Renegade Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 A real welfare scheme transforms money into happiness. Who are you to define what a "real" welfare scheme is? BTW, a minimal welfare scheme also results in happiness. Mine and the rest of the taxpaying public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Who are you to define what a "real" welfare scheme is? BTW, a minimal welfare scheme also results in happiness. Mine and the rest of the taxpaying public. All people on welfare are stressed and unhappy...I'm getting to believe it is a slow way to destroy certain people...and yes it should not be called well fare - but sick fare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Who are you to define what a "real" welfare scheme is? BTW, a minimal welfare scheme also results in happiness. Mine and the rest of the taxpaying public. At this point, welfare economists introduce the key concept of marginal utility of income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 While McKenzie, who was waiting outside the Agnes McPhail food bank at Main St. and Danforth Ave. yesterday, has no children, she says she has often sacrificed food for her husband, who is ill.**************** Why can't people on disability, EI, etc. get enough money to live without hunger? Why can't people making over $1m a year give up a little so those who live in poverty can live without hunger? Why is MacKenzie one of the few there without children? Why do so many EI and other social welfare recipients have lots of kids that they cannot afford? Responsibility please. At this point, welfare economists introduce the key concept of marginal utility of income. Yes. Dollar one has a far greater marginal utility than dollar million. Unless the poster involved is so marginal he doesn't understand that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Yes. Dollar one has a far greater marginal utility than dollar million. Unless the poster involved is so marginal he doesn't understand that. Marginal utility means the welfare value of the next dollar (for a poor compared to a rich). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 The value of money has drastically decline in the last few years. It gets down to whether you are cool or not - it's not about a credit system - people are the money and if you love and respect them - they will reward you and you in turn them. Still - the crux is protein - a protein starved people become stupid....the poorest of the poor will not improve mentally IF we continue to deny them good good. If you want people off welfare..you have to stop treating them like they are prisoners and living in a fancey prison camp..we institutionalize and redicule the poor in order to gain some sort of warped self esteem - that we are better than them..in the end we will all lay gnashing our teeth and shitting our pants on our death beds...we are equals...even the lowest of the low is of great value- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 The value of money has drastically decline in the last few years. It gets down to whether you are cool or not - it's not about a credit system - people are the money and if you love and respect them - they will reward you and you in turn them. Still - the crux is protein - a protein starved people become stupid....the poorest of the poor will not improve mentally IF we continue to deny them good good. If you want people off welfare..you have to stop treating them like they are prisoners and living in a fancey prison camp..we institutionalize and redicule the poor in order to gain some sort of warped self esteem - that we are better than them..in the end we will all lay gnashing our teeth and shitting our pants on our death beds...we are equals...even the lowest of the low is of great value- The problem happens when the rich argue that they need more money than the poor because they have expensive tastes that they haven't chosen and cannot change easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 At this point, welfare economists introduce the key concept of marginal utility of income. Huh? Who said we were trying to maximize the marginal utility of income? Of course each incremental dollar is more valuable to the poor than the rich, but so what? Your original contention was that the wealthy were not entitled to their riches because their wealth was not obtained their wealth legitmately. Since it is "we the people" who determine what is legitmate acquisition of wealth, and the law-abiding rich have obtained their welath through lawful means they ARE entitled to their wealth. It is up to them whether they want to increase the marginal utility of their wealth by distributing it to the poor by undertaking such schemes as chartiable dontations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 (edited) The problem happens when the rich argue that they need more money than the poor because they have expensive tastes that they haven't chosen and cannot change easily. The rich don't need to argue that they need more money than the poor. The simply argue they need to keep their money because they obtained it lawfully Edited May 3, 2009 by Renegade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Your original contention was that the wealthy were not entitled to their riches because their wealth was not obtained their wealth legitmately. Since it is "we the people" who determine what is legitmate acquisition of wealth, and the law-abiding rich have obtained their welath through lawful means they ARE entitled to their wealth. The rich are those making the laws with loopholes earmark to themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Why not just throw the poor in jail, where they would at least get a roof and three meals a day? There are actually people who will purposely commit petty crimes in order to go to jail for a roof and three square meals. Not many, but it does happen and they are well known to the cops. Simply put, the best way to ensure that poor people do not pass their poverty to the next genreation is to repair the safety net so that less people fall into poverty in the first place. Canadien, I know you'd like to eradicate poverty but I don't think that lofty ideal is achievable. There will always be a segment of society that is quite content with the bare minimum and is not interested in being "lifted" out of their chosen lifestyle. With these individuals, there is a measure of choice involved. I don't think individuals raised in poverty are incapable of becoming better achievers than their parents. Healthy, industrious individuals do succeed in breaking the generational chain of dependency on the state regardless of the amount of charity and safety nets thrown at them. They just have to want something better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 (edited) Canadien, I know you'd like to eradicate poverty but I don't think that lofty ideal is achievable. There will always be a segment of society that is quite content with the bare minimum and is not interested in being "lifted" out of their chosen lifestyle. With these individuals, there is a measure of choice involved.I don't think individuals raised in poverty are incapable of becoming better achievers than their parents. Healthy, industrious individuals do succeed in breaking the generational chain of dependency on the state regardless of the amount of charity and safety nets thrown at them. They just have to want something better. Before losing touch further, Protestants have to understand that poverty is among the highest Christian values. Edited May 3, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 The rich are those making the laws with loopholes earmark to themselves. Any evidence of this consipracy of the rich? Which laws and loopholes are you referring to? It quite evident that the rich and the middle-class pay the disproportinate share of taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 (edited) Well I have been into work now for a half hour and it is approaching 7.30 am and still no poor people you speak of at my front door since this thread started. Must be too hungry to get up and seek work. Edited May 4, 2009 by Muddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Well I have been into work now for a half hour and it is approaching 7.30 am and still no poor people you speak of at my front door since this thread started. Must be too hungry to get up and seek work. Ah maybe they just know the working conditions and treatment at your business is abysmal. Why bother..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Ah maybe they just know the working conditions and treatment at your business is abysmal. Why bother..... Now you may have something there. My people are very badly treated. All are on salary. If business is slow they can take turns taking time off. If there is sickness or family emergencies all they have to do is let me know and off they go. My top mechanic has been with me since he started his apprentice except for a couple of years when he tried one of the big chains. Yep, I see your point. All my staff are free to venture off to try something new. There is not one I would not hire back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Any evidence of this consipracy of the rich? Which laws and loopholes are you referring to? It quite evident that the rich and the middle-class pay the disproportinate share of taxes. Through revolving door politics, insider trading, etc., the rich pay taxes with stolen and/or easy money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Through revolving door politics, insider trading, etc., the rich pay taxes with stolen and/or easy money. You seem to have a fantasy that self made people got their money easy. Maybe! Just maybe it was through hard work and risk! Envy is a terrible thing if your not willing to work to achieve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Through revolving door politics, insider trading, etc., the rich pay taxes with stolen and/or easy money. So no evidence huh benny? The existance of insider trading is no more evidence that all rich have consipired to corrupt the system than a poor man stealing is evidence that all the poor are conspiring to defraud the system. You seem to have a resentment of the wealthy with no evidence to back it up except for what you make up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 You seem to have a fantasy that self made people got their money easy. Maybe! Just maybe it was through hard work and risk! Envy is a terrible thing if your not willing to work to achieve. Hard work has no real (i.e. non ideological) place in a sane (i.e. non masochistic) economy because the basic definition of an economy revolves around using talents to spare hardship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 "Hard work has no real place in a sane economy"????? You are kidding right? Hopefully no one, neither poor or rich believes that. If the poor hold the same attitude as you, and they believe that they should shun hard work because "the economy" owes them a cushy and easy job, then it would be no wonder they would be hungry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Yep, I see your point. All my staff are free to venture off to try something new. There is not one I would not hire back.I always mixed you up with Ebenezer Scrooge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Hard work has no real (i.e. non ideological) place in a sane (i.e. non masochistic) economy because the basic definition of an economy revolves around using talents to spare hardship. Apparently you don't understand that work and production form the basis for wealth, whether you're a Marxist or died-in-the-wool conservative. Everyone agrees that goods and services are created by work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Not only is work an outdated modern concept, but it was a stillborn concept right at the beginning of modernity. Right from its inception, work was entirely dominated by capital. Surplus work is thus the only concept that is sound. Work that is entirely captured by capital is surplus work. Surplus work is overwork but it is also much worst than that, it is work turned against workers. Work turned against workers is simply a kind of expropriation. In other words, work turned against workers accelerates the automation of production techniques. For a few capitalists to appropriate all incomes generated by automated production, what is sadly needed is to trap all other people in a position where they have to kill each other to enter a constantly shrinking labor market. Methodism has grown from a small Protestant sect to a worldwide chase against the unemployed. Capitalists believe that none-workers are wasting their life (missing their "calling") by not accumulating wealth protestant-style. Since Hesiod's WORKS AND DAYS, the Western world has tried to solve political conflicts by putting the masses to work. Humanity now sees the result of this solution: for having fear to share the natural resources directly through politics, we have spoiled and polluted nature. The polytheist Hesiod was always using the plural form of work(s); John Calvin has imposed the singular form. Regrouping the various human activities necessary to maintain our metabolism allows Protestantism/capitalism to exploit human energy systematically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Not only is work an outdated modern concept, but it was a stillborn concept right at the beginning of modernity. Right from its inception, work was entirely dominated by capital. Surplus work is thus the only concept that is sound. Work that is entirely captured by capital is surplus work. Surplus work is overwork but it is also much worst than that, it is work turned against workers. Work turned against workers is simply a kind of expropriation. In other words, work turned against workers accelerates the automation of production techniques. For a few capitalists to appropriate all incomes generated by automated production, what is sadly needed is to trap all other people in a position where they have to kill each other to enter a constantly shrinking labor market. Are you double-posting or just plagerizing? Not only are schools and workplaces outdated modern institutions, they were stillborn institutions right at the beginning of modernity. Right from their inceptions, schooling and work were entirely dominated by capital. Surplus work is thus the only concept that is sound. Work that is entirely captured by capital is surplus work. Surplus work is excessive work but it is also much worst than that, it is work turned against workers. Work turned against workers is simply a kind of expropriation. Actually, work turned against workers is the automation of production techniques. For a few capitalists to appropriate all incomes generated by automated production, what is sadly needed is to trap all other people in a position where they have to kill each other to enter a constantly shrinking labour market. http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/...g-word%E2%80%A6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.