatively rapid spread of industries, railroads, and great cities which sprouted up all across the continent. Just like you were saying about the towers of Hong Kong where there was once just a poor fishing village. Manhattan Island was originally acquired in a crooked $24 land deal, but look at it today. Still, all the physical processes that had to take place, as well as the necessary scientific and technical knowledge required to build it all, it's enormous - and the processes continue unabated to this day.

One of the more unfortunate side effects of all this industrial and technological advancement is that we also have greatly improved our killing machines and our ability to make war more effectively. Back in the day, they seemed to portray war as some kind of glorious, honorable event. The wars from earlier centuries seemed to be reflective of a swashbuckling, cavalier culture. But once it became clear that the business of war depended upon industrial and technological prowess, then that became the guiding principle of geopolitics. The arms race was on.

But after the industrial-scale devastation and killing which took place in the World Wars, and the threat of atomic weapons which came out as an after-effect, that caused most human governments to sit and take account of the situation. We realized that some things had to change in how we related to geopolitics and war as general concepts. It seemed as if human development of industry and technology had surpassed our moral, political, and social development (which had also progressed, but perhaps not as fast).

As a result, one of the things that had to fall by the wayside was nationalism. The Allied powers which won WW2, however different they might have been from each other, all ostensibly agreed that nationalism as a mode of thought and a way of operating had to go. Along with that was colonialism and racism - as they were modes of thought which ran along parallel lines with nationalism. Such ways of thinking could no longer be tolerated or encouraged. America changed quite a bit, and I think we must have had an "Emperor's New Clothes" moment, which may have made us a bit crazy. But instead of slinking away in shame, we decided to stay naked and enjoy ourselves, baring ourselves to the rest of the world, which just shakes its head in disbelief.

What we need in America most of all is not more wealth - or even necessarily a more equitable distribution of wealth (although that might help in the short term). What we need is political stability, which would then lead to greater economic stability. There may always be haves and have nots. There may always be rich and poor. But as long as even the lower classes can have a reasonable expectation of political and economic stability, then there will be a certain degree of contentment. It's not really about class envy or who has the most toys or keeping up with the Kardashians, as a lot of people try to present it.

It's more about responsible, restrained, and mindful use of power - whether it's political power, economic power, or the power of a nuclear bomb.

If humans are unable to restrain themselves and grow beyond what they perceive as "natural," then there may very well be natural consequences. One of your country's more famous (or perhaps infamous) philosophers said "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Despite its cold-blooded tone, there is a certain scientific logic to this statement. I don't see how anyone could argue that this is not the case. But it's still a primitive way of thinking, and it indicates that human civilization still has a long way to go before we ever reach any great enlightenment or progress. We may not even survive that long.

I realize that many people see socialism as some idealistic, naive, unattainable, utopian pipe dream which is doomed to fail and is often associated with some of the most atrocious and heinous human rights violations in human history. Instead of bringing out the best in humans, it somehow brought out the worst in humans. But that should not mean that the basic desire for human progress is necessarily a bad thing.

Thing is, if we don't move forward, then we end up moving backwards. In pre-industrial times, the rise and fall of empires didn't matter much in the grand scheme of things. Humans ultimately recovered. But now, with the world being much smaller and more multiply-connected as it is, the consequences of discord and failure seem far greater and uncharted territory.

So, I would at least hope that all those wealthy and powerful and hard-working people with all that brainpower you spoke of earlier at least have enough brainpower to consider a few things about the state of the world, beyond just superficialities about "look how rich I am" kind of stuff. Keep up with the Kardashians if you must, but you might also want to take a look at the bigger picture from time to time.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I don't know if I would interpret the Balzac quote that way. It doesn't say that every person who has amassed a great fortune is necessarily guilty of a crime personally, but that a great crime might have happened just the same. It's possible the crime may have happened centuries earlier, and the possessor of said great fortune might just be a residual beneficiary - though not personally a criminal.

No one is saying that you are morally inferior, but there's a deeper question of whether humanity itself can truly advance on a moral basis. At least from my observations of history and current events, I perceive that the mechanisms which operate in this world are not some sort of parlor game or even a civil debate. It's not necessarily a morality contest either, although some people try to present in that way, to somehow make their own point of view seem "cleaner" or more sanitized. That's usually where the discussion goes awry and becomes more of a competition of who is holier than thou.

As I see it, the basic problem at hand is not really about "capitalism vs. socialism (or communism)." All of our political and philosophical perceptions we look at today came about due to attempts to explain and organize the human condition in the advent of exploration, colonization, industrialism, and the immense growth in science and technology. It's just humans trying to figure out what to do with themselves. The early classical economists, such as Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, and Bentham, are probably most influential in forming some of the perceptions of capitalism and economics as most people understand it today. The liberals and socialists started to arise as the effects of early capitalism and industrialism were having on the well-being and living standards of the common people.

Most people nowadays seem to take for granted all that had to happen before we could reach the point we are at today. Despite whatever anyone might say about America, it is truly astounding to see the immense and relatively rapid spread of industries, railroads, and great cities which sprouted up all across the continent. Just like you were saying about the towers of Hong Kong where there was once just a poor fishing village. Manhattan Island was originally acquired in a crooked $24 land deal, but look at it today. Still, all the physical processes that had to take place, as well as the necessary scientific and technical knowledge required to build it all, it's enormous - and the processes continue unabated to this day.

One of the more unfortunate side effects of all this industrial and technological advancement is that we also have greatly improved our killing machines and our ability to make war more effectively. Back in the day, they seemed to portray war as some kind of glorious, honorable event. The wars from earlier centuries seemed to be reflective of a swashbuckling, cavalier culture. But once it became clear that the business of war depended upon industrial and technological prowess, then that became the guiding principle of geopolitics. The arms race was on.

But after the industrial-scale devastation and killing which took place in the World Wars, and the threat of atomic weapons which came out as an after-effect, that caused most human governments to sit and take account of the situation. We realized that some things had to change in how we related to geopolitics and war as general concepts. It seemed as if human development of industry and technology had surpassed our moral, political, and social development (which had also progressed, but perhaps not as fast).

As a result, one of the things that had to fall by the wayside was nationalism. The Allied powers which won WW2, however different they might have been from each other, all ostensibly agreed that nationalism as a mode of thought and a way of operating had to go. Along with that was colonialism and racism - as they were modes of thought which ran along parallel lines with nationalism. Such ways of thinking could no longer be tolerated or encouraged. America changed quite a bit, and I think we must have had an "Emperor's New Clothes" moment, which may have made us a bit crazy. But instead of slinking away in shame, we decided to stay naked and enjoy ourselves, baring ourselves to the rest of the world, which just shakes its head in disbelief.

What we need in America most of all is not more wealth - or even necessarily a more equitable distribution of wealth (although that might help in the short term). What we need is political stability, which would then lead to greater economic stability. There may always be haves and have nots. There may always be rich and poor. But as long as even the lower classes can have a reasonable expectation of political and economic stability, then there will be a certain degree of contentment. It's not really about class envy or who has the most toys or keeping up with the Kardashians, as a lot of people try to present it.

It's more about responsible, restrained, and mindful use of power - whether it's political power, economic power, or the power of a nuclear bomb.

If humans are unable to restrain themselves and grow beyond what they perceive as "natural," then there may very well be natural consequences. One of your country's more famous (or perhaps infamous) philosophers said "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Despite its cold-blooded tone, there is a certain scientific logic to this statement. I don't see how anyone could argue that this is not the case. But it's still a primitive way of thinking, and it indicates that human civilization still has a long way to go before we ever reach any great enlightenment or progress. We may not even survive that long.

I realize that many people see socialism as some idealistic, naive, unattainable, utopian pipe dream which is doomed to fail and is often associated with some of the most atrocious and heinous human rights violations in human history. Instead of bringing out the best in humans, it somehow brought out the worst in humans. But that should not mean that the basic desire for human progress is necessarily a bad thing.

Thing is, if we don't move forward, then we end up moving backwards. In pre-industrial times, the rise and fall of empires didn't matter much in the grand scheme of things. Humans ultimately recovered. But now, with the world being much smaller and more multiply-connected as it is, the consequences of discord and failure seem far greater and uncharted territory.

So, I would at least hope that all those wealthy and powerful and hard-working people with all that brainpower you spoke of earlier at least have enough brainpower to consider a few things about the state of the world, beyond just superficialities about "look how rich I am" kind of stuff. Keep up with the Kardashians if you must, but you might also want to take a look at the bigger picture from time to time.
I'd interpret Balzac as a writer saying something memorable,
not profound.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
“Behind every great fortune there lies a great crime.”
- Honore de Balzac
There was a guy who was a real bigot.
The big difference between him other
bigots is who they hate.

This echoes what I heard on NPR today....
A host & guest were discussing scammers stealing
people's money. They agreed that scamming
corporations & government is good because they
scam us. Such bigotry that advocates crimes
against all such entities costs us all in higher prices.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
There was a guy who was a real bigot.
The big difference between him other
bigots is who they hate.

This echoes what I heard on NPR today....
A host & guest were discussing scammers stealing
people's money. They agreed that scamming
corporations & government is good because they
scam us. Such bigotry that advocates crimes
against all such entities costs us all in higher prices.
WF
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
You answered your own question in a sense. You and the ones, who vote like you, understand it differently, And you rate the effects differently. That is all.
That’s different. Before you said I overlooked factors, now you seem to be saying I just see things differently
If you look at the concept of "cradle to grave" and what it costs to get that in Europe in general for a middle class family with 2 kids, then since you Americas don't pay for it through the taxes, you have more money available.
But if you try to pay for the level in Europe individually you end up with less money available in the current US system.
I disagree. Perhaps in Europe their politicians are not as crooked as in the USA, in my country whenever the government does something, it does it less efficient at greater cost than done privately. If you look at the efficiency of the US post office vs UPS, Fed-X etc, Private Schools vs Public Schools, anything done at the private sector and by the government, the government always cost more, and is less effective. That’s why so many of us in the USA are reluctant to have the Government try to fix everything.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
That’s different. Before you said I overlooked factors, now you seem to be saying I just see things differently

I disagree. Perhaps in Europe their politicians are not as crooked as in the USA, in my country whenever the government does something, it does it less efficient at greater cost than done privately. If you look at the efficiency of the US post office vs UPS, Fed-X etc, Private Schools vs Public Schools, anything done at the private sector and by the government, the government always cost more, and is less effective. That’s why so many of us in the USA are reluctant to have the Government try to fix everything.

Yeah, I get what you are saying.
But sometimes with government service you are paying for another kind of effective through your taxes. I know you don't want that. But to say that it is not effective, is neither true nor false. It is another measurement standard.
And yes, you guys don't trust government. Neither do I, we just have differently levels of distrust and we generally have a different voting system. That get us a different kind of government.

In Denmark we have 11 parties and here is the joke. We have a center government made up of one center left to center and 2 center right to center parties.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
So, you think greed is not a proper motive for commercial enterprise because the government has to keep stepping in to mitigate the damage it does to the general population?
Sorta, the Government has to make up laws that prevent greedy capitalists from causing unfair harm to others.
Well, until the capitalists can amass enough wealth and power to corrupt the government and render it ineffective at curtailing their greed.
If that were to happen it would be a huge problem.
I understand that people will be greedy. Some more than others. What I don't understand is why we allow our economic system to be completely controlled by the greed of capital investors.
We don’t allow that, we have laws in place to prevent that from happening
And I say greed because that's what motivates capital investment ... greed. Capitalists are people with more wealth than they need to live on that are using the excess to capture even more wealth, still.
Yes. And there are laws in place that allows them to be greedy in a way that helps the poor.
And when you give them complete control of commercial enterprise, they will use that control to maximize the return they are gaining on their investment capital, EVERY TIME. Because that's why they are investing it.
True! That’s why there are laws in place preventing them from getting complete control of commercial enterprise
No individual creates that kind of wealth.
Yes they do. Consider a scenario.

Suppose I own land with fruit trees on the land. I pick the fruit from my trees to sell to the public. Then I offer you $100 to sit on the side of the road and sell my fruit to people who drive by till the sun goes down. I come back when the sun goes down and you have exchanged all my fruit for $1,000. I take the $1000 and give you $100 as agreed and we part our separate ways. Do you consider what I did to be fair?

I will respond to the rest of what you said later.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
No individual creates that kind of wealth. We all do it, together. But because the investor is being given total control over the wealth producing enterprise through the myth of 'ownership' people like you think they did it all by themselves. Like some economic demigod.
The investors control is restricted by the law. But sometimes he did do it by himself; but if he did not, what difference does it make?
So they should be able to claim all the profits for themselves.
Other than taxes, who else should they be required to share the profits with?
But no single human creates any significant wealth on his own. It requires the systemic cooperation of many people, ALL OF WHOM should then be sharing in the wealth benefit being generated.
When this happens, the money generated is always shared with the many people involved; but the money they get is not considered profit; it’s called wages, labor costs, material costs, etc. it’s put under the category of the cost of doing business. Profit is defined as what is left over after you’ve paid all the other people who helped you generate revenue.
Excess wealth is useless if it's not being invested.
Excess wealth is almost always invested. Do you think rich people are fat guys sitting on top of a pile of money smoking cigars? No reasonable rich guy is going to exchange all of his assets for money so it can be eaten up by inflation! Nobody does that!
We have no reason to presume that people with excess wealth will not invest it even if we don't give them total control over the commercial enterprise they've invested in.
We have all the reason in the world to presume people with excess wealth will invest it! It’s either growing or shrinking; when it’s invested it grows, when it sits idle it shrinks. Nobody wants their wealth to shrink
Also, investing in commercial enterprise is not "creating wealth". It does not make the investor some sort of commercial creator-god.
True! In this case, the commercial enterprise is able to create wealth due to their investment
If the enterprise generates wealth, it's because everyone involved in it enabled it to do so. And because everyone involved in it will be effected by how it's conducted, everyone involved in it should be given a share of control over how it's being conducted, and afforded a share of the wealth it generates.
What happens when the commercial enterprise fails to make a profit? Should the people involved not get paid? Do you really think someone is going to take a job at such a place knowing they may not get paid?
sharing the control and the wealth being generated is called socialism.
No it’s not. Socialism is Government control of wealth being generated. Under Capitalism, there are countless examples of a group of people starting an LLC, they work the Business and they share the profits between themselves. Socialist governments are greed, and they want ALL the generated wealth for themselves. And the more they are allowed to get it, the more unstable the whole system becomes, until it will finally and inevitably collapse. Look at what happened to Russia, East Germany vs West Germany, North Vietnam vs South Vietnam, North Korea vs South Korea. Unfortunately too many people still haven’t learned the lesson.
 
Top