Many politicians say they want to "ease the pain of people in poverty" but the pain of poverty is what got many people out of poverty in the first place.
Does Sup Forums support this?
Bentley Myers
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com
who.int
randomgraphs.blogspot.com.au
who.int
twitter.com
Jordan Foster
Why do you think we detest the welfare state
Kevin Morgan
Thomas Watson
>Australian proxy posts Bush Crime Family's favorite house negro and his open borders """"free"""" trade """"economics""""
Give it a rest, Chaim.
Bentley Morgan
Aaron Phillips
Poverty doesn't exist in western countries
Evan Peterson
>when Sowell dies the Chicago School of Banter will be extinct
Anthony Morales
lul the south africa argument
>we're recovering from apartheid
>just you look in 10 years
>20 years
>50 years
Rhodes must fall kek
Landon Diaz
> LMAO FUCK POOR PEOPLE
> Fuck these relatively poor white workers who have the bulk of white children and have traditional values and who produce the next generation
We could actually give them a reasonable quality of life with healthcare access and stuff, at least the white ones, a lot of niggers will basically never amount to anything no matter how much gets thrown at them and will never be nothing but leeches
Owen Powell
>>Australian proxy posts Bush Crime Family's favorite house negro and his open borders """"free"""" trade """"economics""""
Sowell is not for open borders. He was screaming to build the wall in his columns. He has repeatedly stated that migrants bring their problems with them and the resident country pays the price.
Free trade as a common policy is practically consensus among economists, with most of the debate centering around finding exceptions to when free trade is not beneficial, like developing countries that might benefit more from Independence and development of human capital. Only retards or non-economists advocate protectionism.
I have no idea what you are talking about with the bushes. But I know they didn't listen to Sowell because they did the same shit all politicians are pressured to do instead of using knowledge that is common among even amateur economists.
Jack Gutierrez
This
Carter Martin
It's not greed to want to take from someone to give to someone else. It's greed if you take from someone to give to yourself. Sowell is an idiot.
And in response to what you said, having a policy of permanent welfare is negative and drives dependence, but that doesn't mean it should be removed. Welfare should be designed to be temporary to act as a safety net when someone loses their job, in the period between employment. That is a moral thing to do, but of course it has been corrupted in it's current form.
Zachary Price
Sowell is a good man and folks should listen to his interviews on YouTube, even if just as ammunition for arguments you may have
Jack Smith
If it's such a good thing to redistribute wealth to those in need, go ahead and round up other like-minded people as yourself and do it. You don't get to feel good about yourself by hiring the government to do what you're proposing at the point of a gun. Fuck off with this leftist moral posturing bullshit. You don't care about those in need, really, otherwise you wouldn't deprive them of their dignity by becoming government dependents. You just want to convince yourself of how moral and upstanding a person you are. Fuck off.
Hudson Lee
Sowell was a black child in harlem during the great depression. He had no idea what the world was like outside of his neighborhood and assumed everywhere was like that. He slept on a fire escape.
He was so poor he could explain to poor people in 2017 what poor really is
Joseph Jackson
And? If anything children should be scouted for ability at a young age so they can be provided for and be placed in a good environment so that they can gain skills and become extremely productive.
Angel Cox
>It's not greed to want to take from someone to give to someone else. It's greed if you take from someone to give to yourself. Sowell is an idiot.
Show me the politician who redistributes wealth that doesn't take a fat check for doing it
Show me the liberal who advocates wealth redistribution and doesn't think they should receive even a small amount of that wealth, or that wealth should be taken from themselves. Ah yes, those people exist, but they are champagne socialists. They could give up their extravagant lifestyle tomorrow, but they don't. They could stop tax sheltering their money like a motherfucker, but they don't.
Connor Rodriguez
Sowell is an advocate for school vouchers and charter schools so that can happen. He understands that without education/human capital you can't get out of poverty no matter how bad it hurts.
Carson Carter
The arguments still don't make sense, children who are genetically smarter, more competent, and more driven are going to succeed regardless, in most cases in spite of the environment that they're in. The idea that wanting to avoid poverty is what made them achieve seems stupid and inconsequential. Just analyze Sowell's verbal IQ and argumentative ability, he would have ended up in a good position regardless of what life threw at him. We really should be providing more for poor-off kids who show talent so we can actually guarantee we get something from them instead of their environment potentially ruining them or their potential.
Josiah Gutierrez
>poverty barely exists in America.
There's also a disease of corruption and nepotism, socialism is designed to treat the symptoms of the disease. It will only further entrench it. This was Marx's contribution to Zionism.
Connor Bell
>extremely productive
>economist at stanford
what is your argument?
Austin Rogers
((economist)) these guys just shill for the knowledge from babylonian talmudist
Owen Jackson
before you redistribute wealth, you have to ask the question: "what is wealth"?
because wealth isn't the physical things.
europe was basically destroyed after WWII. everything was bombed. but a few years after that everything was rebuilt and they were back on track.
wealth wasn't the physical buildings, or stuff, it was the ABILITY TO REBUILD. the human capital.
look at russia after WWII. look at china after WWII. not as good as europe. why? they have an abundance of natural resources, probably the greatest in the world, but no economy to use any of it.
Jace Murphy
>children who are genetically smarter, more competent, and more driven are going to succeed regardless, in most cases in spite of the environment that they're in.
You really underestimate how fucking terrible public schools are
>Just analyze Sowell's verbal IQ and argumentative ability, he would have ended up in a good position regardless of what life threw at him.
Yeah but he would not have been an academic if he didn't have a white childhood friend who's parents knew which schools were competitive in NYC and his guardians didn't push him to follow
I don't get your post though. What exactly are you disagreeing with sowell about?
Ayden Rodriguez
in 1940, 87% of blacks were in utter poverty.
in 1960, before welfare ever existed, 40% of blacks were in utter poverty. they did that on their own.
in 1970, 18% of blacks were in utter poverty.
but in 1980, 60% of blacks were in utter poverty.
welfare was a bomb. welfare was designed to keep them poor. welfare is socialism, and socialism is how you enslave populations.
Joshua Ortiz
>Yeah but he would not have been an academic if he didn't have a white childhood friend who's parents knew which schools were competitive in NYC and his guardians didn't push him to follow
oh so you mean conservative family values, great.
Samuel Foster
No I mean having access to a good school and attending
Colton Peterson
>because wealth isn't the physical things.
Yes it is
And what does this have to do with greed? Even following the though experiment libtards would argue that human capital can be redistributed, which is correct to a degree.
Christopher Sanchez
well do you think his skin color had anything to do with it in the 1950's America? It was probably because he hit the books after school everyday because he understood that in order to be successful he had to earn it.
Socialism wants to reward blacks that are doing something wrong, like looting, or staying on welfare. The blacks that are doing something wrong are the ones that are holding back the rest of the blacks.
Ian Butler
>Yes it is
no it isn't.
Look at Spain, in their golden age. Pulling in tons of gold and silver from latin america. Gold is measured in ounces, but they were pullign in tons of the stuff. Richest nation in the world. But after they spent all their gold, what were they left with? All the human capitol was gone, they never needed to develop human capital because they could just rent it from other places, other nations.
Today spain is one of the poorest nations in western europe, because of that.
Jaxon Cruz
Well for one, society is a collective so we actually do at some point need to make collective sacrifices to improve the good of society, wealthy people agreeing to cut some losses in order to pay for something like a universal healthcare system actually benefits most people overall since by making healthcare more affordable it increases the health and therefore productivity of other members of society. Literally all civilization is is people realizing that they are more powerful as collectives and taking collective action to better themselves and do greater things and make improvements.
Lincoln Gomez
Are you consciously trying to plagiarize Sowell?
Kevin Anderson
> Look at Spain, in their golden age. Pulling in tons of gold and silver from latin america.
Spain was never objectively unbelievably great or anything compared to any other country, even during that period. All they did was hyper-inflate gold by introducing 5x as much gold as had ever circulated in the economy over the course of 50 years or so, since they had a ton of gold but it didn't correspond to an increase in productivity, which is what actually matters to an economy.
Connor Powell
>something like a universal healthcare system actually benefits most people overall since by making healthcare more affordable it increases the health and therefore productivity of other members of society
No. Socializing healthcare removes profit incentives and thereby makes the process of obtaining healthcare less efficient and more expensive on the whole. This is the exact same reason Communism repeatedly fails, without price and profit incentives, everything gets bogged down in inefficient bullshit.
Benjamin Bailey
>well do you think his skin color had anything to do with it in the 1950's America? It was probably because he hit the books after school everyday because he understood that in order to be successful he had to earn it.
This is exactly how he would explain it
>Socialism wants to reward blacks that are doing something wrong, like looting, or staying on welfare. The blacks that are doing something wrong are the ones that are holding back the rest of the blacks.
Whats your point?
Jack Young
Agreed. Collective action is great. But only when it's voluntary. Healthcare would be dirt cheap in this country if not for over regulation and licensing laws artificially inflating the price to the benefit of a select few.
Jack Gomez
>actually benefits most people overall
wrong. and if you ever think passed the first stage of implementing this, you'd see the glaring contradiction.
making healthcare "more affordable" means lowering the price.
when people estimate the price of universal healthcare they do so using current pricing, at current usage rates, because current rates prohibit people using the system for things it shouldn't be used for, like the sniffles, or like a cold.
when you suddenly make it more affordable, more people use it, it becomes more valuable, and the price stays the same, but the cost goes up. the cost is the quality, and the wait times. quality goes down, wait times go up.
last year in england there was one person who had her tumor operation postponed 4 times until it was no longer operable. one of the people who was in front of her was a 13 year old girl getting breast implants.
when prices go down, use goes up, and the predicted costs go out the window. it ends up costing much much more than anticipated. it's a disaster, and no voters know it.
Luis Cooper
>no it isn't.
Nigger wealth has a long established definition. Fucking google it.
Human capital is a resource in some contexts as is thus wealth, but so are material things, gold included.
Joshua Ramirez
>mental gymnastics
when more gold is extracted, or made in earth's crust, gold becomes less valuable, yeah. your point is retarded though.
you need to be asking not, where does poverty come from, but where does wealth come from?
humans evolved into poverty. the first humans were poor. only later after economies developed did humans bring themselves out of poverty.
the pain of poverty is the biggest motivator to getting yourself out of poverty.
Evan Nelson
human capital is the only true wealth from which all other material things spring from.
when a government is going to pay you to make buttons, instead of plant and harvest wheat, even though there are people starving, you're gonna make buttons.
look at india, look at many african nations right now. i'm right.
Nathan Perry
>society is a collective so we actually do at some point need to make collective sacrifices to improve the good of society
Yes, preferably when it is demonstrable that it improves society
>like a universal healthcare system actually benefits most people overall since by making healthcare more affordable it increases the health and therefore productivity of other members of society.
No it doesn't, on all counts. Universal healthcare doesn't reduce costs, it moves them (usually to the middle class like everything passed by congress) or refuses to pay them, which reduces quality.
If you actually want to reduce costs, increase the efficiency of the system. Allow competition to take place and reduce regulations that increase the cost of business. And stop giving the democrats a pass when they ratify a healthcare system written by insurance companies and big pharma.
Xavier Butler
Socialism: a few people know what is best for millions
Free Market: everybody makes the best decision they think they should make at the time given the circumstances
Dominic Murphy
>human capital is the only true wealth from which all other material things spring from.
You're going to no true scotsman a basic definition in economics? are you serious?
>when a government is going to pay you to make buttons, instead of plant and harvest wheat, even though there are people starving, you're gonna make buttons.
>look at india, look at many african nations right now. i'm right.
That has nothing to do with what the word wealth means.
Kevin Morgan
>You're going to no true scotsman a basic definition in economics? are you serious?
don't see how you could think i was
>That has nothing to do with what the word wealth means.
oh, now i can. you're an idiot
Evan Sullivan
>don't see how you could think i was
You moved the goalpost from wealth to "true" wealth.
>oh, now i can. you're an idiot
Sebastian Martin
...
Kevin Wood
> people ITT saying a universal healthcare system doesn't reduce costs
Even for healthcare it's been shown. Also all of the basic muh free market arguments have been made but fail to account for economist Kenneth Arrow's argument about why healthcare isn't a standard market and actually works better and more efficiently with a collective provider competing in the market.
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com
Thomas Cooper
>You moved the goalpost from wealth to "true" wealth.
oh you're right i guess i did, accidentally.
but can you see that material wealth is not as valuable, or holds its value like human capital does?
Dominic Parker
wrong.
how can making healthcare cheaper to the individual, less expensive for the one paying it when more people are going to be using it because it is cheaper?
you're paying the government do the job of what prices do for free
Chase Price
Thomas Peterson
that graph is fucked.
in 2007 sweden had a population of 9.2 million.
australia in the same year had a population of 20.8 million.
you are trying to tell me it's a good idea for a country half the size of australia to be paying as much as australia?
Andrew Clark
>but can you see that material wealth is not as valuable, or holds its value like human capital does?
Value is subjective and circumstantial. Both material wealth and human capital are essential to prosperity. It's like asking if oxygen or heat is more important for sustaining your life.
Sebastian Allen
so why would you fuck with either of them when they perform their function just fine?
check mate, pinko
Aaron Morgan
It's per capita costs, what's the problem? Australia and Sweden are comparably wealthy and have somewhat similar populations demographically, their healthcare cost profiles should correspondingly be similar.
Luke Brooks
If communism is so good, why is the standard of living in communist, and post communist nations so shitty?
Even after China and Russia stopped being communist, they STILL have not caught up to even Japan, a country with NO natural resources, meanwhile China and Russia have the worlds richest deposits of natural resources
Matthew Nelson
ah, per capita.
randomgraphs.blogspot.com.au
Brandon Jenkins
The charts are per capita and percent of GDP dude. Which accounts for the size of the population and an estimate of the size of the economy.
How you really call out the bullshit of "healthcare spending" is the fact that comparing market healthcare to government provided and budgeted healthcare is fucking retarded. Say we got universal healthcare in the states, and congress decided to budget $1 for healthcare a year. We would astronomically crush everyone on graphs with our $1 of healthcare spending and idiots would think we were geniuses that solved practically free healthcare. No, all it does it show how much the government was willing to spend, which could easily be too little if you judge the winner by this metric. It only means something when you compare both spending AND the quality of services rendered.
Brandon Morris
sadly for you, per capita isn't a magic word that makes whatever graph you created automatically correct or accurate
Ryan Bennett
What does this have to do with that graph? Per-capita models aren't just universally discredited and bad, what exactly is the problem with Swedish and Australian people spending about the same per person on healthcare? They both have universal healthcare models, different ones to be sure, Sweden's is single-payer and Australia's is an insurance mandate, but what exactly is the problem? Despite both having universal systems unlike the US their healthcare is also much, MUCH cheaper, and not only that but delivers better overall health outcomes.
Isaiah Reed
>so why would you fuck with either of them when they perform their function just fine?
Because use of wealth isn't optimal, that's the entire point of the study of economics. So we can have a grasp of what policies we should and should not follow.
Andrew Watson
then how could you come to the conclusion that a centrally planned, marxist economy can possibly help the poor better than a free market?
Christian Thomas
>what exactly is the problem with Swedish and Australian people spending about the same per person on healthcare? They both have universal healthcare models,
Because that graph only takes into account half the cost. Healthcare isn't free in Australia unless you're an Aboriginal or boomer. A visit to a GP as a medicare card holder if you aren't an abo or boomer will set you back $80 on average. A visit to a specialist will set you back around $350 with a wait time of anywhere from 9 to 14 months for your appointment if you're unfortunate enough to live anywhere but a state capital.
Dominic Watson
in other words, how is socialism NOT systemically oppressive, when put into practice?
sure it has the intention of being fair and compassionate, but nothing in the world is easier than having good intentions. it is the outcomes that actually count.
Mason Young
That graph doesn't take into account only half the cost, it accounts for all total healthcare spending, hence why the US's is so high, despite most of the spending being private spending and not public spending.
Grayson Reed
Do you even understand the content of your link?
Samuel Nguyen
no, what does it say?
Ayden Butler
>then how could you come to the conclusion that a centrally planned, marxist economy can possibly help the poor better than a free market?
First you tell me how in the fuck you came to the conclusion that I believe that. Leafs are horrible but every time I have a retard who can't follow a conversation it's a fucking kangaroo
Robert Perry
you seemed to be advocating wealth redistribution, attributing pricing to "greed" rather than economic conditions, etc etc. lots of socialist hallmarks.
>First you tell me how in the fuck you came to the conclusion that I believe that.
so, pretty much the meaning of the words you used.
Noah Hill
>you seemed to be advocating wealth redistribution
In childhood education I think it might be a good idea in terms of consequences, not morality or "fairness".
>attributing pricing to "greed" rather than economic conditions
I did not
>lots of socialist hallmarks.
Like knowing the definition of wealth
>so, pretty much the meaning of the words you used.
From someone who debates the meanings of words instead of googling it
Lincoln Morales
i use the New Oxford American Dictionary
Oliver Wood
>wealth, noun
>An abundance of valuable possessions or money
??????
Camden Morris
Again, it depends. Mostly yes, but there is no reason to go full ancap ball. You have to pay for living in the society.
Sebastian Anderson
only worthy post in this thread, aside from some of mine
Cooper Jenkins
Posted by socialist according your dumbass
Anyone got a per capita chart of australian education spending?
Grayson Sanchez
Yeah, poor people should just work harder. That's all it takes. Anyone who says there's more to it than that is fucking mental
Landon Barnes
>advocating for free trade
>is a socialist
???????
Charles Gomez
wealth is redundant
is an age of advanced technology in and including supply and logistics, wealth can be generated indefinitely
all forms of labor can be supplemented with debt and capital is generated through more debt (assuming population never stops increading)
as long as we have
>fiat
>steady population
>working class
>current or higher tech
then we can forever satisfy "greed". is this obvious? am i autistic? i feel all rich people might need the oven
Henry Martin
Your own confusion has gone full circle and you are not even self aware that you are confused
Click that post's ID. Scroll down through the thread.
Leo Anderson
Yes I support this, economically and morally
Cameron White
People can fall on hard times - but when I take a look at those that currently are down, they almost always have brought themselves there, and keep themselves there by their own actions. Like, boozing it up every evening, chain-smoking, doing drugs. Always eating out and never cooking. Needing the "newest thing" like a new mobile every half to full year.
Cameron Howard
Exactly. You just have to work hard until you're rich. Anyone who disagrees is lazy.
Jordan Martin
Shit, this makes me want to be a communist.