Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

Few seem to know or care that the government is using the pandemic as an excuse to shovel trillions into the pockets of the super-duper uber-rich.

Maybe it will be considered as a solution. But it isn't one. Before the government starts issuing money, it has to stop private banks from doing so, or the result will just be inflation. But if private banks can't issue money, other privileges, especially landowner privilege, will become even more egregious and entrenched.

Once you see how land is the center of it all, you can't unsee it. Geoists call it "seeing the cat."

 

[I'm having the same problem with you that bringiton is having with me....except I think the reality of entrenched disadvantage is easier to explain than the reality of privilege].

You have no conception of the consequences of neoliberal orthodoxy on individuals. Therefore you have no conception of the role of government - which mandates the economic system under which we all operate - in eliminating entrenched systemic poverty.

Listen carefully: neoliberalism mandates a certain level of unemployment. Study the neoliberal NAIRU concept.

Therefore logic says some people cannot survive by their own efforts in such a system. It's like a game of musical chairs: when the 'music stops' (according to the NAIRU), someone WILL be expelled from the game.

 

But it does provide land, and people have to pay a landowner for land as well as paying a builder for buildings. You know this.

 

Or more succinctly, "Shut up and get back on the treadmill."

 

Nature "provides" nothing. Nature just exists.

 

It's the environment we live in.

I've already proved that is nonsense. When people are forced to carry parasites on their backs, it is NOT THEIR FAULT if they are not strong enough to keep up on the treadmill. That fact is not altered in any way by the existence of other people who ARE strong enough to run the treadmill, and even to get ahead of their fellows, while carrying parasites on their backs.

Personality is largely genetic.

It's true that most people -- especially most men -- should not have kids: they do not have the personal qualities to be good parents. But it is definitely everyone's right to have kids, assuming they can find a fertile consenting partner.

Garbage. See above. Personality is largely genetic.

Supererogatory nonsense.

Houses can only be bought for $10K in places where the land value is low because there is no access to economic opportunity and/or there is high crime, pollution, etc.

Nope. Most jurisdictions cut your welfare off if you have any significant savings.

Read Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America by Barbara Ehrenreich, and try to at least minimally inform yourself.

It's true many poor people waste money, have poor impulse control, etc. But they did not choose to have those character flaws. They just don't have it in them to be the Randian ubermenschen you blame them for not being.

 

Obviously that is false. Nature by definition provides the entire physical universe apart from people and the products of their labor.

 

Even you can be correct on occasion.

In the United States, 400 years of systematic oppression has created the zeitgeist of African American culture. What we are seeing now is just a small 'tear'.

This issue has been created by and sustained by this government "democracy". Democracy is simply oppression by and the tyranny of the majority.

The answer is not within government. Every major problem created within society today has been created by government.

In the end, there is no difference between Trump's government, Obama's government, Stalin's government, a government that that is the administrator of land or a government that follows the tennent of Neo-Chartaliam (or MMT as you like to call it). The end is the same.

Oppression
Slavery
Corruption

No matter the government it will share these traits, because government is ran by men and men are corrupt. To allow men to focus power to the point where the monopolize it (monopolies can only be created with the assistance of government btw) is insane. No single individual inhin history has been as an efficient killer or slave master as men who run government.

No matter what you think orwor bringiton thinks, your grandiose scheme of government will end no differently than all the others have.

We need to learn how to live without. Since fuedalism we've had the Age of. Enlightenment. Apart from some nice words on some papers, government has done absolutely nothing to honor that enlightenment. In society, we have not taught it, studies it and made is part of our culture. If we did, people would understand their rights, and be much more sensitive to the rights of others. The few that aren't would either quickly learn, like a child that touches a stove top, or could be dealt with using private, effective means.

I don't follow the right. They're idiots. I did see Mattis said something though. I didn't read it because he's a ****ing murderer.

Then again, we are probably going to have Biden as President. I don't follow the left for the same reason- they're idiots as well.

 

Problem: someone is always ready to usurp, and claim for himself, the power of a King.

Rule of law is the only realistic option.

It's the human condition.

 

It's absurd and disingenuous to claim the majority are the source of the oppression and tyranny that serve the richest 1% at the expense of the majority.

That is nothing but puerile, "Meeza hatesa gubmint!" twaddle. If you think government is the problem with society, try a society with no government.

That is absurd nonsense contrary to all historical fact. While there is never a shortage of greedy, evil people who see government as a tool they can use to take from others, a tool is not to blame for its misuse by the evil.

Wrong again. Some governments have very low levels of corruption because their officials are so well paid that they are not tempted by corruption. Singapore has one of the least corrupt governments on the planet, and its officials are not coincidentally the highest paid. There is a strong inverse relationship between the wages of government officials relative to the median income and the level of corruption observed in society. Unfortunately, brainless, anti-democratic sloganeering like yours often leads to government officials being absurdly underpaid relative to private employees that bear similar levels of responsibility. When that happens, the people who seek those highly responsible government jobs have to be either selfless saints committed to public service (not many of those around), seekers after status and power, or aspiring crooks and grafters.

Power is control of things that are important to others. Government does not even attempt to monopolize power; it tries to monopolize violence in order to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to be free of violence. Unfortunately, violence can ultimately only be managed by violence. There is no way around that. But the governments of advanced democracies other than the USA seem to be able to reduce violence in society while not resorting to it very often. In the last 30 years, the US government has inflicted more violence on the people of other countries than all other governments combined. That may be related to the frequency with which it inflicts violence on its own people, such as by forcibly confining a substantial fraction of them -- especially racial minorities -- to steel cages on quite arbitrary pretexts, and its notable lack of success in reducing the violence its civilian population inflicts on each other.

False. Google "natural monopoly" and start reading.

Because without government, the world's population would have remained orders of magnitude smaller.

But that's just more false, absurd, ahistorical, and disingenuous garbage from you. The Swiss government has ended no differently than the Soviet government?? Really?? REALLY????? Singapore's government has ended no differently than Syria's, Sweden's no differently than Somalia's? REALLY???? Such claims are nothing but disingenuous, despicable, evil propaganda intended to prevent readers from thinking clearly about government, and how it can be reformed to better serve the interests of the people rather than just the plutocrats.

Right: we need to learn how to live without brain-dead "Meeza hatesa gubmint!" nonsense like yours.

Maybe if you had ever visited another country you would know something about them.

I have been instructing you in exactly that. But you are unfortunately not a very good student because you have decided that the preservation of your false and evil beliefs is more important than learning the truth.

Strange fruit...?

The right is elitist. It appeals to folks who are not in the elite, but erroneously believe they are as long as there is some group they consider their inferiors.

The left is egalitarian. It appeals to folks who resent (because they secretly believe they are inferior to) their social, economic, moral, and intellectual superiors.

 

What do you want, an end to First World poverty, or loud voices in lieu of action?

 

1) Do you think Third World migrants who make good in the First World sit around worrying about that crap? No, they don't. It never enters their heads to look for reasons to do nothing, or even just to be angry. They carry on finding ways to make a living, exploiting the slightest opportunity. There's always something wrong in the system .. every system. It's on us as individuals to find a work around.

2) Don't be ridiculous, of course people can survive by their own efforts. Very worst case scenario they can live in a tent, catch fish, and forage for edible plants. We live in relatively clean nations, with plenty of food readily available. But there are PLENTY of options long before we get to that (not that that would be a bad life). Be real, when you discuss this. Talk about the realities and practicalities, because that's all survival is. Survival has nothing to do with preferences, or comfort.

 

1) The 'community' is not responsible for your children, YOU are.
2) And yet the majority of humanity (including the supermajority who are poorer than you) 'carry' multiple generations. If you can't do it, that's a private and personal issue, nothing to do with economics or politics.
3) Personality may be genetic, but CHARACTER is built. And it's character which determines how responsible and self-disciplined you'll be, not personality. Character is the substance, personality is the flavour.
4) A significant part of being responsible is making sound choices in our relationships. Pretty ****ing obvious, I would have thought.
5) Exactly. So your refusal to accept that as a way out because folk might not like it, reveals that you're not actually interested in solving poverty at all. You're merely interested in feting First Worlders who don't want to get their hands dirty. Try to grasp how obscenely offensive that sounds to someone who is genuinely poor, and would give anything to own a house, no matter where it is.
6) So hide your money under a mattress. Plenty of ways to skin a cat.
7) No they didn't choose those character flaws, their parents did. See above my 1) answer.

 

Incorrect.

Government coalesces more power than any single king could hope to.

 

The 3rd world migrants who make it in the 1st world are the most able from their own countries. Like I said, if you really want to eliminate - especially black - disadvantage, you have to guarantee above-poverty participation for all.

Neoliberal orthodoxy with its built in NAIRU concept guarantees unemployment among the least able. That's just fact, not "crap"

{Discussion on abc news radio today: politician says we must "love one another more" to avoid the circumstances leading up to the present worldwide protests and riots, but when asked how do you actually eliminate black poverty, he said "I don't know what the solution is"!!!!! He actually said it.

So...if we "love one-another more", fewer black people will be locked up in prison, and fewer of them will die prematurely from diabetes and other life-style illnesses!!!..... Pathetic. That politician should be sacked immediately, not for being incompetent, but for being a waste of space.

Oh boy....see the irony there....black people were doing exactly that before they were forced (by invasion of their home lands) to engage forevermore the 'advancing technology ladder' (such 'advance' being for good and for evil).

A person of working age cannot stay out of poverty, in a modern post industrial state without employment, secure housing and an internet connection.

 

Not sure who this was directed to, but I'd like to add a little of my own spice to your pepper.

True,.I'm a first worlder, as you put it, but I grew up poor. I mean Appalachian poor.

I didn't taste been until I was 12 or 13. Why? We killed every meat we ate. Deer, rabbit, squirrel, fish, turtle, frog legs was all the bounty. Dad got me my first real gun, a single shot bolt action .22, at age 7.

We also had a garden. We canned 1000 quarts of of food a year from it. It was an acre.

The food made hate canned veggies.

My Dad worked, made $7.50 / hour for a fertilizer company. He knew all the farmers, they'd let us hunt.

More importantly, we'd clear cut fence line and take the wood to heat our house after is seasoned. We cut so much we'd have 100+ cords on hand at any given time. We sell it to neighbors.

Not an easy life but no help from the government either.

I tell you this just to confirm: when idiots from the first world start talking about poverty, they really have no idea what they are talking about.

 

Hold it right there.
1. You had a family member with steady employment.
2. You had a garden to grow food.
3. You lived in an area where you could catch meat.

No more need be said.

 

Thanks TitS ( )

A very good early life, for you. I grew up in poverty also, though it was mostly urban. We had no idea we were poor. My folks were hippies, so grew a lot of food in the backyard, and made yogurt etc. Our holidays were camping, kayaking, sailing, etc. We fished and learned how to find edible plants. It was a far richer life than many wealthy people lived, actually. No help from Govt for us, either.

 

We used to pick raspberries, wild strawberries and wild green apples. We had a big, mature pear tree too from the earliest I could remember. Only one I seen in here Ohio. We were well under the poverty line, even back then. It didn't matter. Like you said, we didn't know we were poor, at least until middle school when I was teased about my clothing. Rhubarb patch- mom canned strawberry rhubarb jam.

Among my chores was splitting wood with a 12 lb mall for your two wood burning stoves. Made me a strong kid. We'd spend time as a family clear cutting in the winter, so Dad's old Ford pickup wouldn't sink in the mud. Dad ran the chainsaw and mom and my little sister and I would drag brush and load the truck.

I think it is that work ethic that allowed me to climb out of the ranks of poverty. LOL, my first job as an adult was making $3.16 / hour as a part time dish washer.

Yeah it was a good life but not easy, but I wouldn't wish it on any kid tbh. It made life as a teenager awkward. One things for sure- if I ever needed to grow food or butcher my own meat to survive, I sure could.

 

No. That is false. You are factually wrong. The community is responsible for the economic, social, and to a large extent physical environment in which I have to raise my children. Furthermore, a community that does not take that responsibility seriously is a community without a future. A major reason our species has outcompeted all rivals is our capacity to reconcile the evolutionary implications of our genetic individuality with the impact on it of the competitive position of the communities of which we are members. How easily and well we are able to raise our children will have a large effect on the future competitiveness of our communities, and thus our own as well as our fellow citizens' reproductive success.

Look at the example of China. For thousands of years, Chinese parents and families did their best, taking responsibility for raising and educating their own children, not getting any significant help from the community, just as you advocate. Literacy stayed low because learning to read Chinese takes years of intensive study, and few could afford it. Result? China consequently remained a poor, weak, backward country that was unable to defend itself against the technologically and economically superior West. Then, just 70 years ago, the communists took power, and instead of loading all the responsibility for raising and educating children on their own families, the community provided public education, and made sure all children had enough to eat, instead of the children of the privileged having too much and the majority of children not enough. Result? Literacy went from 20% to 90% in a single generation, and once it abandoned socialism, China achieved in 40 years what took the West 200 years, becoming the world's leading economy.

Everywhere that nations follow your prescription of demanding that families bear all the responsibility for raising and educating their children, we see poverty, inequality, ignorance, backwardness, and societal stagnation and weakness. Now, it is true that community provision of education and other help for parents is not a sufficient condition for societal advance, but history shows it is a necessary one.

No they don't. You are just makin' $#!+ up again. What the supermajority of humanity has to carry is the rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic elite.

No, that is just more of your evil, despicable, disingenuous, blame-the-victim filth. If half my earnings are legally stolen from me by force and given to rich, greedy, privileged parasites in return for nothing, so that raising and educating my children becomes an economic burden I am unable to bear, that is not a private issue, nor is it my fault. It is a political and economic issue, and the fault of evil, lying liars who rationalize privilege, justify injustice, and excuse evil by blaming the victims for what rich, greedy, privileged parasites do to them.

No, you merely prove -- again -- that you do not know what you are talking about. Do a little reading in psychology, and try to at least minimally inform yourself of the scientific literature on personality development and the determinants of life outcomes.

Flat false. Do some reading in developmental psychology.

It's still supererogatory, blame-the-victim garbage. There aren't enough Randian ubermenschen to go around, haven't you noticed?

No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. It has nothing to do with whether they "like" it. They don't have a choice. Their rights to liberty have been forcibly stripped from them without their consent or just compensation, and given to the privileged as their private property. So they have to pay rich, greedy, privileged parasites full market value just for permission to access economic opportunity. It's Catch-22: they can only afford to buy a house in an area where they don't have access to sufficient economic opportunity to earn the money to buy it; but if they want access to economic opportunity to earn more money, they have to give what they earn to rich, greedy, privileged parasites just for permission to do so, and will consequently never be able to save enough to buy a house there.

You are very eager to tell the victims of privilege to just shut up and get back on the treadmill. But I notice you never utter a word of protest against the privileged, who ride up at their leisure on the escalator the treadmill powers. Solving poverty will not be accomplished by your method of blaming the victims for having been robbed of their rights, sorry.

That is absurd, disingenuous garbage unrelated to anything I have said.

Why are they so poor, hmmmmm? Why are they so desperate that they would give anything to own a house, no matter where?

"When I fed the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked why the poor had no food, they called me a communist." -- Dom Helder Camara

So you are counseling welfare fraud as the way out of poverty.

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...

So, just more of the same evil, disingenuous, blame-the-victim filth. Thought so.

 

There won't be any end to First World or any other poverty without loud voices that first correctly identify the cause of that poverty. That would not be your voice, obviously.

 

I was going to write, "you're a dick", but i decided not to.

 

crank, your "first worlder" garbage is some of the most vile and repulsive content on this forum. How can you write it so often without seeing how disgusting it is?

As if as long as there are people worse off than you, who are suffering more vicious and larger violations, you should just shut up and stop complaining. That seems to be the premise it's based on.

Does only the one person on this entire planet who is the worst off have any grounds for complaint at all??? Because that's what that premise would lead to.

 

There should only be one tax bracket and the rate should be higher than 100%. If anyone wants to work, when the government will support them, they should have to pay to do so.

 

So, because there are civilizations where people's rights are violated even more than in the western world, people in the western world should just shut up.

Should we stagnate forever and not seek further improvement of the human condition (especially with regards to people's rights)???????????????????

I personally think that while it may be physically impossible to reach a theoretical ideal, we should always strive to get closer to it. It's never over.

Your low standards "first worlder" garbage should take up no space in the mind of a good, moral person, other than the space needed to scoff at it and refute it.