Why is it always the poor peoples fault?

Excellent point


But that doesn't mean that we should stop trying.

Sorry. This is so true, I could not resist.

In truth it's not. The flaw ultimately lies in nature itself. There will always be a natural selection. Because of this there will always be competition. Because of this there will always be some people over achieving and some under achieving.

If tomorrow you took away everyone's money, and divided it up equally throughout the population, you would have a upper, lower, and middle class by the end of the weak.

This is our natural selection now. Instead of survival, it's money, and prosperity.

So, in the big picture, it's no one's fault. It's the world we live in. If we were to try and change it into something else, the change would be so drastic it would greatly alter everyone's life to the point where there was no money, and no barter system.

Not sure how that would be done.

I think our attempts should be made on a smaller scale. But to tell you the truth, in order to change it, i wouldn't know where to begin...

That's very well said.


A lot of things get blamed on the poor because they are an easy target (Im not saying thats what your doing)


You may want to keep that in mind

It doesnt have to be a bad thing. The American Dream. The REAL American Dream should be available to all people. And the "changes" arnt really happening that fast. A lot of this stuff is exageratted.

Driven...

The idea behind the earlier post was to show(remind) everyone what caused the need for those unions...

Greed, my friend.

It is the same underlying notion which has caused the collapse of this nation's economy. The same thing which caused the unions themselves to turn from a positive thing into a negative one...

Greed, my friend.

Our government is a self-perpetuating system of capitalism being being married to government and purposefully creating a mind-set of we need more, we need better, we need newer...

The entire construct promotes a materialistic ideology... a mindset of material items equal personal worth. One's personal value is held equal to what one owns... how much money one has... what car... what shoes... what namebrand...

Marketing is an effective means of selling a product to the masses.

It is a nearly irreversible way to narrow the focus of the collective conscious.

Keep the people fed and dumb.

How much money is too much for one to have?

Agree. Because, as you stated above, to do so, would mean to stop the natural selection.

Let us suppose that this is possible. Now what? Will we be better off by stopping it? Nope. I maintain, that is such case, we will all be regressing, and eventually be removed from a planet as a useless specie.

So, whether it is possible or not (to try and stop the natural selection), it is clearly a bad thing to do.

This is a drivel.

It doesnt surprise me that you would say that. But Creative is more than capable of defending his ideas, so I will leave that to him.

Natural selection is not an applicable model for comparison with structuring a civilization that necessarily requires something(money) completely not natural for it's very existence...

We could debate that...

The very companies which outsource processes and/or entire operations for the reason of improving the bottom line should remember one thing...

The money is being taken from the pockets of those who would have purchased that which you make and being placed into the pockets of those who cannot afford that which you make. Taken from Americans, and given to foriegn governments which depend upon the Americans, who now have less money to spend, to sustain their economy...

We could debate that...




This is an empty statement which may or may not reflect the content of the argument behind it. It requires a little more substance to determine whether it is well thought out, or just one noisy cog in the ideological machine which - quite obviously - is in dire need of reconstruction.

Good excuse to be complacent! I grew up in Inglewood in the 70s' and you have no clue what hell is like!

Wait until you experience reverse racism first hand. Also wait until you get told your color prevents you from work. Bull**it runs in all directions.

I have done volunteer work for Corizone Foundation in Mexico. I have seen and lived poverty first hand. When you are knee deep in shi* fixing a pipe and getting $12 an hour come crying to me how good I got it off. I do work even illegal immigrants will not touch to make it these days.

Rome is burning and all you can do is appreciate Nero's fiddle playing!

All of (what I call) your drivel, emanates from your lack of understanding of what is the purpose of money.

You suggest that money is not a natural thing to a human being's existence. If that is your firm opinion, then you're advocating a hunter-gatherer socio-economic organization. In such a construct, there is no medium of exchange, and one has to exchange goods and services directly, meaning that one (say a hunter) would never be able to obtain a vehicle, if a vehicle maker doesn't need the game that this hunter is producing.
If you interject that the hunter could first obtain fish in exchange for his game, then shoes in exchange for his fish, then tomatoes, then oranges, then nails, then fuel, then eggs, then accordions, and then finally exchange the accordion for a vehicle, then you are advocating a huge economic inefficiency, since by the time our hunter obtains accordions, he will waste enough of his time that he could purchase two vehicles if he only had an opportunity to fist purchase money, and then purchase the vehicle.

Money, is simply an exchange medium, so that only two steps are required to go from one good to any other. Equally, money is a value preserver, so that your winter game may-be exchanged for the summer honey.

The notes that we are using today, are not money, because they are unable to satisfy the second requirement, they are unable to preserve the value of one's work.

...And so on, for the money subject. Today, money are simply a measurement how useful you are to others. If you make little or no money, it is not the money itself to be blamed.

In such a case, you are either:

- not useful to anyone much.
(In this first case, whether it is money or not, if you are not useful to others, nor self-sufficient, you will be made to chew on bones left over after a dinner of more valuable members).

- not taking the appropriate payment, for your goods or services.
(In this latter case, you would fail quite similarly in a hunter-gatherer society if you fail to exchange the game you have hunted for a fair amount of things that you need. Money or no money, if you work for free, you have only yourself to blame).

I have to take off now. I hope we can continue later.

The purpose of money is not in question.

A false premise cannot lead one(logically) to a true conclusion. You missed the point, Nogames...

Natural selection does not involve money. Most importantly, it's use in an attempt to somehow justify the divide between the monetary classes has no foundational basis. It leaves too many variables completely out. Most importantly, it falsely claims that all of those who have money have it as a result of their own efforts, and those who do not, do not for the same reasons...

Ever heard of 'old' money?

Often I have heard or read an argument revolving around the discontent about the fact that those who make more money pay more taxes(which helps to support the needy), while those who do not do not share the same tax burden. This, when combined with the mindset that the only reason people are poor is because of their own choices, leads to the logical fallacy that everyone who has money has somehow earned it.

That is clearly not the case.

Those who attempt to use personal habits/choices as a means for justifying why poor people are poor do not take into consideration how many people are born into wealth. Using the same measure... what has one done through their own actions and choices to deserve being born to a wealthy family?



Uh.... no, I'm not...

If P, then Q...

What you state here says that if one claims that money is not natural, then s/he must be advocating something other than money, namely a regression into the economic standards of prehistoric times? I would say that one who is attempting to use natural selection as the foundational reason to justify of the huge division between the classes in this country has been trained well.

Another cog in the ideological machine...





Interestingly enough, there are only two conclusions possible?

Do you not see the ideological machine that you are deeply imbedded in? Do you not recognize the fact that the wheels are off of it? The average citizen and their wages, which allowed them to buy American, are gone...

There was enough for everybody to exist at a comfortable level. It is not the same as advocating strictly equal amounts of everything including money/financial worth. Those who have more than they need, more than anyone could ever hope to need, still want more. It is the inherent division which began in religion that still divides the mentality of most in this country into an us versus them state of action.

Do the affluent ones not recognize their dependency upon those who are not?

I had a union job once...only one getting a thing from it were the union guys. I paid dues and got no representaion.

My late husband was a union worker. Machinist union..it was a very good union. They took care of the people at his job. Then Teamsters came in and promised them the world with raindrops of gold and rose colored glasses. We went to their meeting and listened. We did not vote them in ourselves, but the biggest part of the company employees did and the Teamsters got it. They tried to force the company to give more than they had, or walk. The company asked for more time and tried to compromise telling them if this continued they would have no choice but to close up. Two months later this large company that had hundreds of employees and had been there for many many years was gone. My husband lost his job of 15 years... like that. All because of a greedy money grabbing union, and its promises.

Kat

Kat

I disagree. Looking at the big picture every entire civilization depends on natural selection. We all strive to be the best we can. We must strive to do so. The best will naturally conquer and move on.

Money is a natural byproduct of our evolution. You see hunting and gathering was replaced by agriculture. In order to science to advance we must naturally instill a barter system so everyone has enough free time and energy to pursue these fields.

So, i just wanted to point out, frommy perspective all money is, is an extension of the barter system which is essential to our technological advancements.

What retired person doesn't receive Social Security? Disabled people need it to survive too.

I agree. Greed IS one of our key problems... This must be overcome as a society in order to better ourselves.