# NTs, what do you think of poverty?



## Epitomity (Nov 13, 2012)

Please post your thoughts and feel free to check out the other threads I've posted in the other temperament subforums in which I ask the same question:

SJ SP NT NF


----------



## italix (Sep 26, 2015)

It only bothers me if I see it. My state is pretty well off so there isn't much directly visible as I go about my day to day life. 

I live by a grocery store and I have to drive the street behind it a lot. I few times I've seen hobos digging through it for food. The first time I saw it I was appalled... I felt really bad inside and told like 5 people what I saw. Now it's worn off and I merely take it as that's how the world is. 

At least a lot of the food they eat out of the garbage is in boxes. Like they throw out old boxes of donnuts so the hobos get to eat that. 

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk


----------



## SilverKelpie (Mar 9, 2015)

Lack of opportunity, lack of self-control, lack of charisma, and/or bad luck in varying degrees, depending on the person. I don't tend to feel distressed about the ones that get there by shooting themselves in the foot (and that kind of descent is frustrating to watch), but the ones that are there for other reasons are distressing to think about. 

I feel nothing but ill-will for the people who paint poverty with a wide brush of "It's their own fault" while they go out and buy their third yacht.


----------



## SilentNote (Dec 14, 2016)

SilverKelpie said:


> I feel nothing but ill-will for the people who paint poverty with a wide brush of "It's their own fault" while they go out and buy their third yacht.


Well said.

Most people don't understand that poverty and wealth are reciprocal terms. To be wealthy is the cause of poverty and vice versa. Often people would ask the question how do we eliminate poverty? The answer is to eliminate wealth.

The problem with the wealth / poverty dichotomy is that most confuse wealth and abundance. Wealth / poverty is a matter of _distribution_ of resources; whereas abundance is the presence of such resources. Most try to be wealthy to gain access to abundance. However, gaining wealth means that some other people will most definitely be poorer. Whereas gaining abundance without (monetary) wealth, simply increases the resource base for all.


----------



## Dare (Nov 8, 2016)

Wealth is not zero sum (wealth is created)

Wealth is not owned by society. 

Poverty is almost always avoidable (speaking here about a country like the US)

Capable adults, for the most part, are not victims (should not sustain a victim mentality/external locus of control)

Just as wealth is created by individuals, individual poverty needs to be solved by individuals.

Donate to a good cause anyway, if only to be sure the unlucky/victimized ones get back on their feet and children in poverty get a chance at life.

Basically: don't be greedy in either direction.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

In the U.S., it's kind of black-and-white: it has good aspects and bad aspects. But that's in comparison to being middle- or working-class.

I will take it any day of the week over the ignorance, stupidity, entitlement, offensiveness, blind resource-hogging, and annoying first-world-problems whining of the economically privileged.


----------



## Asity (May 12, 2014)

An undesirable state.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

It depends if it results from a personal fault, like you bet your goods and lose, or burn them,

or if you're victim of theft. Such as not being given the average income when no one can prove that what you got is an accurate representation of how much you're helping society. Which is impossible by the way.


----------



## abyssfully (Jan 9, 2017)

What do I think about poverty? I think it's terrible for a variety of reasons. I think it's misunderstood for variety of reasons. I also think it is necessary in sustaining the the system we have going on, also for a variety of reasons. Ya, guess I don't really feel like explaining my views on poverty right now.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Epitomity said:


> Please post your thoughts and feel free to check out the other threads I've posted in the other temperament subforums in which I ask the same question:
> 
> SJ SP NT NF


Its a direct reflection of the economy and the priorities of the country. America's priorities and freedom of choice meaning no one make any educated thought out decisions ever. Our youth sadly suffer because their parents and the economy does not plan for the next generation so your well doing is based entirely on class and how much your parents actually love you. Which in America is a whole lot of "Not a lot really". Then we have the whole "Class warefare" going on which use to be a problem for places that believed things like hinduism at least thats what we learned according to "History class". America started leaving trades in the idea that school was for the elite becuase America is elite. However they decided to do that without properly preparing students to be the best and brightest. Freedom of religion, freedom of sexuality, freedom of gender, of color is great. However when you have piss poor planning for anything in the economy do you really believe anything is going to work out okay in the END?


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

It is another _unfortunate event_; reflexive of the "human condition" (e.g., residue of repetitive human stupidities / exploited nature). I have no psychological / personal connection—(&) have a relatively low-degree of functional-cognitive empathy to these unfortunate meatsac(s); as I cannot relate.

However, I frequently ponder human stupidities; but as the average meat-sac; I can only begin to do something about "future unfortunate event(s)"; locally. That starts here. Some ($$) portion of my paycheck goes to some random child in the Amazon forest—which it is, indeed, likely just a ghost child. I only agree'd to such an arrangement because a fellow [real-time] humanoid convinced me with those ridiculous eyes; as an ethical duty.

That seem(s) to be it .. (?) [human stupidities]; are human nature. At best, I can only persuade other humanoid(s) to* pay attention*, because turning cheek(s) in the_ right _directions, get the _right actions_, however, I cannot enforce, nor restrain human stupidity, only advise these meatsac(s) to seek refugee in daily intellectual hygiene.

We _owe _those in poverty (to at least point those willing to care, in that direction) that much; if we haven't any care ourselves.


----------



## Laze (Feb 19, 2015)

It seems to be an unfixable side affect of utilizing the concept of money in large human societies.


----------



## Exquisitor (Sep 15, 2015)

I think poverty is something that any compassionate person has to be ready to approach with thorough reasoning and some knowledge of economics, if they want to make the situation better.

I know a lot of people have a really confused idea of how poverty works, or believe that rising wealth disparity is the same thing as rising poverty, which is demonstrably not true in countries like the US where the real average income and spending power of the poorest households has remained stable with slight improvement over the last several decades, while extreme poverty worldwide has been in decline for the same period.

The disturbing thing to me is that so many people believe that people suffering this kind of deprivation is wrong, and yet so few have a realistic idea of why it comes about and how to address it long-term. So many people with honestly good intentions think the world can be made a better place by just redistributing money, without looking at the underlying reasons that money ends up concentrated in certain areas, or understanding how people become unable to earn money for themselves.

I think the main thing that helps is a sustainable, educated population afforded the means of becoming part of a functioning economy; making sure people have the skills and knowledge they need to participate in a market rather than having able-bodied people begging for charity. Look at how people have risen out of poverty and what factors they had in common (especially compared to populations which have remained in desperate squalor or dependent on outside intervention) and try to recreate those conditions. It's amazing to me how much it comes down to education and opportunities for free enterprise, and how transformative those kinds of interventions can be.

I have a lot of hope for reducing and eventually eradicating poverty, as long as people are able to combine compassion and reason.


----------



## mOchO (Mar 3, 2011)

I see poverty as a terrible waste. Waste of human potential on one side, and waste of resources futilely allocated on the other side.
@Exquisitor I agree it isn't as simple as redistributing resources. I also agree education is the best bet. But you can't expect institutional education to solve this problem. When you have generations of individuals who basically grew alone because their parents had to work on 2 or 3 jobs to get the needed resources to survive, then resource redistribution plays a huge role.


----------



## Pretender (Apr 27, 2016)

SilentNote said:


> Well said.
> 
> Most people don't understand that poverty and wealth are reciprocal terms. To be wealthy is the cause of poverty and vice versa. Often people would ask the question how do we eliminate poverty? The answer is to eliminate wealth.
> 
> The problem with the wealth / poverty dichotomy is that most confuse wealth and abundance. Wealth / poverty is a matter of _distribution_ of resources; whereas abundance is the presence of such resources. Most try to be wealthy to gain access to abundance. However, gaining wealth means that some other people will most definitely be poorer. Whereas gaining abundance without (monetary) wealth, simply increases the resource base for all.


From each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs, right comrade?

Good luck with eliminating poverty by making everyone poor.


----------



## Flamme et Citron (Aug 26, 2015)

This is a great summary. Peterson goes into more detail about the effects of low status in the dominance hierarchy on the brain in his lectures on his youtube channel, it's very interesting because it's not common knowledge at all.


----------



## Dogeater (Jan 28, 2017)

It can be freeing. Leaves you not many options.

I have at times fantasized about being homeless and how I would live. It can be an opportunity to show grace to the rich. 

A hungry belly is spiritually enlightening. In poverty, I could sustain periods of fasting much longer and be awakened and healed. With riches and comforts, I stop striving and worry about which good flavor I will consume. Poor, I can live with little and prioritize much.

It can be healthy -- especially when you choose it.

I have compassion for those who are in poverty though and don't embrace it. I would like to see higher investment in education to help kids shake off the lack of choices poverty prevents.


----------



## MizuPsi (Jan 5, 2014)

Poverty doesn't exist in America, save those unlawfully imprisoned or neglected. Even the homeless in America live better than most around the world.

That said, _relative_ poverty in America is usually due to poor skill sets or a bad mentality. They don't know how to better themselves and so stay where they are, or stick to the idea that the reason they are poor is because someone who is stronger than them *takes* all the money, and so stay where they are. Most of the 'poor' do not prioritize saving and instead buy what little enjoyment they can(t) afford--and that is almost always consumable or depreciating. I have never--until this year--been above the poverty line, but that is rapidly changing as I climb out after learning from those who actually make money.

Poverty's cause is not wealth. You don't create 5 poor people for every rich person you get, because wealth isn't a limited resource. If it was, you would never be able to explain the increase in living standards and wealth over the entire planet. Furthermore, it is seldom the poor that create the value that creates wealth. Those that do rise above the poor.

Next, being poor isn't that bad as long as you know how to live within your means--one of the missing skills or values in the skill set mentioned above. My family was below the poverty threshold, yet we never once hurt for anything. We didn't eat steak, but didn't need to, and had a lot of potatoes and home grown vegetables. Almost never store bought snacks, and I rarely got any toys or games but enjoyed the ones I had. My mom, when I still lived with her, spent heavily on... more recreational items. But we made it, and didn't often go hungry even with much of the government checks in my mom's case going to drugs. My grandparents (with whom I lived later) still invested a little and saved heavily. 
Related to quality of life, I speak to people who go on mission trips all over the world. And one of the things I hear often (aside from "I had no idea what poverty was" or "I will never complain again") is how surprised these individuals are that even the poorest of the world--those who don't have enough food, or little to no clothing, or are sick or oppressed by violence or government--the people still smile, and laugh, and play. All the time. It is always a very dangerous thing to make decisions based on an individual's perceived or projected quality of life like we do with children who will grow up in poverty or with a disability. It is all relative. 

Lastly, I have never seen someone rise out of poverty by being given something. Not long term at least. In fact, it almost always hurts them. Take some poor African community. Say some kind-hearted Americans (for we are the worlds leaders in charity by far) donates a bunch of food or clothing to this community. Yay! Crisis averted and these people's lives are better. 

Except they aren't. The ones who made clothes had to close their business or starved because nobody is going to buy clothes when you can get better more colourful clothes for free. 
Or the one's who sold eggs no longer do so and ate their chickens because there was no need for eggs with all the free food. This happens all the time, where well-meaning but misguided groups from wealthy countries devastate a regions economy or prevent an economy from growing. When it doesn't--say when a community has no idea what farming is or how to do it (which is pretty common), they still don't know how to do so when the food stops coming but they are now entirely dependent on the charity. Instead, it is far better for groups to go in and teach the communities different trades and then partner with their business to help sustain that community and grow an economy.

This principle applies to America too, though with less catastrophic consequences. Give individuals money and they never learn how to really make it unless they break the cycle and educate themselves.


----------



## DualGnosis (Apr 6, 2013)

Poverty sucks.

That doesn't mean we should tax everyone else to equalize the poverty. It means that a certain segment of the population requires some assistance. The trick is not to create welfare dependency, but self-sufficiency. 

The problem is that not everyone can or wants to be self-sufficient, those are the people we can't help. But the ones that we can help are the ones who will get out of poverty.


----------



## Ermenegildo (Feb 25, 2014)

If life in poverty is perceived as unattractive shortening that life should be taken into consideration, and the minimum a society should do for the poor is facilitating their access to efficient poisons.


----------



## Epitomity (Nov 13, 2012)

MizuPsi said:


> Poverty's cause is not wealth. You don't create 5 poor people for every rich person you get, because wealth isn't a limited resource. If it was, you would never be able to explain the increase in living standards and wealth over the entire planet.


The increase in living standards is caused by STEM advances, not by unlimited resources or wealth as you call it. For every rich person there are less resources for the rest. What happens when the top 20% holds 80% of the resources and the next 20% holds another 10%?










Poverty is what.


----------



## Statecraft Demystifier (Dec 12, 2016)

Poverty is not an issue of utmost importance and wanes to monetary and foreign policy. Fixing those would do wonders for poverty levels, but there will always be moochers.

I don't see homeless people in the rural areas of North Idaho. Because they'd be dead in three days without water or sooner due to biting wind or biting predators. So they either die or find their way to a town or city. Guess which happens more often.

Lesson 1: Poverty is not to be issued directly, because that leads to government market intervention, which just raises taxes through taxation or inflation.
Lesson 2: If people can survive for free, they will. Easiest place to do that is cities, where ironically, the most business is.


----------



## Statecraft Demystifier (Dec 12, 2016)

Epitomity said:


> The increase in living standards is caused by STEM advances, not by unlimited resources or wealth as you call it. For every rich person there are less resources for the rest. What happens when the top 20% holds 80% of the resources and the next 20% holds another 10%?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Macroeconomics is a pseudoscience meant for monarchs and communists in disguise. It has improved nothing or lead to any rich economic understanding besides that which covertly destroys economies through market intervention and central banking. The microeconomics of the Enlightenment Age, however, spawned the Industrial Age from which all environmental negatives would have been long-gone if not the the money-grabbing intervention of Al Gore and legal tender laws and the like.

No please, give me more sociological statistics and economic "models."


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Statecraft Demystifier said:


> No please, give me more sociological statistics and economic "models."


So you don't have an actual argument against him, then.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Epitomity said:


> Please post your thoughts and feel free to check out the other threads I've posted in the other temperament subforums in which I ask the same question:
> 
> SJ SP NT NF


It's a solvable problem.

Also, let people decide for them selves if they are poor or not.

Poverty needs to be solved by development of the country where it occurs. I don't think it's a problem to help the poor by giving them help, but that's not me. There are other types that prefer to focus on that.


When you talk about poor people in rich countries,.... like people living in the streets,..... I think poverty needs to be devided into seperate types of poverty.

One type is that you´re poor because you live in a place where without education you can't make enough money to have a reasonable life or because the country is so undevelopped there simply aren't enough jobs available that pay decent salaries.

Another type of poverty is those that live in the streets and that are somehow not able to live a normal life. The only solution for that, if it happens in like a first world country, is to first accept that no matter what you do, they'll end up right back in the street because they´re simply not able to survive in the socially accepted way. But society should still try to help them. These people often need mental help. But others just need a bit of help to get them selves back on their feet again, and they´re fine.

In the end, development of third world countries is required and a reasonable amount of social laws in any country will help to keep a lot of people of the streets.


----------



## Statecraft Demystifier (Dec 12, 2016)

Shiver said:


> So you don't have an actual argument against him, then.


Not if he doesn't perceive one. I'm surprised you didn't.

By discrediting macroeconomics altogether it discredits STEM. Resources are defined by how we use them, and that changes all the time. Programs and concepts like STEM redistribute resources from businesses which are doing well, to something that would theoretically accelerate "economic growth," called the Department of Education.

I almost just threw up in my mouth.

*ahem* anyway I hope that clears things up.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Statecraft Demystifier said:


> Not if he doesn't perceive one. I'm surprised you didn't.


I saw a sort of tinfoil hat rant but I meant like, an actual argument. You two carry on, I suppose.


----------



## Statecraft Demystifier (Dec 12, 2016)

Shiver said:


> I saw a sort of tinfoil hat rant but I meant like, an actual argument. You two carry on, I suppose.


Haha, I suppose it could be seen that way. Happens all the time to those who haven't established the connection between 1770's U.S. politics and its 21st century politics. Most people think they're different, but fundamentally, they're not. It's all about centralization and where and when it happens. Poverty is one of the greatest topics that leads to pro-government sentiment (leading to centralization), through the means of macroeconomic models.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Statecraft Demystifier said:


> Happens all the time to those who haven't established the connection between 1770's U.S. politics and its 21st century politics.


Calling others ignorant isn't a stand-in for a stable argument...all you're proving is that you feel the need to underhandedly insult people who don't immediately agree...

I'd say demonstrate the connection and all following points which lead up to your disagreement of that economic theory. Makes for a better read.


----------



## Messenian (Jan 22, 2017)

I've been poor and I 've also been very well off in my life so far. I think, no, I know, that poverty is something that can happen to any of us. Like most things in life, chance plays a very big role in its occurrence. I think that if people realised just how close to financial ruin and abject poverty they all stand, every single day of their lives, they would make a far greater effort to share and help others when they can. Poverty, however, is not who you are. It says nothing about your personality, your abilities, your values, your dreams. It's just something that happens to you.


----------



## Statecraft Demystifier (Dec 12, 2016)

Shiver said:


> Calling others ignorant isn't a stand-in for a stable argument...all you're proving is that you feel the need to underhandedly insult people who don't immediately agree...


All that's true, but not connected to anything I've said. Not only did you not give any counter-argument yourself, I also didn't call you ignorant. I suggested that you might be, so it's interesting you went right for my throat. You're either sensitive or have strong morals.

So far I've proven to continue debate but you have offered me none. Not only did you call my first debate point a "sort of tinfoil hat rant" but then you dismissed it as not even worthy of debate, yet replied anyway. I wonder who should feel more insulted.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Statecraft Demystifier said:


> All that's true, but not connected to anything I've said. Not only did you not give any counter-argument yourself,


There's no argument that I should be countering. That's exactly the problem, and what I've been saying. All you really did is offer a crazy sounding rant in opposition to someone's chart, but you didn't actually prove that the claims you made regarding macroeconomics are correct.



> I also didn't call you ignorant. I suggested that you might be, so it's interesting you went right for my throat. You're either sensitive or have strong morals.


It's pretty obvious in what you said - anyone who doesn't immediately agree with your argument must not have made the connection in your mind...but whether that connection is valid one is yet to be demonstrated. This is actually a more gentle approach, as far as my interactions go.



> So far I've proven to continue debate but you have offered me none.


See above. You haven't actually offered any valid arguments for debate. That's the problem, lol



> Not only did you call my first debate point a "sort of tinfoil hat rant"


Yeah. You know, because that's exactly what it sounds like?



> but then you dismissed it as not even worthy of debate, yet replied anyway.


I replied to point out that you didn't support what you said - you just assume it's correct and speak as though everyone should take it as such.



> I wonder who should feel more insulted.


I don't really care on this. Overall I'm kind of disappointed in this forum, though. Everyone wants to give their opinion but one rarely sees it supported...


----------



## Epitomity (Nov 13, 2012)

Statecraft Demystifier said:


> Macroeconomics is a pseudoscience meant for monarchs and communists in disguise. It has improved nothing or lead to any rich economic understanding besides that which covertly destroys economies through market intervention and central banking.


So says every extreme right-winger. What makes you more convincing than the others?



> The microeconomics of the Enlightenment Age, however, spawned the *Industrial Age from which all environmental negatives would have been long-gone* if not the the money-grabbing intervention of Al Gore and legal tender laws and the like.


Could you elaborate on the bolded part?



> No please, give me more sociological statistics and economic "models."


The latest one says the top 1% holds a little less than 50%.


----------



## Statecraft Demystifier (Dec 12, 2016)

Shiver said:


> There's no argument that I should be countering. That's exactly the problem, and what I've been saying. All you really did is offer a crazy sounding rant in opposition to someone's chart, but you didn't actually prove that the claims you made regarding macroeconomics are correct.


I get it. You want empirical data. This isn't about empirical data. This is about what we think of poverty. There was no mention of requiring peer-reviewed scientific validation. Is that really the standard this forum holds itself to? I don't think so. Arguments or debates can be speculative in nature, you know. That's often how interesting conversations get started. I'll try one more time.

The Champagne Glass - What does it show? A model of the distribution of wealth right? What does it mean? What conclusions are we supposed to derive from that data? At face value it seems wrong that so few can have so much wealth. It's an emotional appeal, which drives anti-capitalist sentiment. It confuses corporatism with capitalism. This link states that the balance of wealth is precarious. 

I suppose we first need to define what wealth is. Well that depends on what monetary system we're using. With the Federal Reserve System, wealth means power derived from net worth, with money being far more valuable than liquidity. And since wealth, or power, is distributed through supply and demand, and the only time that changes is through federal intervention, we need as citizens to decide how much intervention we want. IMO, we have way too much. Remember the U.S. is not capitalist, and hasn't been since pre-1913. That's when we became a corporatist country, through the use of the corporate Federal Reserve System, which is not federal, or a reserve. Propaganda 101. It was sold to Congress as an "elastic" currency which would theoretically make management of the economy easier. Ever since its inception we've been on the verge of hyperinflation, especially since the 70's if you research money supplies, we've been in a permanent economic recession. 

The fact that you need proof for the fallacies of macroeconomics is mind-numbing. I mean I might be paranoid and figuratively wearing a tinfoil hat but at least I don't put blind faith in today's supposed economic "experts."


----------



## Statecraft Demystifier (Dec 12, 2016)

Epitomity said:


> So says every extreme right-winger. What makes you more convincing than the others?


No. Extreme right-wingers are Reaganomists, who love downing government and taxes but then want gigantic boosts to military and interventionist foreign policies and then secretly tax us through inflation. The Myths of Reaganomics I'm not quite _that_ stupid.



> Could you elaborate on the bolded part?


People link the Industrial Revolution to today's environmental problems and capitalism, and therefore link capitalism to environmental problems. These people don't understand that environmental problems themselves create very strong market demands, which, if met properly, and not through government stupidity, would have been long gone by now. For example, internal combustion engines, and fossil fuels in general would be an energy source of the past by now if not for the government. 



> The latest one says the top 1% holds a little less than 50%.


Yeah? What do you expect by a country ran by the currency monopoly known as The Federal Reserve? People confuse the U.S. with capitalism all the time. Since 1913 it's been crony-capitalism or corporatism.

It definitely doesn't justify federal intervention, which would just lead to more inflation, and make everyone less wealthy across the board. No point not getting to the root of the problem, the FRS: Origins of the Federal Reserve


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

I do generally want hard evidence and solid arguments, yes. Speculation doesn't interest me, only the data and validation you mentioned. I don't have the patience for "interesting conversations" or opinions rooted in political agenda. This applies to either side.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

Epitomity said:


> So says every extreme right-winger. What makes you more convincing than the others?


I hope this helps:

1) See what interventionist monetary policy does to people's savings (1913 - establishment of FED):









2) Stagflation


Wikipedia said:


> In economics, stagflation, a portmanteau of stagnation and inflation, is a situation in which the inflation rate is high, the economic growth rate slows, and unemployment remains steadily high. It raises a dilemma for economic policy, since actions designed to lower inflation may exacerbate unemployment, and vice versa.
> ...
> Up to the 1960s, many Keynesian economists ignored the possibility of stagflation, because historical experience suggested that high unemployment was typically associated with low inflation, and vice versa (this relationship is called the Phillips curve)...
> 
> ...


3) Business Cycle


Wikipedia said:


> The Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT) is an economic theory developed by the Austrian School of economics about how business cycles occur. The theory views business cycles as the consequence of excessive growth in bank credit, due to artificially low interest rates set by a central bank or fractional reserve banks.[1] The Austrian business cycle theory originated in the work of Austrian School economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Hayek won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1974 (shared with Gunnar Myrdal) in part for his work on this theory.[2][3]
> 
> Proponents believe that a sustained period of low interest rates and excessive credit creation result in a volatile and unstable imbalance between saving and investment.[4] According to the theory, the business cycle unfolds in the following way: low interest rates tend to stimulate borrowing from the banking system. This leads to an increase in capital spending funded by newly issued bank credit. Proponents hold that a credit-sourced boom results in widespread malinvestment. A correction or "credit crunch" – commonly called a "recession" or "bust" – occurs when the credit creation has run its course. Then the money supply contracts (or its growth slows) causing a curative recession and eventually allowing resources to be reallocated back towards their former uses.


EDIT:
More entertaining method of delivery:


----------



## Epitomity (Nov 13, 2012)

Statecraft Demystifier said:


> No. Extreme right-wingers are Reaganomists, who love downing government and taxes but then want gigantic boosts to military and interventionist foreign policies and then secretly tax us through inflation. The Myths of Reaganomics I'm not quite _that_ stupid.


The question still stands, what makes your position more convincing than other ones?



> People link the Industrial Revolution to today's environmental problems and capitalism, and therefore link capitalism to environmental problems. These people don't understand that environmental problems themselves create very strong market demands, which, if met properly, and not through government stupidity, would have been long gone by now. For example, internal combustion engines, and fossil fuels in general would be an energy source of the past by now if not for the government.


Do elaborate on how strong the market demands are, how they would have been met were it not for "government stupidity", and how fossil fuels would be a thing of the past now "if not for the government".



> Yeah? What do you expect by a country ran by the currency monopoly known as The Federal Reserve? People confuse the U.S. with capitalism all the time. Since 1913 it's been crony-capitalism or corporatism.
> 
> It definitely doesn't justify federal intervention, which would just lead to more inflation, and make everyone less wealthy across the board. No point not getting to the root of the problem, the FRS: Origins of the Federal Reserve


Explain how unfettered capitalism prevents the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few.


----------



## Statecraft Demystifier (Dec 12, 2016)

Epitomity said:


> The question still stands, what makes your position more convincing than other ones?
> 
> Do elaborate on how strong the market demands are, how they would have been met were it not for "government stupidity", and how fossil fuels would be a thing of the past now "if not for the government".


See @SilverFalcon's post. It'd take a long time to explain austrian economics here since a mere summary typically doesn't suit. I'm not being lazy. I'd advise googling it. Specifically Austrian Business Cycle Theory, if you are truly curious.



> Explain how unfettered capitalism prevents the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few.


It doesn't. There will always be those with more power than others. Capitalism simply allows for the most fluidity between economic classes, since trade, and therefore _supply and demand_ is unfettered.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

Epitomity said:


> Explain how unfettered capitalism prevents the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few.


Unfettered capitalism does not prevent accumulation of wealth in hands of anyone. But what makes you so (negatively) focused on those few that make more?

Fettered capitalism allows for accumulation of wealth in hands of legal plunderers.













No capitalism in most cases leads lack of wealth at all. So it depends if you prefer how you look at relative versus absolute poverty.


----------

