Nearly half of American children living near poverty line

March 2, 2016

Nearly half of children in the United States live dangerously close to the poverty line, according to new research from the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. Basic Facts about Low-Income Children, the center's annual series of profiles on child poverty in America, illustrates the severity of economic instability and poverty conditions faced by more than 31 million children throughout the United States. Using the latest data from the American Community Survey, NCCP researchers found that while the total number of children in the U.S. has remained about the same since 2008, more children today are likely to live in families barely able to afford their most basic needs.

"These data challenge the prevailing beliefs that many still hold about what looks like and which in this country are most likely to be at risk," said Renée Wilson-Simmons, DrPH, NCCP director. "The fact is, despite the significant gains we've made in expanding nutrition and health insurance programs to reach the children most in need, millions of children are living in families still struggling to make ends meet in our low-growth, low-wage economy."

According to NCCP researchers, the number of poor children in the U.S. grew by 18 percent from 2008 to 2014 (the latest available data), and the number of children living in low-income households grew by 10 percent. NCCP defines a low-income household as one where incomes fall below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Threshold (e.g., $48,016 for a family of four with two children in 2014). A family is considered poor if its earnings are below 100 percent of the poverty threshold (e.g., $24,008 for a family of four with two children in 2014).

Published annually since 2009, Basic Facts about Low-Income Children profiles demographic and socioeconomic conditions of poor and low-income children in fact sheets for five age groups, from infants and toddlers to adolescents. Fact sheet data are widely cited by policymakers, researchers, advocates, and the media as authoritative. NCCP's annual fact sheets on child poverty in America are available online at www.nccp.org/publications/fact_sheets.html.

These are some of the findings in the 2016 edition of Basic Facts about Low-Income Children:

  • More than four in ten U.S. children are living close to the poverty line. In 2014, 44 percent of children under age 18 (31.4 million) lived in low-income households and 21 percent lived in poor families (15.4 million). This is still much higher than at the start of the Great Recession in 2008, when 39 percent of children were considered low income and 18 percent lived in poor households.
  • Children remain more likely than adults to live in poverty. While 44 percent of children live in low-income households, only one-third of adults between 18 and 64 years of age live in these households. In addition, children are more than twice as likely as adults 65 years and older to live in poor families.
  • America's youngest children are still those most likely to live in low-income or poor households. Some 47 percent of children age 5 years or younger live in , compared to 45 percent of children age 6 to 11 years (10.8 million), and 40 percent of children age 12 to 17 years (9.7 million).
  • Disparities in child poverty persist along racial lines. More than 60 percent of black, Hispanic, and Native American kids live in low-income families, compared to 30 percent of Asian and white children—a dynamic largely unchanged since 2008.
  • Many children living in poverty have parents with some higher education, and many live in two-parent households. While higher parental education decreases the likelihood that a child will live in a low-income or poor household, nearly half of children living in poverty (48 percent) have a parent with at least some college education. Though data shows that children who live with married parents are much less likely to be poor or low income compared to children who live with a single parent, nearly half of children (47 percent) in low-income families and 36 percent of children in poor families (5.5 million) live with married parents.

Explore further: Four in 10 American children live in low-income families, new report shows

Related Stories

Research finds 1 in 8 children in Hawai‘i live in poverty

July 22, 2015

According to the 2015 KIDS COUNT Data Book from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, over 40,000 children, or roughly one in eight kids, in Hawai'i live in poverty. This trend has become worse both nationally and locally since ...

Recommended for you

New paper answers causation conundrum

November 17, 2017

In a new paper published in a special issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, SFI Professor Jessica Flack offers a practical answer to one of the most significant, and most confused questions in evolutionary ...

Chance discovery of forgotten 1960s 'preprint' experiment

November 16, 2017

For years, scientists have complained that it can take months or even years for a scientific discovery to be published, because of the slowness of peer review. To cut through this problem, researchers in physics and mathematics ...

160 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2016
more children today are likely to live in families barely able to afford their most basic needs
Sorry Socks and Noumenon - hiding behind the theory of capitalism - is not good enough - these kids can have better - so yes it is a moral question - that we figure out how to make it happen.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2016
The other half will be idiot savants after eating Monsanto GMOs, according to MIT. USA it's own worst enemy
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2016
Indeed I invite Noumenon to explain this away. ;-) .
jeffensley
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2016
"According to NCCP researchers, the number of poor children in the U.S. grew by 18 percent from 2008 to 2014"

But, but Obama was President during this time period?! I thought unlike evil Republicans, he cared about the children.
jeffensley
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2016
Sorry Socks and Noumenon - hiding behind the theory of capitalism - is not good enough - these kids can have better - so yes it is a moral question - that we figure out how to make it happen.


Not privy to your political discussions but IMO, the theory of capitalism suggests that if you're barely making ends meet, having children is not the way out of your economic struggles. It's not a coincidence that so many children are unfortunately living near "poverty" whatever that means. The poor, in this country and abroad, seem to have a substantially higher birthrate. I don't know where the line must be drawn. Failure is a part of life and is a means by which humanity grows and improves but we can also grow via true compassion (government programs do not fit that description). The cycle of poverty seems to be nearly unbreakable using the means we have been using in recent decades. Maybe it's time to try something different?
RMQ
5 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2016
Some researchers noticed that the reason why people have children is because they think that children will grow up and get money for their parents. I understand the flaw in the argument.

But guess what, nothing will happen. Why? because the USA elite needs soldiers and they come from poor and uneducated families mostly.

USA is sinking into poverty and ignorance, people are dying of overdoses at record rates, the average person is fat, prisons are jammed, a mass murder every day and so on.

Half of children in poverty is just a side effect of poverty multiplied by ignorance and despair.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2016
"According to NCCP researchers, the number of poor children in the U.S. grew by 18 percent from 2008 to 2014"

But, but Obama was President during this time period?! I thought unlike evil Republicans, he cared about the children.

You are a hypocrite.
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2016
jeff
But, but Obama was President during this time period?! I thought unlike evil Republicans, he cared about the children.
Do you have to be so divisive? It is not about partisan politics. We will never figure out how to do it better - if all we do is hate - based on partisan politics.

greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2016
jeff
the theory of capitalism suggests that if you're barely making ends meet, having children is not the way out of your economic struggles
I don't think the theory of capitalism really says anything about that jeff. The poverty trap is very complex - and not solved by just tossing around generalizations. Poor decision making skills is certainly a part of the poverty trap. Pay day loans with interest rates over 100% would be an example of this. But what is your solution jeff?
Squirrel
not rated yet Mar 02, 2016
What kind of person writes instead of the simple "The NCCP considers a household low-come if its income is less than double the Federal Poverty Threshold, and poor if it is below that threhold", the following do-not-use-one-word-when-you-can-use-ten gibberish: "NCCP defines a low-income household as one where incomes fall below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Threshold (e.g., $48,016 for a family of four with two children in 2014). A family is considered poor if its earnings are below 100 percent of the poverty threshold (e.g., $24,008 for a family of four with two children in 2014)."
Eikka
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2016
hiding behind the theory of capitalism - is not good enough - these kids can have better - so yes it is a moral question - that we figure out how to make it happen.


It's a bit more complex than that.

The problem is a kind of a malthusian catastrophe in the jobs market, because the population keeps growing and growing, and the extra people are trying to employ themselves in unproductive "services", the large number of which is spreading the real output of the economy very thin and growing the gap between the owning class and the working class.

It's not that the rich are getting much richer in real terms - the numbers just keep growing with inflation. It's that other people are getting more numerous and fighting amongst themselves for scraps.

Instituting wealth redistribution would help the situation temporarily, but not solve the fundamental problem that people multiply to the point of poverty no matter how much you give them.

Eikka
4 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2016
Some researchers noticed that the reason why people have children is because they think that children will grow up and get money for their parents. I understand the flaw in the argument.


Child support and state/federal public assistance is another major incentive.

The problem is that a modern society can't just let children die of starvation, which means all sorts of welfare programs for the child and mother (but not father), which in practice enables abuse of the system. Pop a child, recieve an income, get a government issued housing etc. because you can't be left on the street...

Anyone with half a mind out take it. Trouble is, you're breeding people into poverty which means they're unlikely to get out of poverty, and the increasing unproductive population is dragging the whole society down anyways which means yet more poverty.

It means that the welfare state eventually becomes self-defeating.
orti
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2016
Welcome to hope and change.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2016
What we have to remeber is that neither capitalism nor socialism, or any other mode of social organization, is an end to itself. If you advocate one and oppose the other as your ultimate end of history, you've already failed. Your failure just hasn't taken effect yet.

Knowing that you are going to fail lets you do the other thing when it becomes necessary, and therefore you don't. It's simply a question of not clinging to an idea.

A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed.

So long as an evil deed has not ripened, the fool thinks it as sweet as honey. But when the evil deed ripens, the fool comes to grief.

Truly, an evil deed committed does not immediately bear fruit, like milk that does not turn sour all at once. But smoldering, it follows the fool like fire covered by ashes.

To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness.

-Dhammapada
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2016
Eikka
It's a bit more complex than that.
It's a bit more complex than what? All I did was propose that we can do better than the current mess we have - and suggest that we could get busy on figuring out a better way of doing things. So what is it a bit more complex than? I understand very well the complex, and intransigent nature of generational poverty. Your explanation of the trap of the welfare system is right on target. The huge questions - is how do we break the cycle? All I am doing is suggesting that the first step is acknowledging the problem - and begin looking for solutions. Noumenon and Socks are stuck in a loop of theory. Capitalism good, socialism bad - end of story. No solutions.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2016
these kids can have better - so yes it is a moral question

It's always a question of what is first priority. Is it money or is it people? An argument that it's money and that with enough money people will benefit always comes back to a situation where it's either money or people.
If money (plus 'trickle down' or 'piss on' if you prefer) is your priority then people will suffer.

the theory of capitalism suggests that if you're barely making ends meet, having children is not the way out of your economic struggles

On the contrary. If you have nothing (including no safety during old age when you no longer even have the option to struggle) having more children is the best strategy. That way you increase the chance that one will strike rich and be able to support you (this is the reason why we have such a population explosion in countries with many poor people - of which the US is increasingly becoming one)
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2016
All I did was propose that we can do better than the current mess we have - and suggest that we could get busy on figuring out a better way of doing things.


I.e. "Let's plan to plan", which isn't really saying anything. What do you really want to do?

All I am doing is suggesting that the first step is acknowledging the problem - and begin looking for solutions. Noumenon and Socks are stuck in a loop of theory. Capitalism good, socialism bad - end of story. No solutions.


Well, what do you think is the problem? If you say "capitalism", you fall in the same trap you accuse those two guys of, specifically so since then you won't aknowledge the inherent means which capitalism has to deal with these sort of issues: let the poor be, since the problem of poverty is only a problem if you're trying to solve it.

AA:
It's always a question of what is first priority. Is it money or is it people?


If you wish to make it a false dilemma.
greenonions
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2016
Eikka
What do you really want to do? - What do you really want to do?
Well - very early days even in terms of my understanding of the problem. I don't even know if there is one singular cause. What I see - is a culture - that encourages a very unbalanced view of self. I am not arguing from a pure theoretical point of view (such as many religions do) but from a practical view - ie. this is what is, vs this is what could be. I think capitalism is a big part of that unbalanced narrative. Capitalism is individualistic - to the point of saying that my only responsibility is to my own self gratification - and f*ck everyone else and everything else. So it is no problem to trash my neighbors property. What to do? Well what if we had a capitalistic system (all the benefits of free market, self actualization etc.) that also insisted on an understanding of shared responsibility? So I start a business - I become successful and provide for my needs. Beyond that - I turn my cont
Eikka
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2016
An argument that it's money and that with enough money people will benefit always comes back to a situation where it's either money or people.
If money (plus 'trickle down' or 'piss on' if you prefer) is your priority then people will suffer.


The "trickle down economy" is an ad-hoc justification for concentrating wealth and benefits at the top, which in itself isn't related to capitalism or free markets, or money per se, and that makes your comparison a false dilemma.

It' was merely an apology of Reaganomics or Thatcherism, under the reasoning that the rich would then spend all their money back on the poor through the markets. It was the justification of why they were allowed to give tax cuts and public property to the rich while maintaining the state exploitation of the working classes.

When you contrast money and people like that, you do so by ascribing very specific meanings to those two words that aren't necessarily so.
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2016
cont energy onto helping others on their journey. So perhaps I can now devote time to mentoring others who are interested in similar business areas as mine. I think that the big shift could be - integrating two ideas into this culture. 1. It is good to take care of your needs - and to be industrious and creative - and provide yourself, but you do not need ungodly amounts of wealth. In other words - reach a point of self care - and then turn your energy into helping others. 2. We are all in this together - so when one suffers, we all suffer. I admit it all sounds very pollyanna - but it is a work in progress.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2016
I think capitalism is a big part of that unbalanced narrative. Capitalism is individualistic - to the point of saying that my only responsibility is to my own self gratification - and f*ck everyone else and everything else.


I see, but don't forget that there are no saints. The fundaments of altruism too are in selfishness, you in person and you in plural as evolution, so the question of what do you really want still stands. Try to do a completely selfless act - seriously - and then ask yourself the question why do you want to do it.

The issue isn't in "capitalism" being too individualistic, but people interpreting individualism as nihilism and making belief that capitalism IS nihilism and justifies nihilism, either to justify themselves or to criticize capitalism.

what if we had a capitalistic system that also insisted on an understanding of shared responsibility?


What would you pay for it?
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2016
greenonions: here's an interesting thought on the point of individuality https://www.youtu...lpf6T1dc

If you are truly, shamelessly, doggedly and thoroughly selfish with all your intellectual rigor and honesty, you can't help but come out perfectly altruistic. Likewise, if you try with all your might to be altruistic and do good for everyone, you become a monster, because you ignore that you are and try to pretend you're not.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2016
Although a more suitable alternative to "nihilism" would be Ethical Solipsism, or the conviction that any moral judgement outside of the self is invalid, so one is entitled to do literally as they please.

An honest moral nihilist would have to admit that he himself doesn't have any moral authority either, so he can't deny the opinions of others.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2016
If you wish to make it a false dilemma.

I don't think that means what you think it means.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2016
If you wish to make it a false dilemma.

I don't think that means what you think it means.


"A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option."

I think that is an apt description.

If by "money" we don't mean trickle down economics exclusively, then the dilemma of people vs. money vanishes. There's no inherent problem between people and money, because money is a creation of people and they can do whatever they like with it.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2016
jeff
But, but Obama was President during this time period?! I thought unlike evil Republicans, he cared about the children.
Do you have to be so divisive? It is not about partisan politics. We will never figure out how to do it better - if all we do is hate - based on partisan politics.


I'm clearly being sarcastic and poking fun at the simplicity of partisan thinking. I promise if stats showed a decrease in child poverty, partisans would be hailing the accomplishment of Obama. Instead there is silence. Partisans ignore inconvenient facts.
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2016
Eikka
What would you pay for it?
Your question makes no sense to me. I am not coming at this from some esoteric philosophical perspective. Your Alan Watts video made no sense to me either. Do you find it useful? I did not. I think perhaps when people exist in different spaces - they just have to admit they are different. I am just coming at this from a pretty simple - practical position. If I have more food than I can eat - and I watch another starve - that is immoral. If we can organize ourselves better - and not have people with nothing, in the same world as others have ungodly amounts of wealth - that will be a good thing.
jeffensley
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2016
The poverty trap is very complex


Agreed. I hope you would also agree that our good intentions have failed to break the cycle.

Pay day loans with interest rates over 100% would be an example of this. But what is your solution jeff?


If I was that smart I wouldn't be sitting here discussing the issue on the internet. If I were in a position to make these decisions however I would attach mandatory work training and/or community service to receiving poverty-related benefits from the government. Give people a skill and sense of accomplishment while they feed on the government teat. The benefits alone do not provide a long-term exit strategy from the grips of poverty. Skills and community connection could.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2016
Your question makes no sense to me. I am not coming at this from some esoteric philosophical perspective.


It's a very practical question. In a free market society you get what you pay for, so the question is simply "what is the incentive to act?"

If I have more food than I can eat - and I watch another starve - that is immoral.


Yeah, but you have to question yourself why is it immoral, because morality isn't some fundamental law of physics but a subjective point of view, which takes its roots in who you are and what you're doing with yourself where you are right now. What you believe is right is dependent on what you want to happen.

To be pragmatic, you need to know what you're doing. Otherwise you're just fumbling in the dark chasing ghosts and figments of imagination, such as a strawman concept of "capitalism" or "socialism" or "money" - the bogeyman evil who's always at fault.

That's why "esoteric" philosophy is kinda important.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2016
The problem is that we're looking at the world and naming things, and then pretending that knowing a name of something means you understand it and percieve it clearly as it is.

It's like my father used to complain, "The scientists can't be right, the world isn't just mathematics", where the word mathematics represented some internal concept of what he thought the scientists were and were doing with it. Then, as his view of reality was completed by this concept, he could turn to propose the opposite view instead - a vaguely spiritual worldview with things that are named but never examined in any detail.

Of course none of it made any sense to anyone else except himself because he wasn't trying to communicate clearly - just to satisfy his own curiosity with an feeling of understanding. Then, using this sense of understanding he went on with his life bumbling around making mistakes, and never attributing his errors to himself because he knew what's what - according to himself.
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2016
Jeff
I'm clearly being sarcastic and poking fun at the simplicity of partisan thinking.
But you engage in the most partisan thinking. How can you exist with such dissonance.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2016
Jeff
I'm clearly being sarcastic and poking fun at the simplicity of partisan thinking.
But you engage in the most partisan thinking. How can you exist with such dissonance.


Poe's law: a good enough parody can't be distinguished from actual fanaticism.

Of course, we can assume ulterior motives.
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2016
Jeff
I would attach mandatory work training and/or community service to receiving poverty-related benefits from the government.
That would seem like a good thing to try.
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2016
Eikka
That's why "esoteric" philosophy is kinda important.
I don't know that it is. In fact I would rather go dig my garden - brew some beer - drink some beer - take a nap - start my business - and maybe see if I can leave the world a better place (meaning less suffering, more health).
Eikka
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2016
If I were in a position to make these decisions however I would attach mandatory work training and/or community service to receiving poverty-related benefits from the government. Give people a skill and sense of accomplishment while they feed on the government teat.


Knowing some such systems, there's the caveat of providing what the people call "circus employment/education", where the actual courses served to the people in need consist of pointless make-work and seminars on how to write a CV or how to become an entrepreneur with little or no practical function except to pay fees to the consultant who runs the course.

Failure to show up, or failure to apply to some unreasonable job offer results in cut benefits, which is basically inhumane, and the private sector complains about using the unemployed as cheap workforce for replacing their paid services if you put them to any actual use.

When there's no work to be done, it's better to do no work.
Eikka
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2016
Eikka
That's why "esoteric" philosophy is kinda important.
I don't know that it is. In fact I would rather go dig my garden - brew some beer - drink some beer - take a nap - start my business - and maybe see if I can leave the world a better place (meaning less suffering, more health).


A western devotee was once visiting a zen monastery in Japan, and was surprised to find that there were icons and statues all over the place, and people were bowing in rituals to them, so he took the matter up to the head monk and asked,

"I thought you were above this sort of worship, and would rather spit at an image of Buddha than bow to it."

The monk answered,

"You spits, I bows."

You do that, I do this. When it stops working, I do that and you do this.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2016
Explaination of the story: certain buddhist sects maintain that if you see the Buddha on the road, you must kill the Buddha, because the only place you should be seeing the Buddha is in the mirror. Failure in this means you haven't understood the teaching. The catch of course is that if you actually go and destroy a statue of Buddha, or show disdain to it... you haven't understood the teaching. You're still seeing the Buddha outside of yourself.

In the same way, a person who says "I'm practical, I don't need this pointless philosophical jaw-shaking", is failing to see that he's using philosophy to argue he doesn't need it. He's just unaware of what his philosophy is.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2016
"According to NCCP researchers, the number of poor children in the U.S. grew by 18 percent from 2008 to 2014"

But, but Obama was President during this time period?! I thought unlike evil Republicans, he cared about the children.

Ever hear of lag time?. Obama took over from a system that had poured American fiscal resources into - war.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2016
Ever hear of lag time?

Eight years?! No way.

Indeed I invite Noumenon to explain this away. ;-) .


Keep in mind that "poverty" here is defined relative to the standard of living in the USA. These kids will be fine.

However, why would I need to explain it away? I have never suggested that freedom as expressed through capitalism would not lead to inequalities. In fact, that is my stated position, that wealth-inequalities are a natural consequence of freedom and personal accountability,… that to define that as a "problem" to "fix" by government de faco implies regulating freedom. Do you not understand that?

You already had a liberal president for EIGHT years who expanded the welfare state to its highest level, ...yet poverty has grown even more so. Isn't that a correlation that should be drawn instead? It is a self-sustaining prophecy.

....
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2016
There is a point when personal accountability must become a factor. As already pointed out by Eikka, having more children than one can afford to raise in comfort is a failure of personal accountability,… it is NOT a failure of them having that freedom of choice.

Some 70% of children born to black Americans are born out of wed lock. No father in the home, and in fact it is part of that subculture that multiple children are born as a result of multiple fathers. It is a degenerate and economically failed subculture,.... that the political left are to cowardly to even acknowledge.

We experience pain for a reason, ultimately it is necessary for our survival, in motivating us to avoid it. The far-left wish to remove pain from the body, which weaken ones condition, not strengthens it.

You would rather have an even more massive welfare-state that domesticates human beings into perpetual dependency? The far-left's thought only extends to the length of their nose, and no further.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2016
jeff
But, but Obama was President during this time period?! I thought unlike evil Republicans, he cared about the children.
Do you have to be so divisive? It is not about partisan politics. We will never figure out how to do it better - if all we do is hate - based on partisan politics.


Are you THAT dishonest? Really? You're nothing but politically divisive.

Being anti-capitalism, is being anti-freedom, because capitalism is merely an expression of freedom, ...wealth inequality is merely an expression of freedom. That is your true demon, freedom of choice, egoism. The extent of your naiveté is irresponsible.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2016
If I have more food than I can eat - and I watch another starve - that is immoral.


Who is doing that? You just made that up. The USA usually tops the world in terms of personal charity. The USA has the highest corporate tax rate. The top 10% of income earners pay nearly 70% of all income tax revenue to the government,… the top 20% income earners pay 84% of income tax revenue. The rich donate billions to charity, …besides investing in companies and producing wealth that employs people. The poor do not provide jobs and are a negative source for tax revenue.

If we can organize ourselves better - and not have people with nothing, in the same world as others have ungodly amounts of wealth - that will be a good thing.


That childish thought has already occurred to people. Fixing wealth-inequality has already been attempted in history, and was a devastating failure for humanity. Do you think that you're the first one to come along with that cute thought?
Phys1
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2016
In a free market society you get what you pay for,

You mean in Utopia.
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2016
Being anti-capitalism, is being anti-freedom, because capitalism is merely an expression of freedom,

So capitalism=freedom. You are so deep.
The poor do not provide jobs and are a negative source for tax revenue.

They do not employ indeed, they are employed. Often multiple times.
You are a source of misinformation.
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2016
Are you THAT dishonest? Really? You're nothing but politically divisive.


No I am not. You could not even tell me what my political leanings are - especially in terms of party affiliation, or support for one candidate/party - in fact on a recent post - I told you that I could not find a label that fit - but was maybe libertarian/anarchist/democratic - and that my views were very much in flux.
Being anti-capitalism, is being anti-freedom, because capitalism is merely an expression of freedom,
That is a really dumb attempt at an argument. Anarchism is an even more extreme belief in freedom. If you are anti anarchist - does that make you anti freedom. Hope you see the flaw in your poor logic.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2016
If we can organize ourselves better - and not have people with nothing, in the same world as others have ungodly amounts of wealth - that will be a good thing.


It is counter intuitive, but a system that does NOT oppress freedom as expressed through egoism and wealth accumulation, and that does NOT redistribute wealth by government force or punitive taxation, is ultimately the one with the strongest economy. This of course has a direct effect on standard of living for all in that system.

The natural instinct of egoism, the profit motive, is the key mechanism that is responsible for the creation of wealth, which creates jobs and sustains the economy. But this is the mechanism that the liberal left wish to regulate. A science minded person would not be so emotionally reactionary, but instead look for the key mechanism that sustains economies,... freedom, egoism,… and then protect them.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2016

The poor do not provide jobs and are a negative source for tax revenue.

They do not employ indeed, they are employed. Often multiple times.
You are a source of misinformation.


The point of that statement was that attacking the evil rich and wealth-inequity, those who provide jobs, is not the answer. Are you going to start debating my individual words next?

Being anti-capitalism, is being anti-freedom, because capitalism is merely an expression of freedom,


That is a really dumb attempt at an argument. Anarchism is an even more extreme belief in freedom. If you are anti anarchist - does that make you anti freedom. Hope you see the flaw in your poor logic.


No, I see plenty of flaws in yours. For instance, what do you mean by "anarchist",.. that sounds like someone who would interfere with the freedom of others. Disrupting the freedom of others is not itself a legitimate freedom.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2016
Are you THAT dishonest? Really? You're nothing but politically divisive.


No I am not. You could not even tell me what my political leanings are - especially in terms of party affiliation


I can tell your own political ideology more so that even you can, believe me.

Didn't take long to find an example of greenonioncs being politically decisive and exposing his political leanings...

"It is interesting to watch the right wing contradict itself over and over. The conservatives on this board rail against government…I am just pointing out the contradictions of the right….. - greeonions"
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2016
Noumenon
Who is doing that?
Asking about some people having more food - while other starve to death. We all are Noumenon - do you not realize that the U.S. is not the whole world, and that children do die of starvation. All I am doing at this point Noumenon is observing that the world that I live in is seriously f*cked up - and suggesting that we can do better. I am not wedded to any specific ideology - just know that what we are doing now has some big flaws (like the size of Texas). You are the one who wants to throw around labels - like liberal bed wetters, and socialists. Surely that makes you the divisive one.
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2016
I can tell your own political ideology more so that even you can, believe me.
Go ahead.

Also - pointing out that people who identify as 'Conservative' (could be described appropriately on the right) have made some contradictory remarks - does not then enable you to know what my political ideology is.
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2016
Noumenon
For instance, what do you mean by "anarchist",.. that sounds like someone who would interfere with the freedom of others
Sorry - I thought I was talking with someone who had a basic understanding of political thought. Anarchism is a pretty well understood political philosophy - that could be described generally as a belief in a stateless society. Anarchism is an extreme view of freedom - although of course - when two individuals live in the same world - they cannot both be totally free. If you don't understand that thought - this is pointless - you need to get an education - and stop wasting every ones time. Here - https://en.wikipe...narchism
No, I see plenty of flaws in yours.
That statement in no way indicates a flaw in my reasoning - it is perfectly congruent.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2016
Noumenon
For instance, what do you mean by "anarchist",.. that sounds like someone who would interfere with the freedom of others
Sorry - I thought I was talking with someone who had a basic understanding of political thought. Anarchism is a pretty well understood political philosophy - ....


Well, no it is not. From your own link .... "Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism"

Therefore it is quite vague as to what you mean and how that is supposed to fix inequality.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2016
.... "extreme individualism" would naturally lead to inequalities,... while "complete collectivism" leads to communism. Sounds like extreme and complete gibberish and some fantasyland non-sense. In either case there HAS to be some elected authority for otherwise there is nothing that could qualify as a modern society.

Is anarchism not a just another label?
Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2016
cont energy onto helping others on their journey. So perhaps I can now devote time to mentoring others who are interested in similar business areas as mine. [....] 1. It is good to take care of your needs - and to be industrious and creative - and provide yourself, but you do not need ungodly amounts of wealth. In other words - reach a point of self care - and then turn your energy into helping others. 2. We are all in this together - so when one suffers, we all suffer. I admit it all sounds very pollyanna - but it is a work in progress.


How would you compel others to go long with this,... limiting their wealth and then helping others?

What authority defines when one has enough wealth?

They would have to be forced to do this, which obviously requires an authority,... for otherwise what is stopping people from voluntarily limiting their wealth and then helping others now?

Anarchy of thought.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2016
Maybe you should be honest,... it's not about what you should do with your wealth,... as much as it's about what you want others to do with theirs.

Conservatives are more generous with their wealth, while liberals are more generous with other peoples wealth.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2016
All I am doing is suggesting that the first step is acknowledging the problem - and begin looking for solutions.


You have not acknowledged the problem,… as that depends upon the given circumstance. Poverty around the world usually is the result of oppression of some sort, or poor personal choices.

Your only first step was to falsely characterize a direct result of freedom of choice,.. wealth-inequality,… as an "immorality". The only logical next step is to enforce this false narrative and oppress that freedom by redistribution of wealth.

Phys1
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2016

The poor do not provide jobs and are a negative source for tax revenue.

They do not employ indeed, they are employed. Often multiple times.
You are a source of misinformation.

The point of that statement was that attacking the evil rich and wealth-inequity,

And so you attack the poor.
those who provide jobs,

Logical fallacy. Those who provide jobs are often quite well off, but the converse is not true.
The well-oof do not necessarily provide jobs.
is not the answer. Are you going to start debating my individual words next?

Looks a lot like a strawman. I never debate your "individual words".
I just show the errors in your reasoning.
It may frustrate you but this is not my purpose.
My purpose is that you remove the mistakes.
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2016
Noumenon -
Therefore it is quite vague as to what you mean and how that is supposed to fix inequality
I never said it would fix inequality. I was using it to make a point. Just because someone is against capitalism - does not make them against liberty - as you falsely asserted. One can support liberty - and also be against capitalism. I could be an anarchist - and support liberty - and also be against capitalism. All you seem to want to do - is to argue around in circles. It is pointless trying to have a conversation with you - when you are not capable of understanding very basic lines of reason.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2016
I could be an anarchist - and support liberty - and also be against capitalism.


How would you stop people from participating in capitalism? If you support liberty you can't stop by the force of government. How then would you solve inequality then?

Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2016
The point of that statement was that attacking the evil rich and wealth-inequity, those who provide jobs, is not the answer.


And so you attack the poor.


I wasn't attacking, making the point that jobs come from people who have more,... either directly by running a business or indirectly by investing in companies, the stock market, or by buyig things.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2016
... but a system that does NOT oppress freedom as expressed through egoism and wealth accumulation, and that does NOT redistribute wealth by government force or punitive taxation, is ultimately the one with the strongest economy. This of course has a direct effect on standard of living for all in that system.

absolutely agree.
However, the caveat here is - provide services and/or products at a FAIR price, evenly, so as not to cause detrimental harm to others...
Do you know that doctors routinely charge self-pay patients almost twice as much as they would get from an insurer? Gouging..
Phys1
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2016
I wasn't attacking, making the point that jobs come from people who have more,... either directly by running a business or indirectly by investing in companies, the stock market, or by buyig things.

But they have more because so many people work for them and they add value to that, either by being smart or by being a cartel. That is where the money comes from that they spend. You see, economy works in circles.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2016
@Phys1,.... i'm not following your point.

greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2016
Noumenon
How would you stop people from participating in capitalism?
I never said that I would do that. You really can't understand a point - can you? I will explain. You said
Being anti-capitalism, is being anti-freedom
Well that is bull shit. I demonstrated that it is bullshit - by saying that (for example) one could be an anarchist (that is highly supportive of freedom) - and also be against capitalism. Therefore - your statement is bull shit. You just don't seem able to understand pretty straightforward logic. So you want to have these convoluted philosophical/social/political discussions - but you are not able to follow very straightforward logic, and you don't know what anarchism is. WTF.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2016
If anybody wants to see Republican capitalism working as it should,,, ask Google-Skippy to show you "Louisiana budget crisis left by Jindal." You might want to bring a chair, and some Kleenex too.. Jindal decided instead of collecting the taxes and fees from the oil and gas producers, he would run the state by pawning everything from police cars to public buildings to school supplies to highway equipments. He was doing pretty good at it too, he made it last just long enough for the new governor to get sworn in.

Like Obama-Skippy taking the heat for the American economy from 09 to now, the new governor, a Democrat will probably get all the heat for Louisiana having shut down schools, colleges, hospitals, and such like.The Republicans are pretty good starting with a good economy and cheating, bending and tearing all in the name of a free market capitalism, making their selfs look good while in office, and leaving a mess behind that they blame on whoever follows them.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2016
P.S. The state had to borrow money just so we can have a primary this year. Should have made the Republicans pay for their own if they wanted to have one.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2016
@greenonions,

Apparently, my mistake was in thinking you actually had a point or any ideas for a better system even though you clamed that the present one with inequalities is immoral. Evidently you do not, as I suspected. Only insults and gibberish.

From your own link "anarchism" could span the entire political ideological spectrum. You have not explained your version nor how it is to improve the present state.

greenonions
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2016
Noumenon - you are the one spouting giberish. I am not necessarily espousing anarchism. I was using that issue to make a point. The point being that your statement -
Being anti-capitalism, is being anti-freedom
is bullshit. It was just an example - in order to prove a point - that your statement is bullshit. ONE can be anti capitalism, and also pro freedom. I don't get why you can't understand something as simple as that. An anarchist is strongly pro-liberty - more so than many capitalists - who want to pass laws against gay marriage (for example). You cannot understand a basic point. WTF
I do not have a complete and definitive answer to the problems of our society. I just advocate being willing to consider that there may be a better way. Again - not hard to understand - and consistent to everything I have said. I do have some ideas - I am planning to develop.
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2016
Noumenon
You have not explained your version nor how it is to improve the present state.
I have talked about my ideas. I would like to see a system - that was a free market based system - with all the advantages of freedom, and creativity that come with a free market based economic system. The difference I would like to see - is working into that system - the idea that one can be a creative entrepreneur, and reach a point where one says "my needs are now satisfied (food, shelter, clothing, health care), I can now recognize a responsibility to others who may have not gotten this far - and help them on their journey." The problem I see is the interest in always wanting more - thinking more will always make be better. It would not be legislated - but something people would naturally want. Yes - that presents a problem - but why not TRY to see if we can convince enough people (through example) to give it a go?
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2016
[I should not have rated the above post a one, my mistake.]

Okay, Thank you for explaining your position clearly. I'm sorry for the frustration, but when you say 'when one has enough wealth', the natural question is who decides this? Is this determined by force of legislation?

You have now answered that,... that it is based on a global understanding and is under free choice of personal charity, and not via force of government.

It is a noble and nice sentiment, ...but I think in essence it already occurs through charity to the extent that it is possible. It is similar to the question, why to we have wars, or why do we have criminals,... it presupposes that everyone is reasonable, charitable, etc. It is not reality as it is.

Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2016
ONE can be anti capitalism, and also pro freedom


I'm thinking in terms of form of government or advocating for a political ideology to influence legislation. In such a scenario, legislation based on anti-capitalism, would need to prevent capitalism from occurring in some way. To do so requires loss of liberty.

Even if you only mean a personal viewpoint without political ramifications, ... it is still imo not entirely logical because,.... capitalism is simply an expression of freedom,.. in that entrepreneurs freely choose to start a business, and consumers free choose to buy that product or service.

Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2016
One final point,... had Steve Jobs had that same sentiment and freely decided that his wealth was enough at some arbitrary point,... say at one million $ personal value,.... and then used Apples revenue to help the next guy out. Apple would not have grown to employ the tens of thousands it does now, nor would anyone be making money off its stock, nor would Jobs even have the billions to help even more people had he chose to (I'm sure he was charitable).

Even if you only meant Job's income and not Apples profits,... the wealth doesn't just sit in giant piles, it goes places in investments that eventually fuel the economy.

greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2016
I'm thinking in terms of form of government or advocating for a political ideology to influence legislation.
So now you add all kinds of qualifications - because what you said was bullshit - and I provided very clear argument to demonstrate that. What said - as it was said - was just flat wrong.
On the Steve Jobs issue - it is quiet conceivable that Jobs - or any other business person - build the business - just as Jobs did with Apple. The difference would be - being willing to personally reach a point - where enough was enough - and he no longer strive to keep increasing personal wealth - but to turn his energy into continuing to grow the business - at the same time as mentoring others to build their own businesses.
But you know what - it does not matter if you agree or disagree - it is just a line of thought that I am going to be developing for myself. One thing I find interesting - is that you never recognize the pathological mess of our world. I see it.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2016
"According to NCCP researchers, the number of poor children in the U.S. grew by 18 percent from 2008 to 2014"
But, but Obama was President during this time period?! I thought unlike evil Republicans, he cared about the children.
- jeffensley

Obama never intended to increase the wealth of the poor. He had made promises to garner their votes, which they took at face value, and the poor got suckered in with those false promises. He could have helped the poor by first increasing job availability in the U.S., although it is a well-known fact that many who are poor have no intention of becoming employed. His agenda was to DECREASE wealth of workers, middle-class & SOME of the rich, but not all of them. Obama & other Democrats have a need to keep SOME of them wealthy so that they will donate a certain percentage of their wealth to the Democrat National Committee (DNC) and to the campaigns of Liberal/Socialist Democrats so that the Socialist agenda may continue undeterred.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2016
more children today are likely to live in families barely able to afford their most basic needs
Sorry Socks and Noumenon - hiding behind the theory of capitalism - is not good enough - these kids can have better - so yes it is a moral question - that we figure out how to make it happen.
- green onions
You are correct, those kids COULD have better. So WHY isn't it happening? Children aren't born into this world without opportunities, but until they are mature enough to take care of themselves, they have to depend on parents. There are many kinds of parents. Some will do ANYTHING to raise their kids in a loving home with everything that they need & should have. Good food, clean clothes, good education...a good life. But many other parents don't have the same regard for their kids, & choose to provide as little as possible, while pretending to be concerned as to the fate of the kids. Others are self-centered druggies who pop out babies with no thought at all.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2016
- onions
Poor children are most often the result of bad parents and bad parenting. But even so, in the U.S. even if a child or a parent is poor, there is absolutely NO need to go hungry, dress in rags, or be uneducated. There are STILL plenty of opportunities for children, no matter how poor. Kids have no say in the matter, but IF parents refuse to go on the dole out of pride, they will still be able to take care of their needs through private charities that include food, clothing, & other necessities.
There is NO reason to not take advantage of all the offers of help that are available, & most are FREE.
BUT, it comes down to what kind of parents a child has. Is the parent lazy? Unconcerned? Or it could be that they are ignorant/uninformed of what is out there & available.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2016
- onions
Good case in point. Dr. Benjamin Carson came from a VERY POOR Black-American family from Detroit. His father ran off with another woman; his mother worked 3 jobs to support her two sons; & she encouraged her sons to excel in everything, particularly in schoolwork. She ENCOURAGED the boys to read several books every week, and they did that. Dr. Carson grew up to be a pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins, who operated on the brains of babies and other young children, without which they would have died. This is proof that it is the PARENT(S) and their deep sense of responsibility toward their children that is the determining factor whether or not a child is forced to REMAIN in poverty - or is able to improve his lot in life & climb out of poverty.
An excellent and fascinating book to read: "Gifted Hands" by Dr. Ben Carson.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2016
jeff
But, but Obama was President during this time period?! I thought unlike evil Republicans, he cared about the children.
Do you have to be so divisive? It is not about partisan politics. We will never figure out how to do it better - if all we do is hate - based on partisan politics.
- onions
Jeff is correct, though I do detect a hint of sarcasm regarding Obama. Very appropriate.
The truth is, Obama doesn't give a damm about poor children since they aren't old enough to vote. He gives them "lip service" while making it virtually impossible in most cases, for the parents to find a decent paying job. Obama wants and enjoys the flood of illegal immigrants into the U.S. to try to make them U.S. citizens so that they will vote for Socialist-Democrats like himself. The greatest fear now among Democrats is that their Socialist agenda will be inhibited by a Constitutional Conservative becoming the President-Elect in November.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2016
So now you add all kinds of qualifications - because what you said was bullshit


Well of course when one suggests that an economic system that allows wealth inequalities is "immoral" it is reasonable for me to suspect that you would have an alternative economic system, and not just be making subjective personal judgements.

In any case I addressed both cases in the next paragraph,... that even the personal viewpoint of being anti-capitalism is logically incompatible with freedom, as capitalism is itself an expression of freedom. This is logic. IOW, by being anti-capitalism you are being anti-certain-forms-of-freedom,... entrepreneurship and consumption.

One thing I find interesting - is that you never recognize the pathological mess of our world


Did you just make that up? Of course I do, I gave several examples during our discussion across two threads.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2016
... I simply recognize that capitalism, the free-market, played out in an areana of freedom and liberty has proven itself to be 'the greatest force for economic prosperity in human history', the greatest force for improving the human condition.

This means that the natural instincts of freedom and egoism and pursuit of wealth has done more for humanity than any artificial government central planning system that acts to counter those natural behavioral instincts,.... and useless dreams of voluntary communism or collectivism that are the antithesis of nature.

greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2016
Did you just make that up? Of course I do
Interesting - it does not come over that way to me - but perhaps we just use language differently - in which case talking to each other is a stupid waste of time. If you do see the shit mess of a world that I see - it escapes me why you would spend so much time having an argument with someone - who is basically saying "this is not acceptable - let's see if we can do better." If you read the core of everything that has gone into this thread - that summarizes my position. Why would it be so important to you to piss on that - rather than maybe saying - 'hey - if he thinks maybe there is a better idea out there than what we are currently doing - let him try - all he can do is either succeed, or fail' Over and out.
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2016
socks
Poor children are most often the result of bad parents and bad parenting.
Wow - what a mess of bullshit. Where did you get this fact from?
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2016
Why would it be so important to you to piss on that


Because A) you implied that a system with wealth inequalities is a "immoral" one. This is patently false as inequalities are a consequence of freedom (or oppression of freedom) and natural human instincts. You made unfounded subjective moral judgements in presuming that the rich don't hep people as a matter of chairity ,.... B) I wanted to know what your alternative would be to such a system. I finnally received that answer; you have none, and were only relating a pie-in-the-sky marshmallow dream.

Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2016
If you do see the shit mess of a world that I see - it escapes me why you would spend so much time having an argument with someone


Then you haven't been reading my posts. You are blaming the wrong thing, "wealth inequality", while you should be investigating WHY a given person or country is poor.

gkam
1 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2016
Gotta love greed-infused Capitalism.

Then, it becomes self-righteous, and blames the poor for being poor. Scorn is heaped, and the heapers self-satisfied they are "better people".
jeffensley
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2016
And what of greed infused socialism... with the "privileged" and oft corrupt sitting on top, deciding what to do with everyone else's money? You're mad at the imperfections of humanity, not an economic system.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2016
The "privileged" are the rich.

You are angry at the exposed cause of Capitalism - greed.
greenonions
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2016
Noumenon
This is patently false as inequalities are a consequence of freedom (or oppression of freedom) and natural human instincts.
No it is not patently false - and I demonstrated that clearly. Perhaps your definition of immoral - is different than mine. I use the humanist approach to morality https://en.wikipe...r_ethics Central tenet -
The well-being of others is central to ethical decision-making
So - based on my understanding of ethics (morality) - a system in which one person has more food than they can use - and another dies of starvation - is an immoral system. I don't know how more clearly I can state it.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2016
The "privileged" are the rich.


You are angry at the exposed cause of Capitalism - greed.


Bed-wetting liberals tend to confuse "egoism" a natural instinctual behaviour necessary for survival, with "greed" an emotional subjective judgement.

greenonions
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2016
jeff
You're mad at the imperfections of humanity, not an economic system.
Oh - I see - and an economic system is not put in place by humanity. So when Noumenon et al fall back on their old attacks against socialism - they are not mad at an economic system - they are mad at the imperfections of humanity? This article describes how as a society - we are going backwards. More and more families falling into poverty. Do you disagree with me that it is possible that we can do better?
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2016
a system in which one person has more food than they can use - and another dies of starvation - is an immoral system.


Your error is in applying subjective moral distinctions to an economic system itself that is based on natural human instincts,... egoism. The system is not subject to such a distinction, and nature can't be immoral. Only an individual's action can be judged on moral grounds.

It's like saying the auto industry is immoral because any such idustry that results in 38,000 people dead in the USA alone per year, while others always get to their destination without incident. It doesn't make sense. You would have to examine each specific case and ask WHY.

In the auto industry analogy .... that number of deaths each year is an acceptable number in a free society precisely because of the overwhelming greater good that the freedom of driving provides for humanity.

The same applies to Capitalism and wealth-inequality.

jeffensley
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2016
Greed is human.. changing economic systems doesn't eliminate it... it just shifts it more toward government and away from the free market.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2016
So when Noumenon et al fall back on their old attacks against socialism - they are not mad at an economic system - they are mad at the imperfections of humanity?


No, you're making a fundamental mistake here. I have touched on this several times.

The distinction between capitalism as an expression of freedom is that it is in accord with natural human instincts,..... whilst socialism as an expression of social engineering operates counter to those instincts.

IOW, socialism is an artificial construct that use force or coercion because it must counter nature, while capitalism in a areana of freedom and it's consequence of wealth-inequality is purely natural as "let's nature play out".

Egoism is morality of the highest order.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2016
"Nearly half of children in the United States live dangerously close to the poverty line"

Any numbers on the number of adults on living on that same line?
Might explain why the children are....
greenonions
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2016
noumenon
I have touched on this several times.
You can't even understand a very basic piece of logical reasoning. Why should I care what you have touched on?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2016
noumenon
I have touched on this several times.
You can't even understand a very basic piece of logical reasoning. Why should I care what you have touched on?

Because it's YOUR logical reasoning and not his?
Egoism.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2016
Continued from above.....

Poverty around the world is akin to the car crashes,... some are caused by poor personal choices, or by oppressive governments outside the economic system of capitalism and freedom,... you have to examine each case to make moral judgements as appropriate, not illogically apply moral distinctions to systems of economics and freedom itself.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2016
The distinction between capitalism as an expression of freedom is that it is in accord with natural human instincts,..... whilst socialism as an expression of social engineering operates counter to those instincts.

IOW, socialism is an artificial construct that use force or coercion because it must counter nature, while capitalism in a areana of freedom and it's consequence of wealth-inequality is purely natural as "let's nature play out"
Noumenon fails to appreciate the distinction between the 'liberty' (whatever that is) of the wild animal vs the necessities of taming it's proclivities while living in the tribe.

Humans have lived in tribes throughout their existence. Activities natural to wild animals are destructive to tribal society.

For instance it is the natural of males to impregnate as many females as possible; while it is natural for females to incite competition among males in order to determine which is best suited to father her next child.
Cont>
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2016
Because it's YOUR logical reasoning and not his?
So what? It is still logic - and if someone is not capable of understanding a line of reasoning - there is no point in trying to have an exchange. Noumenon just goes around and around in circles. One can make a very clear point - and it is not understood. That is Noumenon's problem - not mine.
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2016
Noumenon
Poverty around the world is akin to the car crashes,...
Bullshit. When Mao starved millions to death through his economic/social programs - one would not say "we have to look at each case individually - it could not be a systemic problem." FFS.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2016
Cont>
Obviously, both of these inclinations threaten tribal harmony and cohesion, and so are suppressed for the common good. Marriage was invented for this purpose.

Similarly, unbridled competition breeds mistrust and contempt among tribal members. Competing for reproductive rights is much the same as competing for status and access to goods and services. Alls fair in love, war, and free market capitalism. People will resort to deception and cheating in these conditions in order to win, and this is entirely natural.

And so for the greater good unbridled competition within the tribe has always been suppressed, moderated, and contained. Those tribes which were better at this enjoyed greater internal cohesion and trust, and could be expected to win out over others in conflict.

The tribal dynamic has 2 essential facets; internal altruism in conjunction with external animosity.

When nou craves unbridled freedom it is against his perceived enemies, not his compatriots.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2016
Poverty... caused by poor personal choices, or by oppressive governments outside the economic system of capitalism and freedom
Poverty has only one cause; overpopulation. Maybe maltus was not on your reading list?

Poverty can be artificially induced or exacerbated for any number of reasons.

Here's an interesting article about an institution that thrives on the suffering of others...
http://www.salon....t_834955

"The West's big lie about Mother Teresa: Her "glorification of suffering instead of relieving it"...

"Speaking in 1997, she remarked that "the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people," describing how it was "very beautiful for the poor to share [their suffering] with the passion of Christ."
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2016
Egoism is morality of the highest order
Well I guess we can surmise that nou has no compatriots.

Point of order, most of the words in his statement have no useful definitions. Attempts to define them usually entail the use of more and more undefinable words until the philo is usually the only one left standing.

This is the condition nou describes as 'liberty'.

Also, words ending in -ism are especially suspect.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2016
Mao starved millions to death through his economic/social programs
Those population would have faced even greater famine if left to themselves. Such is the curse of our tropical repro rate in the context of religions designed to maximize it for the purpose of outgrowing and overrunning their enemies.

Mao and communism were used to ensure that this inevitability happen at the Proper Time and in the proper Manner.

Once the pressure was relieved the real cause of this horror - religion - could begin to be destroyed while the country remained under martial law.

Holodomor, cuba, and pol pot are other examples.
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2016
The richest country in the world has 40% of its children living in poverty.
Noumenon confuses capitalism with sociopathy.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2016
"Noumenon confuses capitalism with sociopathy."
-----------------------------

Well,. . . . ???
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2016
Obviously the standard of measure to qualify as "poverty" in the USA is not the same as that of 3rd world nations,..... thus rendering your application of that stat nonsensical,.... not that I expect liberals to display sense.

greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2016
Those population would have faced even greater famine if left to themselves.
The invisible hand would have fed them - silly....
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2016

Poverty around the world is akin to the car crashes,... some are caused by poor personal choices, or by oppressive governments outside the economic system of capitalism

Bullshit. When Mao starved millions to death through his economic/social programs - one would not say "we have to look at each case individually - it could not be a systemic problem."


In THAT case it was "outside the system of capitalism" where oppression exists,... obviously nothing to do with a capitalistic system. Obviously you're not reading my posts. See how dishonest you look when I included the whole quote?

greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2016
Noumenon
Poverty around the world is akin to the car crashes,... some are caused by poor personal choices, or by oppressive governments outside the economic system of capitalism and freedom,... you have to examine each case to make moral judgements as appropriate, not illogically apply moral distinctions to systems of economics and freedom itself.
I just picked that snippet to show what I was referring to. If you look at the whole quote - as I stated - it is bullshit. You are saying "you can't blame economic systems for poverty - you have to look at each case individually - like car crashes - but when I want to - I can blame economic systems." Total bullshit - and my criticism is valid. Either you can blame whole economic systems or you can't. Trying to have it both ways - is logically stupid - and that is the point I was trying to make. The system of capitalism we have today in America has led to an increase in rates of poverty - the point of today's article.
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2016
Hey Nou - is the U.S. a capitalist economy? If yes - you are wrong - because there are large swaths of systemic, institutionalized, generational poverty here. If no - please give us an example of a capitalist economy.
gkam
1 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2016
Noum, are you just rationalizing what capitalism does to people with no power?
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2016
You knuckleheads have missed the point of the car-industry analogy. Tens of thousands of people die every year in car crashes,... but OVERWHELMINGLY and OVERALL society benefits from the auto industry.

The auto industry does not produce car-crashes as a matter of policy ,.. crashes are simply natural consequences of millions of people freely choosing to drive,... an acceptable cost of that freedom.

Therefore only a mush-headed liberal would think it makes logical sense to say that the auto industry is "immoral", on account of free choice and circumstance.

Likewise, capitalism/consumption as expressions of freedom, can't logically be "immoral". That is a subjective judgement applicable to behaviour, not to freedom.

Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2016
Mao's system of government CAN be labeled as immoral because as a matter of polcy it oppresses anothers freedom, which is an immoral act.

I will point out once more that the term "poverty" should not even be used in this study, and its a bit of a fraud to do so. The phrase "low income" would be more appropriate. The reason of course is, is that the term "poverty" as designed for the USA above, is light years away from that standard as used in MOST of the rest of the world.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2016
You knuckleheads have missed the point of the car-industry analogy. Tens of thousands of people die every year in car crashes,... but OVERWHELMINGLY and OVERALL society benefits from the auto industry
This argument sounds suspiciously like mother theresas, that even though tens of thousands of people die every year from poverty, OVERWHELMINGLY and OVERALL society benefits from poverty.

Is that what you're trying to say?
Mao's system of government CAN be labeled as immoral because as a matter of polcy it oppresses anothers freedom, which is an immoral act
Freedom... ? You mean the freedom to have more than one baby per family at a time when millions are starving due to critical overpopulation?

Is your def of freedom 'do what thou wilt' re crowley? THAT always leads to a lot LESS freedom for everybody in a very short time.

Which is why it is illegal (and immoral).
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2016
the term "poverty" as designed for the USA above, is light years away from that standard as used in MOST of the rest of the world
Hmmm I suspect you don't know what you are talking about, but let's do a little research to confirm...

Per the article;
"... more children today are likely to live in families barely able to afford their most basic needs."

-and per wiki (first few paragraphs);
"Absolute poverty or destitution refers to the lack of means necessary to meet basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter. Relative poverty takes into consideration individual social and economic status compared to the rest of society"

-The article is referring to absolute poverty which is a lack of basic needs, which is a universal standard.

You were referring to relative poverty, but you were unaware of the distinction, which confirms what I suspected, that you don't know what you are talking about.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2016
It's built in to the definition of "poverty", that there will necessarily be people 'living in poverty', because it is based on median standard of living of that particular society.

If you magically increased every individuals income while keeping the distribution the same, you would still have the same number living in "poverty" with such country-dependent definition.

IOW, "poverty" is not directly indicative of standard-of-living, which in fact may be quite high. Indeed this IS the case in global comparisons of poverty by country. ; When the qualification standard of "poverty" is normalized (purchasing power parity), it is clear that the USA and capitalistic countries generally have very low poverty.

Based on this fact, the above study is only indicative of a changing distribution of wealth in the country in which the term is defined, and is NOT indicative of failure on the part of free market capitalism as that measure is standard of living.

QED

TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2016
It's built in to the definition of "poverty", that there will necessarily be people 'living in poverty', because it is based on median standard of living of that particular society
No you knucklehead that's RELATIVE poverty. You failed to follow up when I showed you you were uninformed.

ABSOLUTE poverty refers to minimum standards for nutrition, adequate clothing, and adequate protection from the elements required for SURVIVAL.

These are standard for any human being no matter where he or she lives, and this is what the article is referring to.

And implicit in your explanation is the idea that somehow people in undeveloped countries can somehow survive with less that what is required elsewhere.

This is somewhat offensive don't you think?

Rice and fishheads do not supply the daily minimum requirements for healthy growth and sustenance.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2016
And it's odd how you think that definitions are automatically 'built in to' words. This is like saying that since 'everybody knows' what a word means, you're free to fiddle with it however you wish.

This is exactly how your discipline lost its usefulness and relevance.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2016
The article is referring to absolute poverty which is a lack of basic needs, which is a universal standard.


Actually, don't know what you're talking about, as you're factually incorrect.

The above "poverty" in the study is defined relative to income IN the USA,.... nor does it attempt to globally normalize that term through appropriate adjustments (as mentioned).

It is a statement of income distribution not one of standard of living, and thus not one of the "immorality of capitalism".

You can find many such global comparisons of poverty by country all of which use some means of normalization for a quantifiable study,... and none of them show the USA as nearly 50% in poverty as defined globally,.. in fact the USA and other free capitalistic countries show very low poverty.

These are facts.

Phys1
5 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2016
@Noumenon
40% is a lot. I do not expect any compassion or economical insight from a republican, colluding with people like Trump, Cruz, "Bomb Iran, its fun" McCain, warlords Bush, Cheney, Bremer III, Rumsfeld.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2016
And it's odd how you think that definitions are automatically 'built in to' words.


Lol, that's what words are, Einstein.

When one is conducting a quantifiable study one better define the terma used to do so. Studies comparing poverty by country must make adjustments in order to quantify the term,.... precisely because the standard of living is so different from country to country.

Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2016
@Noumenon
40% is a lot. I do not expect any compassion or economical insight from a republican, colluding with people like Trump, Cruz, "Bomb Iran, its fun" McCain, warlords Bush, Cheney, Bremer III, Rumsfeld.


Compassion? I am only defending "capitalism as an expression of freedom" from the charge of the subjective judgement of "immoral" merely on the basis of there being wealth-inequality.

That is all. I have never engaged in how I feel about people who are poor,.... except to point out that the USA already usually tops the list as the most generous nations wrt personal chairity. If I that it meant anything to be compassionate here, I would try to top greenonions fantasy marshmallow dream.

Freedom and capitalism are effectively the most "compassionate" economic system ever to exist on this planet. There ARE no alternatives that are better.

It's like the fat guy sitting on the couch complaining the Julia Roberts lips are too narrow.

Phys1
not rated yet Mar 05, 2016
@Nou
or economical insight.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2016
In This-Link one can see the results of a study of poverty by country and that the term "poverty" has been quantifiablly normalized for such comparison.

The USA has no where near 50% poverty by this standard. Such studies are done by experts in their field, not by wiki-jockies.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2016
Also, words ending in -ism are especially suspect.


What about sesquipedalophobia'ism?

greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2016
Nou
I am only defending "capitalism as an expression of freedom"
And you failed miserably. Now you are trying to say that people living in poverty - is like car crashes. It is inevitable. Just a natural order of being. But I reject that. There is enough in the world for all to have a high quality of life. It is a function of a bad system - that some have ungodly wealth - while others starve to death. We can do better. Your analogy sucks.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2016
There is enough in the world for all to have a high quality of life. It is a function of a bad system - that some have ungodly wealth...


You're painfully naive. You have NO such way of doing that as someone who advocates for freedom,... so what then is the point of such childish sentiments?

You just don't understand basic economics. Wealth doesn't exist as a FINITE quantity in the world. This is another myth of the left. Wealth is Created. Since wealth is Created it doesn't matter that those who create it have disproportionately more. In fact had there not been such motivation, there would not be any reason for them to create that wealth to begin with.

They are not therefore taking more from your faux finite pie,.... they are Creating the pie and employing people as an means of doing so. The Creation of wealth is what Creates jobs, ...what sets up supply and demand,.... what drives the economy.

Wealth inequality is a necessary consequence of freedom.

Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2016
It's pointless to continue because it's evident you're not even reading my posts, much less comprehending them objectively.

Capitalism is demonstrably the greatest force for economic prosperity in human history. Even the liberal guy you likely voted for had to state that fact. Therefore, you have to be a lunatic to suggest its a bad system,..... particularly when it's not even implemented globally where the poverty you complain about exists!

greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2016
You're painfully naive.
Ahhh - but you have such wisdom - and life experience - please enlighten us!
It's pointless to continue because it's evident you're not even reading my posts, much less comprehending them objectively.
Well I try - but they don't make any sense to me.
Capitalism is demonstrably the greatest force for economic prosperity in human history.
Which is perhaps a good thing - if you worship at the alter of economic prosperity. The poor people suffering in the blighted neighborhoods of your burned out inner cities - riddled with crime and misery may disagree. As would the Native Americans - who were systematically exterminated by your religion of capitalism. Those guys were pretty free until you f*cked them up. Ever heard of the trail of tears? No that was not in your economics text was it?
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2016
The poor people suffering in the blighted neighborhoods of your burned out inner cities - riddled with crime and misery may disagree.


That is due to personal behaviour and a failed degenerate subculture via breakdown of the family unit. I mentioned this above. Cause then effect, not effect then cause.

As would the Native Americans - who were systematically exterminated by your religion of capitalism. Those guys were pretty free until you f*cked them up.


The native Americans routinely slaughtered each other. Routinely. They were ignorant savages in comparison to western culture, and since no one wants to live like that now, they've irrelevant. By the nature of survival of the fittest, they're extinct. Again, your complaint is of nature.

The native American culture was a failed one which is why it is extinct, as it rightly should be as were hundreds of previous outdated cultures. They were not "exterminated" they were fought off.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2016
Besides, the USA was not a nation then, it was without the declaration of Independence that promoted natural-rights and the constitution that protected private-property rights.

Since you failed to make the argument you wanted to make, let me help you out,.... you should have mentioned the enslavement of blacks which continued even after the declaration of Independence and the USA became a separate nation. This governmental ifailure was eventually corrected by a republican.

However, if you recall in the other thread, I said that it is a myth that conservatives are anti-government,... because capitalism can not exist without personal property protection rights and freedom. I've made this clear.

This of course means, that an economic system, albeit with capitalistic elements, is not true Capitalism without the above stated natural rights,... freedom, property rights.

Therefore slave trade was not valid capitalism in terms of its modern understanding that I only recognize.
greenonions
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2016
The native American culture was a failed one which is why it is extinct
So on cue - you look at history through your rose colored glasses - worshiping at the alter of 'economic prosperity'. Of course the destruction of native cultures throughout the World would be rationalized away by you - it does not fit your child like narrative. So what if SOME native cultures were war like? That justifies the European genocides? You clearly do not know history. But now we are left with the mess we are left with. You justify systemic, generational poverty - so glibly - just saying it is their own fault. Not even a wonder - of is there something we could do - that would have better outcomes. Why you need to tear others down - with taunts, and stupid words like naive, is hard to understand. I am anything but painfully naive. You never answered my question - is the U.S. a capitalist economy? If not - can you show us an example of one?
Anakin
5 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2016
"According to NCCP researchers, the number of poor children in the U.S. grew by 18 percent from 2008 to 2014"

But, but Obama was President during this time period?! I thought unlike evil Republicans, he cared about the children.


In the best democracy money can buy and the land where every attempt to get together and make USA a great country for everyone is mocked for communism, nobody in leading position care for others than the ones that paid for the elected post.
As long they spread fud they get away with it
God bless America and the Second Amendment.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2016
Why you need to tear others down - with taunts, and stupid words like naive,

That is an adjective. Bed-wetter is an analogy for that mental condition. I'm only trying to keep up with you.

You never answered my question - is the U.S. a capitalist economy?


That discussion already took place. The USA economy is of course market & consumption based, and is indeed a [democratic] capitalistic one. It is not laissez faire capitalism however.

Of course the destruction of native cultures throughout the World would be rationalized away by you - it does not fit your child like narrative.


I'm not willing to be spoon-fed a liberal narrative designed to be politically correct like you are. Children are spoon fed.

Native cultures were destroyed more by competition of cultures and thus obsolescence than by systematic extermination. People don't want to live in ignorance and backward lifestyle anymore,... thus western culture had dominated the planet.
Phys1
not rated yet Mar 06, 2016
@Noumenon
Lets just end this discussion here and agree that you are a pompous ignoramus.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2016
@Noumenon
Lets just end this discussion here and agree that you are a pompous ignoramus.


Instead of insulting me you should be studying my posts and taking notes, and then thanking me for helping you evolve to be a more rational person. But insults are easier than actually engaging in discussion and admitting your entire intellectual worldview is tainted with politically correct gibberish.

greenonions
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2016
Noumenon
Bed-wetter is an analogy for that mental condition. I'm only trying to keep up with you.
Well - that is a very interesting point for me. I pointed out a logical contradiction - that I often see coming from people on the right. That is a far cry from your need to 'poke at liberals' (this is your term)
But insults are easier than actually engaging in discussion
So why devolve into taunting people with terms like 'bedwetters'. You really don't see your logical contradictions
Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2016
you should be studying my posts and taking notes, and then thanking me for helping you evolve to be a more rational person.

Pompous fits you like a glove.
Also if you have a problem with bedwetting, talk to your doctor.
Do not project your fears on others.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2016
Actually, don't know what you're talking about, as you're factually incorrect
Factually the article says this;

"Survey, NCCP researchers found that while the total number of children in the U.S. has remained about the same since 2008, more children today are likely to live in families barely able to afford their BASIC NEEDS."

-And factually you are claiming that the BASIC NEEDS of US children are somehow different than those elsewhere.

Care to provide some facts to support this?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2016
You can find many such global comparisons of poverty by country all of which use some means of normalization for a quantifiable
Yes. When 'normalized' by country it is called relative...

"Relative poverty takes into consideration individual social and economic status compared to the rest of society"

-but when it is talking about BASIC NEEDS, which the author makes CLEAR, it is referring to

"Absolute poverty or destitution refers to the lack of means necessary to meet BASIC NEEDS such as food, clothing and shelter"

-The study examined absolute poverty in the US.

Basic needs = basic needs. A child in the US needs the sane minimum nutrition for instance as one in mumbai.
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2016
Noumenon
The USA economy is of course market & consumption based, and is indeed a [democratic] capitalistic one. It is not laissez faire capitalism however.
So we are having a debate about the problems in America regarding more and more children falling into poverty (the subject of today's article). Noumenon is arguing in support of capitalism. I am simply stating that what we have now (don't care what you call it) is a problem - being that there is such a wealth gap, and millions trapped in generational poverty. Noumenon argues with me - taking the position that capitalism is basically beyond question. So I ask a very pertinent question - "Is the U.S. a capitalist economy?" - and look at the answer above! Paraphrase - 'yes it sort of is - but no not really.' Talk about slippery eel.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2016
-And factually you are claiming that the BASIC NEEDS of US children are somehow different than those elsewhere.


I already posted a link above of a study of global poverty where the USA factored no where near 50% poverty.

I already pointed out that the above study relies on "poverty" measures specific to the USA (income in the USA; standard of living),... while global comparisons of poverty must, in order to be objective, perform some normalization on the measures and definition of "poverty".

One more time,.... In THIS-LINK one can clearly see that there are only 14.5% to 15.1% of people living in poverty in the USA as compared to other countries.

The above study is correct, as long as one understands that it uses a definition of "poverty" that is relative to the USA. This was my point above.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2016
So I ask a very pertinent question - "Is the U.S. a capitalist economy?" - and look at the answer above! Paraphrase - 'yes it sort of is - but no not really.' Talk about slippery eel.


You would only need to paraphrase, after having quoted me directly, if you wished to change what I said. Indeed, your "paraphrase" is only your attempt to be dishonest.

My answer to your question contains no ambiguity,... "The USA economy is of course market & consumption based, and is indeed a [democratic] capitalistic one.".

Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2016
I stated that the USA economy is not based on 'laissez faire capitalism', because there exists governmental regulations, bailouts, some redistribution of wealth in welfare state, etc,,... but it is still a 'capitalistic economy',... just not entirely free of government intrusion. No ambiguity here.

What this should tell you is that, 'government solutions' have failed, ....that even with such government intrusion we STILL HAVE the "problems" that you pointed out. Perhaps those problems are on account of government welfare state, government dependency, regulations,,....

That you wish to call an entire economic system "bad" or "immoral" without 1) ascertaining the circumstances that cause poverty, and 2) considering the overwhelming good such a capitalistic economy has done for humanity generally,.... is pointless and not objective,… especially when YOU HAVE NO BETTER ALTERNATIVE.

Noumenon
not rated yet Mar 08, 2016
Noumenon is arguing in support of capitalism. I am simply stating that what we have now (don't care what you call it) is a problem - being that there is such a wealth gap, and millions trapped in generational poverty.


When freedom is allowed, there will always be inequalities. There are inequalities just by virtue of being born. Freedom of choice and behavior breeds inequalities. Do you wish to oppress freedom and impose more loss of liberty?

Again, you don't seem to understand that there is NOT a finite quantity of wealth in existence as if it 'should be divided up fairly'. Wealth is created and earned. IOW, there HAS TO BE a wealth gap in a free society. There HAS TO BE a motive for creating wealth because that is what supports businesses which employ people, and people act not for the collective but according to the egoistic nature.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2016
You've made no attempt at understanding WHY there is poverty. You have NO alternatives to that which has been objectively the greatest force for economic prosperity in history of mankind. Therefore your labels of "bad" and "immoral" are meaningless gibberish.

In many parts of the world there is government instability and government oppression, and LACK of capitalism. Wouldn't it stand to reason that this is a cause?

As pointed out, in the USA, there is a subculture which leads to the breakdown of the family unit and a disproportionately high crime rate, …. perhaps that contributes? What about government generational dependency with the expansion of the welfare state? What about the perpetual racial victimhood industry that promotes the notion that the system is against you so why even try? What about the racism of lowered expectations and racial patronization that liberals are so efficient at?

None of these has to do with capitalism.
Noumenon
not rated yet Mar 08, 2016
Yes. When 'normalized' by country it is called relative...


No, you have it backwards. They are normalizing definitions that are relative to each country, to define a absolute global standard.

The article above uses a definition of poverty that is "considered in relation or in proportion to" the USA.

Whereas, the global study that I have referenced makes use of a normalization procedure that REMOVES such relative definitions in order to make an objective absolute global standard for comparison between nations.

There are only 14.5% to 15.1% of people living in poverty in the USA according to a global standard. The point originally, was that you can't logically use the above article to point out a failure of capitalism generally. You would have to use a global study of poverty to make such a general statement,... and THAT study shows conclusively that the opposite is true.
greenonions
1 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2016
Indeed, your "paraphrase" is only your attempt to be dishonest.
But I actually gave the full quote - and my paraphrase was a commentary on your FULL quote - so that is in no way dishonest. Now - the reason I asked if you consider the U.S. a capitalist economy - is that if you do not - then you are just arguing pure theory - where as I am arguing real world. Your theory may be nice - but it is a waste of time to sing the praises of capitalism - but to then admit that the U.S. is not really a capitalist system. So now you want to parse out all different kinds of capitalism - and argue with me about the real world I live in. It is just mental masturbation. You have NO real system to be talking about.
YOU HAVE NO BETTER ALTERNATIVE.
Well - I think there are examples of countries that are doing it better. Just one example - Norway. Countries that do not have the extreme poverty, or the wealth disparity of the U.S. Cont.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2016
the reason I asked if you consider the U.S. a capitalist economy - is that if you do not - then you are just arguing pure theory


I answered that question,.... the USA is a capitalistic country,... in the REAL WORLD.

I think there are examples of countries that are doing it better. Just one example – Norway, Countries […] or the wealth disparity


Not true Norway has major wealth inequality.

Norway guarantees each person in the country an income,... but the circumstances in Norway are artificially unique. They are oil rich and have only five million people. They will collapse if the world stops using oil.

It is mathematically impossible to use their system in the USA/Canada.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2016
"The top 10% of wealth holders in three Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden and Denmark) hold between 65 and 69 per cent of those nations' wealth."

Those economic system do NOT solve wealth inequality. They have 1/3 the poverty rate the USA has, not zero. The USA has 330 million while they only have 5 million.

greenonions
1 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2016
cont. So the position I have taken all along - is that what is currently happening in the U.S. is unacceptable. I think today's article speaks to that reality. I certainly have ideas about what we could be trying to do differently - and am going to be working on actually applying those ideas - which is why I am starting a small business - and want to get myself more financially independent - so that I have excess energy to put back. You are the one wedded to a word - and not living in the real world.
greenonions
1 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2016
They have 1/3 the poverty rate the USA has
Wow - Noumenon either has a real reading deficit - or just like to argue for fun. Here is my quote
Well - I think there are examples of countries that are doing it better.
So then Noumenon demonstrates my point for me - showing that Norway has 1/3 the poverty rate of the U.S. This supports my position.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 08, 2016
They are not "doing it better" because they are not 'doing the same thing'. The circumstances are entirely different.

They still have poverty, and still have high wealth inequality.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 08, 2016
and want to get myself more financially independent - so that I have excess energy to put back.


LOL

So, your solution to an "immoral" and "bad" economic system is to become active in that very economic system, and to contribute to wealth inequality by seeking financial independence, so that you have the luxury of charity?

So, in other words,... capitalism is in fact great because it potentially allows one the financial freedom to become charitable and help others.

Indeed, the USA is usually the top nation in terms of personal charity. A nation with an economic system that produces that can't be "immoral" or "bad".

So rather than your idea being a novel one and fixing "immoral" consequences of capitalism, you're contributing to those consequences by being financially-unequal yourself, and in any case are doing the same thing that wealthy people do,... contribute back to the economy or directly through charity.

greenonions
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2016
because they are not 'doing the same thing'
Bingo - that is what I am proposing - that we try doing something different. And you keep making yourself look really stupid - by making my point for me. They have less poverty - and less wealth inequality - so that is "better" - from a moral perspective.
Indeed, the USA is usually the top nation in terms of personal charity. A nation with an economic system that produces that can't be "immoral" or "bad".
Wow - Noumenon really is dumb. Here is the logic in that sentence 'If I do one thing that is good - I cannot do something else that is bad" Keep up with the mental masturbation.
So, your solution to an "immoral" and "bad" economic system is to become active in that very economic system
Correct - it is called pragmatism. I don't have a magic wand - so I will do the best I can think of. You live your life - and I live mine.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Mar 08, 2016
Your alternative to a "immoral" economic system is to do what everyone else wants, participate in that same system to become financially independent, then make personal free decisions with respect to chairity. Duh. You can't even comprehend that that is why capitalism has been so grest for humanity, and why your portrayal of "immoral" is so asinine.

because they are not 'doing the same thing'

Bingo - that is what I am proposing - that we try doing something different.

You're only reading what you want to read. I said they're "not doing the same thing" because the conditions are not the same. It is mathematically impossible for the USA with 330 million people to do what Norway, an oil rich nation with only 5 million, is doing.
greenonions
1 / 5 (2) Mar 08, 2016
You're only reading what you want to read
I am reading what you wrote. And I agree with you. They are not doing the same thing. They are doing it better. And the problem is - that no matter what example I give - you will argue that the circumstances are not the same - so it is not a fair comparison. I get the same shit with the anti renewable energy people. Oh you can't use that as an example of successful renewable energy - because blah blah blah. I could show you that the U.S. has the greatest wealth inequality in the world - http://fortune.co...quality/ But it would not matter which country I chose to say - 'they seem to be doing it better' - you would argue as to why it is not a fair comparison.
is to do what everyone else wants,
You're actually wrong there. Many people reject the U.S. economic system - and do things like go live in an ashram (example). You should come out of your basement more.
greenonions
1 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2016
So Nou - just an example of the failure of the system here in the U.S. (call it what ever you like - I don't care about that) - is that before government intervention - 42 million Americans did not have health care. Pretty open and shut issue of morality there for me. So also - as I was doing my daily surfing yesterday - I came across this article - http://www.resili...can-mind I am sure we could debate the article (without resolution) for a hundred years. The point for me is that counter to what you seem to understand - I am not the only one who is dissatisfied with the 'great American experiment' - and interested in thinking about better ways of doing things. It is you who is stuck in a religious worship of a very flawed system. Not too scientific.
jeffensley
not rated yet Mar 15, 2016

When there's no work to be done, it's better to do no work.


I don't know what part of the world you are in but here in the States, there is plenty of work to be done. The problem seems to be lack of imagination/creativity among administrators.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.