RE: 2012 Elections results finally in US officially applies 4 Banana Republic status @ UN
January 7, 2013 at 2:57 pm
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2013 at 3:05 pm by BGChuckLee.)
(January 7, 2013 at 2:15 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:(January 7, 2013 at 11:11 am)BGChuckLee Wrote: I came from wealth
And have demonstrated that you have no idea what it means to be poor.
You seem to lack basic human empathy or understanding of what no money AND no job means.
Under your 'ideal' people would starve and die of hypothermia.
Economics is a complex universe/eco system whatever you want to call it. It's incredibly complex, if you reduce welfare programs, that doesn't mean it is going to equal worse conditions for poor. The hidden costs and benefits and how it changes things for everyone, is what you should be thinking about. The same way, if you take away krill from the ocean, that doesn't simply mean that it will be the same ocean minus krill- there are many things that will change as a result of that. To prove how not simple economics is; top traders win 50.5-51.5% of trades. Economics is the collective genius of 7 billion people, it's not easy to understand.
I, and many other people that spend their time learning the nature of the universe of economics mostly agree that welfare programs harm the recipient in the long term, and everyone associated. You understand that bail outs/corporate welfare is bad for the economy, since the companies in question make more bad decisions, when there is free capital subsidies. It's no different for poor people. Human psychology is the same for everyone, if you give someone free money, they wont work as hard/smart for the money in the long term.
TLDR: You don't solve complex socio-economic problems with violence in any long term.
