Home | Community | Message Board


Crestline Sales - MycoPath
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
Anonymous

a question
    #3628908 - 01/14/05 05:08 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

let's say that everyone in the country became wealthier. i don't mean that people had more money. i mean they had more purchasing power. everyone, from all walks of life, was more able to afford the things they need and want.

however, the gap between rich and poor widened. there was greater stratification of wealth.

do you believe that this would be a good thing or a bad thing? why?

(note to those who may be following the discussion on protectionism vs free trade: i'm not trying to make a particular point in this thread relevent to that one. this is a completely different line of inquiry).


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSWEDEN
Miracle of Science

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 2,577
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months
Re: a question [Re: ]
    #3629206 - 01/14/05 06:29 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

There would be no poor class in this situation.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezahudulallah
Sexual Heretic

Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 10,579
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
Re: a question [Re: ]
    #3629238 - 01/14/05 06:40 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

What are you talking about?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 3 months, 19 days
Re: a question [Re: ]
    #3629243 - 01/14/05 06:42 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

If the purchasing power went up and stayed up, the rich and the poor would be better off.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: a question [Re: SWEDEN]
    #3629290 - 01/14/05 06:59 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

SWEDEN said:
There would be no poor class in this situation.



Poor is really a relative term. Compare the poor today with the average person in Europe in the 1500s. Suddenly they don't seem so poor do they?


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSWEDEN
Miracle of Science

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 2,577
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months
Re: a question [Re: z@z.com]
    #3629397 - 01/14/05 07:33 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Depends on who you mean by poor... certainly there are places in the world where the poor exist in similar conditions to those of the Middle Ages.


--------------------


Edited by SWEDEN (01/14/05 07:34 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: a question [Re: SWEDEN]
    #3629627 - 01/14/05 08:50 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

phrase it in whatever terms you want. everyone is richer but the gap between richest and poorest increases. good or bad?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: a question [Re: ]
    #3629777 - 01/15/05 02:32 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Well, duh!

Good, of course.


pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedaimyo
Monticello

Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 7,751
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
Re: a question [Re: ]
    #3630242 - 01/15/05 07:36 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

On an individual level it depends on if you're rich or poor.

For society in general it could be bad. The rich might neglect and/or abuse the poor. The poor may get jealous, resentful, or possibly violent.

For our species it may be good. As the poor get poorer they'll die off, thus lowering the population. With the lower population comes less environmental damage(possibly negated by the rich folks leisurely activities).

This is assuming the rich are a mean-spirited minority in relation to the population at large.


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePaou
Seeker

Registered: 09/23/04
Posts: 376
Loc: Transcendence
Re: a question [Re: daimyo]
    #3630346 - 01/15/05 09:41 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

daimyo said:
On an individual level it depends on if you're rich or poor.

For society in general it could be bad. The rich might neglect and/or abuse the poor. The poor may get jealous, resentful, or possibly violent.

For our species it may be good. As the poor get poorer they'll die off, thus lowering the population. With the lower population comes less environmental damage(possibly negated by the rich folks leisurely activities).

This is assuming the rich are a mean-spirited minority in relation to the population at large.



Uh...I think you missed the point entirely.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: a question [Re: ]
    #3630405 - 01/15/05 10:36 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

its not a question of whether its a bad thing, its a question of whether there is a feasible better option, such as using taxes towards providing educational/job training opportunities for the poor since the rich are benefitting from the capitalist system so much.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
Re: a question [Re: Tao]
    #3630422 - 01/15/05 10:52 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

TaoTeChing said:
its not a question of whether its a bad thing, its a question of whether there is a feasible better option, such as using taxes towards providing educational/job training opportunities for the poor since the rich are benefitting from the capitalist system so much.




For some reason feasible and better were not the two first words to come to mind when you mentioned that option.

Although if America ever becomes a truly capitalist society and those programs are privately sponsored, i could support that. Programs like that in other countries have had remarkable success and would likely prove to share the same in an American laissez-faire capitalism.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: a question [Re: d33p]
    #3630431 - 01/15/05 10:59 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

For some reason feasible and better were not the two first words to come to mind when you mentioned that option.




for a conservative, by no means would i expect it to.

Quote:

Although if America ever becomes a truly capitalist society and those programs are privately sponsored, i could support that.




ive always believed that these would fall prey to typical collective action problems. i also find beliefs in reliance upon voluntary selfless behavior to be contradictory to the concept of adam smith's free market which is predicated on the assumption of self-interested individuals.

Quote:

Programs like that in other countries have had remarkable success and would likely prove to share the same in an American laissez-faire capitalism.





what are you referring to? NPOs?


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
Re: a question [Re: Tao]
    #3630450 - 01/15/05 11:17 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

TaoTeChing said:
ive always believed that these would fall prey to typical collective action problems. i also find beliefs in reliance upon voluntary selfless behavior to be contradictory to the concept of adam smith's free market which is predicated on the assumption of self-interested individuals.




Describe some of these typical collective problems. As well the beatuy of these programs is that it isn't selfless behavior, these handouts are profitable. Grameen Bank is one such fine paradigm which can act as a template for further programs like it. The loans are given out to groups of 5 people, and they all have to pay it off together, with little interest, or else they will be denied further credit. This gives them the incentive they need to succeed. They attend weekly seminars to monitor their progress and help them along the way. Methods of paying off the help given could varry when applied to a fully capitalistic America.

Quote:


what are you referring to? NPOs?




http://www.grameen-info.org Well this can probably paint a better picture of what is in action now than I.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: a question [Re: d33p]
    #3630463 - 01/15/05 11:26 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

GB while a great organization, relies on charitable donations. i should know, ive been to a seminar with a representative from it at my university and have donated to it.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGreat_Satan
prophet of God
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 953
Re: a question [Re: Tao]
    #3630471 - 01/15/05 11:33 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Their brains are fried.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 3 years, 6 months
Re: a question [Re: Tao]
    #3630484 - 01/15/05 11:38 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

TaoTeChing said:
GB while a great organization, relies on charitable donations. i should know, ive been to a seminar with a representative from it at my university and have donated to it.




And as i believe GB is a NPO. What i am talking about is similar to this except it provides a window of opportunity for profit to be made off of the success of the loans. And I'm just brainstorming here taoteching, im not trying to invent the end all profitable poor relief company. My idea is no more finalized than your socialist taxing plan.

So try to envision this working in a truly capitalistic America. It seems more than plausible to me. Express your concerns if you think otherwise.

Even you must admit that in the "what if" world if both of these plans worked perfectly that my suggestion is both morally and ethically superior as it does not rely on the principle of stealing people's hard earned(sometimes not, but so what) money.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: a question [Re: ]
    #3631294 - 01/15/05 03:47 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)


let's say that everyone in the country became wealthier. i don't mean that people had more money. i mean they had more purchasing power. everyone, from all walks of life, was more able to afford the things they need and want.

however, the gap between rich and poor widened. there was greater stratification of wealth.

If the affluency of a population goes up as a whole and there is a greater stratification of wealth, some things will become very cheap(food and general goods). The poor in this society would have a much higher standard of living than their ancestors ever dreamed of. However, things that are very finite and subject to competitive buying would become more difficult to obtain for the poor(land for example).


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedaimyo
Monticello

Registered: 05/13/04
Posts: 7,751
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
Re: a question [Re: Paou]
    #3631335 - 01/15/05 04:00 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Paou said:
Uh...I think you missed the point entirely.




The poster asked "do you believe that this would be a good thing or a bad thing? why?". There is no point to be missed. It is a question, and I answered it.
Please refrain from posting if you have nothing to add to the discussion.


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLe_Canard
Danger Man

Registered: 05/17/03
Posts: 93,266
Loc: Earthfarm 1 Flag
Re: a question [Re: ]
    #3631445 - 01/15/05 04:33 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

As I understand basic economics, I think it'd be a mixed bag. More buying power would logically increase demand and decrease supplies, causing prices to rise until a new and higher supply/price equilibrium is reached. The poor would lose any extra buying power they might have had as a result. The rich, of course, wouldn't be effected much, but they also would gradually lose the extra buying power as well. On the plus side, manufacturers would see an increase in orders, and would hire more people, lowering unemployment and introducing more money flow into the economy.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* "are the rich necessary??"...
( 1 2 3 all )
Annapurna1
2,238 44 09/19/07 09:05 PM
by zappaisgod
* Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 4,226 63 11/01/02 10:19 AM
by Innvertigo
* The United States is NOT Capitalist...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
trendalM 10,579 133 09/28/09 01:34 PM
by Phred
* help the rich...step on the poor, some more
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
carbonhoots 3,499 88 01/16/03 08:02 PM
by Xlea321
* Wealth Cap..."When the rich make too much money" carbonhoots 1,221 12 09/25/07 01:35 PM
by allreadyused
* capitalist pigs! (a good read) carbonhoots 677 3 04/14/02 12:00 AM
by nugsarenice
* question for anyone....
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Anonymous 4,824 87 02/24/04 09:24 AM
by GazzBut
* Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during war
( 1 2 all )
EchoVortex 2,379 39 03/26/03 11:09 PM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
819 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Zamnesia.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.06 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 16 queries.